RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>So now you can be arrested for offering an opinion, no actual threat
>needed. What next, thought police? Freedom of speech has suffered
>horribly under the Democrats. You may not like what people say, but
>they have a right to say it.
>Next time some leftist organization burns a right-wing politician in
>effigy, remember this.

For the 2,439,357th time, making a threat is not and never has been
protected speech.

You couldn't be bothered to quote what was said, so I don't offer an
opinion.

For fuck's sake, Rich, we ALREADY have thought crime. You know certain
crimes including certain homicide charges require proving intent, right?

RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 20:52:19 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>So now you can be arrested for offering an opinion, no actual threat
>>>needed. What next, thought police? Freedom of speech has suffered
>>>horribly under the Democrats. You may not like what people say, but
>>>they have a right to say it.

>>>Next time some leftist organization burns a right-wing politician in
>>>effigy, remember this.

>>For the 2,439,357th time, making a threat is not and never has been
>>protected speech.

>>You couldn't be bothered to quote what was said, so I don't offer an
>>opinion.

>>For fuck's sake, Rich, we ALREADY have thought crime. You know certain
>>crimes including certain homicide charges require proving intent, right?

>It wasn't a threat, you pathetic, increasingly senile idiot. It was a wish. He directly
>threatened no one and he directly urged NO ONE to kill anyone.

If it was a threat, it's not protected speech.

I'm not taking your word for it that it wasn't a threat. Either provide
the quote or shut up.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 20:52:19 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> So now you can be arrested for offering an opinion, no actual threat
>>>> needed. What next, thought police? Freedom of speech has suffered
>>>> horribly under the Democrats. You may not like what people say, but
>>>> they have a right to say it.
>
>>>> Next time some leftist organization burns a right-wing politician in
>>>> effigy, remember this.
>
>>> For the 2,439,357th time, making a threat is not and never has been
>>> protected speech.
>
>>> You couldn't be bothered to quote what was said, so I don't offer an
>>> opinion.
>
>>> For fuck's sake, Rich, we ALREADY have thought crime. You know certain
>>> crimes including certain homicide charges require proving intent, right?
>
>> It wasn't a threat, you pathetic, increasingly senile idiot. It was a wish. He directly
>> threatened no one and he directly urged NO ONE to kill anyone.
>
> If it was a threat, it's not protected speech.

Rich is correct. Only direct threats are actionable, and even then,
according to the Elonis case, they must be deemed 'true threats' in order
to lose 1st Amendment protection. Subject has to have the actual intent and
the means to carry out the threat.

Conditional threats are protected speech. ("If they draft me, the first one
in my rifle sights will be LBJ.") Actual case, SCOTUS ruled protected
speech.

And mere expressing hope that something happens is not even a threat, so
also protected speech.

> I'm not taking your word for it that it wasn't a threat. Either provide
> the quote or shut up.
>

On 8/15/2022 9:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 20:52:19 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> So now you can be arrested for offering an opinion, no actual threat
>>>>> needed. What next, thought police? Freedom of speech has suffered
>>>>> horribly under the Democrats. You may not like what people say, but
>>>>> they have a right to say it.
>>
>>>>> Next time some leftist organization burns a right-wing politician in
>>>>> effigy, remember this.
>>
>>>> For the 2,439,357th time, making a threat is not and never has been
>>>> protected speech.
>>
>>>> You couldn't be bothered to quote what was said, so I don't offer an
>>>> opinion.
>>
>>>> For fuck's sake, Rich, we ALREADY have thought crime. You know certain
>>>> crimes including certain homicide charges require proving intent, right?
>>
>>> It wasn't a threat, you pathetic, increasingly senile idiot. It was a wish. He directly
>>> threatened no one and he directly urged NO ONE to kill anyone.
>>
>> If it was a threat, it's not protected speech.
>
> Rich is correct. Only direct threats are actionable, and even then,
> according to the Elonis case, they must be deemed 'true threats' in order
> to lose 1st Amendment protection. Subject has to have the actual intent and
> the means to carry out the threat.
>
> Conditional threats are protected speech. ("If they draft me, the first one
> in my rifle sights will be LBJ.") Actual case, SCOTUS ruled protected
> speech.

LOL! After Roe v. Wade what SCOTUS rules doesn't appear to mean shit to
right wing assholes

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 20:52:19 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>So now you can be arrested for offering an opinion, no actual threat
>>>>>needed. What next, thought police? Freedom of speech has suffered
>>>>>horribly under the Democrats. You may not like what people say, but
>>>>>they have a right to say it.

>>>>>Next time some leftist organization burns a right-wing politician in
>>>>>effigy, remember this.

>>>>For the 2,439,357th time, making a threat is not and never has been
>>>>protected speech.

>>>>You couldn't be bothered to quote what was said, so I don't offer an
>>>>opinion.

>>>>For fuck's sake, Rich, we ALREADY have thought crime. You know certain
>>>>crimes including certain homicide charges require proving intent, right?

>>>It wasn't a threat, you pathetic, increasingly senile idiot. It was a wish. He directly
>>>threatened no one and he directly urged NO ONE to kill anyone.

>>If it was a threat, it's not protected speech.

>Rich is correct. Only direct threats are actionable, and even then,
>according to the Elonis case, they must be deemed 'true threats' in order
>to lose 1st Amendment protection. Subject has to have the actual intent and
>the means to carry out the threat.

If he'd provided the quote, I might have agreed. He didn't and, given
his reputation for misinterpreting the articles he cites, I'm not taking
his word for it.

>Conditional threats are protected speech. ("If they draft me, the first one
>in my rifle sights will be LBJ.") Actual case, SCOTUS ruled protected
>speech.

Thank you for explaining.

>And mere expressing hope that something happens is not even a threat, so
>also protected speech.

I still want Rich to provide the quote.

>>I'm not taking your word for it that it wasn't a threat. Either provide
>>the quote or shut up.

On 8/15/2022 9:23 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 20:52:19 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So now you can be arrested for offering an opinion, no actual threat
>>> needed. What next, thought police? Freedom of speech has suffered
>>> horribly under the Democrats. You may not like what people say, but
>>> they have a right to say it.
>>> Next time some leftist organization burns a right-wing politician in
>>> effigy, remember this.
>> For the 2,439,357th time, making a threat is not and never has been
>> protected speech.
>>
>> You couldn't be bothered to quote what was said, so I don't offer an
>> opinion.
>>
>> For fuck's sake, Rich, we ALREADY have thought crime. You know certain
>> crimes including certain homicide charges require proving intent, right?
>
> It wasn't a threat, you pathetic, increasingly senile idiot. It was a wish. He directly
> threatened no one and he directly urged NO ONE to kill anyone.

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" -Henry II

On 2022-08-15 8:30 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 20:52:19 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman
>>> wrote:
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> So now you can be arrested for offering an opinion, no actual
>>>>> threat needed. What next, thought police? Freedom of speech
>>>>> has suffered horribly under the Democrats. You may not like
>>>>> what people say, but they have a right to say it.
>>
>>>>> Next time some leftist organization burns a right-wing
>>>>> politician in effigy, remember this.
>>
>>>> For the 2,439,357th time, making a threat is not and never has
>>>> been protected speech.
>>
>>>> You couldn't be bothered to quote what was said, so I don't
>>>> offer an opinion.
>>
>>>> For fuck's sake, Rich, we ALREADY have thought crime. You know
>>>> certain crimes including certain homicide charges require
>>>> proving intent, right?
>>
>>> It wasn't a threat, you pathetic, increasingly senile idiot. It
>>> was a wish. He directly threatened no one and he directly urged
>>> NO ONE to kill anyone.
>>
>> If it was a threat, it's not protected speech.
>
> Rich is correct. Only direct threats are actionable, and even then,
> according to the Elonis case, they must be deemed 'true threats' in
> order to lose 1st Amendment protection. Subject has to have the
> actual intent and the means to carry out the threat.
>
> Conditional threats are protected speech. ("If they draft me, the
> first one in my rifle sights will be LBJ.") Actual case, SCOTUS ruled
> protected speech.
>
> And mere expressing hope that something happens is not even a threat,
> so also protected speech.
>

I believe the case Rich is talking about is that of Adam Bies who only said:

> Come and get me you piece of shit feds, I am going to fucking
> slaughter you
>
> My only goal is to kill more of them before I drop. I will not spend
> one second in their custody.
>
> I’ll shoot an SS officer in the head just as quick as I’d shoot a KGB
> officer in the head. Keep that in mind. There are plenty of other
> letters in the alphabet. Police state scum are police state scum.
> Period.
>
> I sincerely believe that if you work for the FBI, then you deserve to
> DIE.
>
> Just gave me an account warning today for saying that a bunch of
> child molesting fuckers at the FBI should be put down
>
> HEY FEDS. We the people cannot WAIT to water the trees of liberty
> with your blood. I’ll be waiting for you to kick down my door.

And a few other posts to that effect. Probably won't hold up in court.

On 9/12/2022 9:50 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 20:06:14 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
>> On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 19:50:35 UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> And a few other posts to that effect. Probably won't hold up in court.
>> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-arrested-making-threats-violence-against-fbi
>>
>> What he actually said;
>>
>> “My only goal is to kill more of them before I drop” and “If You Work For The FBI Then You Deserve To Die”.
>>
>> According to court documents, on August 10, Bies allegedly wrote: “Every single piece of [expletive] who works for the FBI in any capacity, from the director down to the janitor who cleans their [expletive] toilets deserves to die. You’ve declared war on us and now it's open season on YOU.”
>
> If this stuff was actually a direct threat, Trotsky would have been in jail for years now.

Very weak attempt at trolling. Makes you look like a eunuch, in fact.