RE: Brad Pitts mom recieves death threats for criticising Obama.
July 12, 2012 at 3:47 pm
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2012 at 3:59 pm by Autumnlicious.)
TL;DR - you're calling for Zero-Tolerance.
Case in point - "You have to take that shit seriously, no matter who does it, or at least, ask for a clarification."
If you cannot make a viable threat analysis of the person you're dealing with on intonation, diction and an evaluation of past relationship (or lack thereof), that's your problem.
Fact is, the law protects people, even in cases of epithets. It only fails to protect you when you begin to urge others to action or have a history of following through on said actions.
How hard is that to understand?
Or are you going to return back with a series of edge cases that are not even based on legal precedents.
Come back when you actually have Law to argue.
All else is, as usual, your "everyone should step to my beat and mores" jig.
P.S. - use that uninformed head of yours and consider a real case where the crime (threatening the life of the POTUS) and how the US Supreme Court ruled on it.
This is one of the few examples of pure speech being ruled upon as threatening, as well as the decision that the defendant must exhibit within a reasonable expectation of carrying out their threats.
REF: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/.../case.html
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening...ted_States
TL;DR - Motive, history and ability matters. Also context.
Case in point - "You have to take that shit seriously, no matter who does it, or at least, ask for a clarification."
If you cannot make a viable threat analysis of the person you're dealing with on intonation, diction and an evaluation of past relationship (or lack thereof), that's your problem.
Fact is, the law protects people, even in cases of epithets. It only fails to protect you when you begin to urge others to action or have a history of following through on said actions.
How hard is that to understand?
Or are you going to return back with a series of edge cases that are not even based on legal precedents.
Come back when you actually have Law to argue.
All else is, as usual, your "everyone should step to my beat and mores" jig.
P.S. - use that uninformed head of yours and consider a real case where the crime (threatening the life of the POTUS) and how the US Supreme Court ruled on it.
This is one of the few examples of pure speech being ruled upon as threatening, as well as the decision that the defendant must exhibit within a reasonable expectation of carrying out their threats.
REF: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/.../case.html
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening...ted_States
TL;DR - Motive, history and ability matters. Also context.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
