I already told you my opinion on what represents a threat and what does not.
And none of the vitriolic statements listed in the article struck me as rising to the level of an actual threat.
I also did not see anything in the article that indicated a single person had made a “series” of threatening posts. If I simply missed it, perhaps you would be kind enough to post the part of the article in which such a claim is located?
I “defend scumbag posters like that” because I believe in REAL freedom of speech - but please do not make the mistake of assuming that my defending them means I agree with what they are saying.
WayneS: “...please do not make the mistake of assuming that my defending them means I agree with what they are saying.”
I did not. I also understand the comments did not rise to the level of a threat in your opinion. I’m simply pointing out that’s a subjective assessment. To say something is or is not REAL freedom of speech, one must have a very clear standard as to what is and is not protected speech. Are perceived threats protected free speech? If perceived threats aren’t protected, whose perception applies?