The opposition to Free Speech on FR never ceases to amaze me.
Free speech is great. Nobody opposes that.
Threatening the President of the United States is quite another thing.
“The opposition to Free Speech on FR never ceases to amaze me.”
Was going to tell you that you’d forgotten the /s, but then read more of your vile comments, including this POS:
1/23/2017, 4:01:27 PM · 36 of 129
SSS Two to bkopto
Judging from the comments of this thread, FR is no longer a site that advocates lower taxes.
How do you feel about the right to yell "FIRE!" (when there isn't one) in a crowded enclosure?
Please clarify. I can't tell whether you are expressing sarcasm or seriousness.
Threats of death to others, especially a President should not be considered free speech. There are some restrictions on free speech that need to be there; the old example of shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is a good example as is this. It is not an infringement of free speech to arrest someone for threatening a President; in fact if it is determined they were not serious they are always released- meaning it wasn’t their speech that was the issue, it was the perceived threat.
Someone can utter such speech, but they can also be arrested and prosecuted for it.
The Right to Free Speech has never included making threats of violence against another individual without facing legal liability. Such speech is, indeed, considered a form of violence itself.
Nobody is allowed to threaten someone else with violence, in the absence of a clear justification for doing so.
What this person did was a potential crime, at the very least, and is precisely the reason that the gentleman in question ended up spending the night in jail.
Cooler heads obviously prevailed on all sides, but speech which threatens criminal violence against another individual or group should result in arrest and/or prosecution, whether you consider it "Free" or not...