Idaho Trump electors report ‘barrage’ of harassing messages urging them to change votes

Spokesman Review ^

[IdahoVeteran]

Reports from one of 21 states not binding electors to the state results. Activists have distributed contact information including FB, phone and cell numbers, email addresses. Electors report barrage of abuse. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/nov/14/idaho-trump-electors-report-barrage-of-harassing-m/

[SSS Two]

I'd have to believe that you truly are stupid enough to think that threatening people's lives to make them vote for your candidate is protected free speech under the Constitution.

Where did this come from? The article says nothing about threatened lives. In fact, the electors quoted in the article said the comments weren't even intimidating at all.

[SSS Two]

Your right to free speech does not negate the rights of others not to listen.

I'm not sure there's a "right not to listen", but the Constitution does protect Free Speech even if you don't like the message.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

What a bunch of hateful, intolerant, bigoted, stupid, violent idiots.

[SSS Two]

You have no 'First Amendment Free Speech Rights' on a privately owned website, troll.

I'm not sure where this comes from. I was commenting on posters who said the activists calling for Idaho's electors to not vote for Trump should go to jail. My position is that asking someone not to vote for Trump is not a criminal act.

[SSS Two]

Since when? Nobody elected the electors. While state laws determine how electors are chosen, they are generally selected by the political party committees within the states -- who are completely non-governmental organizations.

The electors in Idaho were elected in the November 8 election. I'm not sure what you think the election accomplished.

[meadsjn]

Your interpretation of rights coincides exactly with the communist liberal Democrats.

You don't recognize the rights of others, only your own.

Harassment and threats are not free speech protected by the constitution.

[SSS Two]

I think I could argue that the Electoral College rises above that, given its importance in getting the Constitution even ratified in the first place.

I don't even know what that means.

[SSS Two]

Your interpretation of rights coincides exactly with the communist liberal Democrats.

I have a broad interpretation of Free Speech rights. Always have. When Democrats claimed Donald Trump should be tried for treason for saying that he hoped the Russians would release whatever info they had, I supported Free Speech. When Democrats claimed that Donald Trump threatened Mrs. Clinton when he said we ought to see what happens when Mrs. Clinton doesn't have Secret Service protection, I supported Free Speech.

I honestly believe too many Americans support Free Speech only when it is in their political interest to do so. It is my belief that this is what we're seeing on FR.

[meadsjn]

Harassment and threats are not free speech protected by the constitution.

This is the part you simply do not understand. You are wrong; dead wrong.

[dsm69]

Sent this info on Elector harassment and intimidation campaign to Drudge. Hope he picks this up!

[SSS Two]

Harassment and threats are not free speech protected by the constitution.

Harassment is not speech at all. It is conduct. Harassment requires repeated unwanted contact. There is no evidence that there is repeated contact at all from the article. There is no evidence anyone has been informed that their contact is unwanted at all. There is no harassment in this matter despite the usage of the word in the article.

"True threats" are not Free Speech. There is no evidence at all that the Idaho electors have faced any "true threats". In fact, one Idaho elector said that the contact isn't even intimidating.

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[meadsjn]

People have a right to live in peace. That right does not have to be enumerated in the constitution or any other document. There are, however, numerous laws and ordinances against disturbance of the peace.

People have a right to be secure in their persons, homes, and effects. This one is enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[meadsjn]

Harassment requires repeated unwanted contact.

Harassment can be a one-time event. Repeated harassment just makes it worse.

[SVTCobra03]

Free speech is not absolute. You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater and there are laws against libel, slander and terroristic threats.

[SSS Two]

Harassment can be a one-time event.

Are you arguing that one phone call, one email, or one Facebook message that says, "Please don't vote for Donald Trump" is enough for a criminal conviction?

[Pilgrim's Progress]

The only thing these democrat-thugs are doing is to strengthen the reserve of those electors to stand by their guns. In a third-world country they would be killed in order to scare them into doing the mobs bidding . . . but 0bama did not quite succeed in his goal to transform us into one of those banana republics.

I didn’t think we would survive 8 years of the Kenyan . . . but by God’s grace . . .

[SSS Two]

Free speech is not absolute. You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater and there are laws against libel, slander and terroristic threats.

But you can say, "Please don't vote for Donald Trump". Or is that on the list of items you'd like to throw people in jail for?

[SSS Two]

In a third-world country they would be killed in order to scare them into doing the mobs bidding . . . but 0bama did not quite succeed in his goal to transform us into one of those banana republics.

Of course, many people on this thread advocate throwing those who are asking the electors to change their minds in jail. Banana Republic aspirations don't seem limited to the supporters of one political candidate.

[Tennessee Conservative]

If I were a Trump elector, the harassment would just piss me off and make me more determined that ever to uphold my obligation to vote for Trump.