• satans_methpipe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    23 days ago

    The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not protect speech that threatens or incites violence.

    • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      23 days ago

      Is it really a threat though? Idk. She’s repeating some words and saying “you’re next”, but not what they’re next for.

      • theonetruedroid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        23 days ago

        It seems pretty obvious what she was implying, but that’s what a trial is for. She may not have meant it, but it is clearly a threat of violence.

          • pearsaltchocolatebar
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            23 days ago

            If someone referenced a recent assassination then said, “You people are next,” would you seriously not take that as a threat?

            • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              23 days ago

              I worked in a call center for several years and received no shortage of bizarre threats. Never once did I feel that any of the threats were worth being concerned about. Granted these would be threats over lack of warranty coverage on usually budget model phones so very different from health insurance where the dollar values and stakes are many orders of magnitude higher

            • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              23 days ago

              I might.
              That doesn’t necessarily prove it was meant this way and because we’re talking potential criminal offense it has to be proven it was meant as a threat if I’m not mistaken.

              • pearsaltchocolatebar
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                23 days ago

                Yes, that’s proven in the courts, not by the cops.

                She said something that could easily be taken for a terroristic threat, given the context. It would be a bad thing to not take terroristic threats seriously. Whether she was being serious or not is irrelevant regarding her arrest.