When does the exercise of free speech cross the line to illegality?

Personally, I think it falls into the realm of making a threat and should have legal consequences. But whatever the standard is, the most important thing is that it is applied uniformly. We have been drifting steadily into this principle of one set rules for side, and a different set for the other. As long as we have one set of rules for everyone and everyone gets to know what the rules are, then I could go either way on what is a threat and what is protected speech.

 

Free speech crosses the line when it runs counter to what the Deep State/Military Industrial Complex/BlackRock/DOJ and FBI current elites/neocons/MSM leftists/Obama/Hillary/woke mafia/globalists/tech elites don't want to hear because it is pro patriotic immigration policy, anti-war abroad, for lower gov"t spending, pro free speech. Pro second amendment, pro blue collar working man, for less gov't regulation and America First

 

I would say the act of calling the person or school is the threat, there are also different laws pertaining to menacing/harassment.

This just seems like bad legal interpretation to me. So going forward you think punk kids can call in bomb threats at their school and if they use the right words there’s nothing anyone can do? Yeah, that isn’t going to fly.

 

In my mind, that would be a form of a violent threat either by inferring that individual was going to do the shooting or that individual had intimate knowledge of someone else who had plans to shoot up a school that particular day. The ole "can't shout FIRE! in a crowded movie theatre when you know there is no fire" principle generally works well as it relates to free speech.

 

Anybody could be a threat, whether they verbalize/publish their threats or keep them internal. So in a scenario like this, law enforcement likely has a duty to investigate, but cannot press charges because it's a gray area of free speech and law enforcement / prosecutors don't want to waste time on things they aren't almost certain convictions unless they can substantiate an immediate threat of harm to a specific individual or group of people exists. I do think we can accomplish both things. That is: investigate the potential threat, but also err on the side of caution with free speech rights at the same time. Restricting speech is a very, very, very slippery slope.

 

I doubt it. They stand to lose a lot more by letting something slip through the cracks. That said, the Routh dude had been on their watch list for how long? So I am not sure how much they can really do.

 

Pretty soon it will be when you criticize Israel

 

Disagreeing with Trump if he gets elected again.

 

Democrats love to blame you for what they are already doing.

 

Not exactly the same thing, but when I worked for a state DOJ I had to research and recommend to the Attorney General whether we should prosecute someone for being a menace to public officials and generally acting threatening without actually crossing the line. The guy would call government employees and officials hundreds of times a month, be disruptive at public meetings to the extent police officers were brought in to ensure he didn’t do anything crazy.

My position based on state statutes was that we could prosecute him, but it would be hard to get a jury to convict because in many ways he was simply extremely using his right to engage in political activity. Ultimately we didn’t prosecute because we didn’t believe we could secure the conviction even though the guy fully deserved it.

As the OP illustrates, decisions to prosecute are almost always tied to a belief that the prosecution has a reasonable chance of securing a conviction.

 

I missed this, can you provide a link please?*





* And as a show of good faith, in return I'll give you a link to where the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee reported that the 2016 Trump Campaign colluded with Russia.

 

Probably also has to do with what type of nuisance is created.

A person calling in a bomb hoax is causing an actual disruption, it’s hard to see that going unchecked in some way (obviously if it’s a minor student doing it, it may be “handled” by school expulsion or juvenile justice system). But adults can’t be getting away with that shyte either without facing justice.

I think people posting vague online threats is the grey zone. Can’t really criminalize people for venting online, and even if we wanted to “red flag” extremists there is no way to follow up on all of them based on the sheer volume. Hell probably not even one tenth of one percent. On the other hand when one of those crazies starts calling and harassing specific people, that strikes me as reaching a different threshold and something that needs to be investigated and handled, “coded” threats or otherwise.

 

Not really sure what you can do about people who know the limits of the law and can sort of act right up to the boundaries/gray areas. The guy in the OP seems like he just doesn't have much to do or much going on in his life. As always, improving social and material conditions for people will probably allow these type of people to get a hobby, job, whatever.

 

Wow. Lots of weird and stupid here. Where to start?

More like, why bother? And, yes, I "wish" there was a way to make people like this go away forever. Or at least strip them of voting rights.