Government orders the names of site users released!

How many times have we been faced with the threat of a ass kicking while the one that threats walks away. I always smile and ask what they are waiting on. They never worry me its the ones who say nothing and just walk up and start punching you have to watch out for. This is decision made on the spot.

Obama didn't threaten, just violated a US citizens constitutional rights and drone striked his ass killing him without trial. Did he deserve it? Of course. But if there is any administration in my history that should require a trial for its citizens before killing them by any means, is this group of lying bastards. And thats your protection even the government can't play judge, jury, and executioner without a trial unless of course your name is Obama. 

So yeah... it's actions not lip service. You are very correct.

Original comment:


FTFY comment:




Now just how in the hell is that a direct threat? We see this allllll the time on forums all over the net, banter is banter.

Where's that sarcastic jerkin' it smiley, we need him today...

Actually... In a legal sense? This isn't about free speech but about following the law, and as we know...ignorance isn't an excuse. Although ignorance is a debatable thing here anyway.

As it happens, and I'm kinda shocked myself to have found this, but this was *JUST* decided by the Super Court.

I don't mean 'just recently'. I mean this month. I think the important thing is that this is the law, and clearly enough as it happens (and I quote below). It applies as much to a dirt bag threatening to kill his wife as it does to an idiot threatening to kill a federal Judge. This is actually an important legal thing to be aware of. I had no idea this had been a recently clarified issue before the Court. (I'd just been there too...this was decided on the 5th, and a bit earlier than the other two decided on Monday for paperwork dates) 


When...Indeed?

Source: When is a threat to kill a joke? Or art? Supreme court weighs online abuse

Hey now! I might just say that is a dandy point to say 'when'!

Split Decisions really suck, too...

Source: SCOTUS Blog (More analysis available here)

Here is the opinion and the section of it most relevant by law.

c) The “presumption in favor of a scienter requirement should ap-ply to each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct.” X-Citement Video, 513 U. S., at 72. In the context of Section 875(c), that requires proof that a communication was transmitted and that it contained a threat. And because “the crucial element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct,” id., at 73, is the threatening nature of the communication, the mental state requirement must apply to the fact that the communication contains a threat. Elonis’s conviction was premised solely on how his posts would be viewed by a reasonable person, a standard feature of civil liability in tort law inconsistent with the conventional criminal con-duct requirement of “awareness of some wrongdoing,” Staples, 511 U. S., at 606–607. This Court “has long been reluctant to infer that a negligence standard was intended in criminal statutes.” Rogers v. United States, 422 U. S. 35, 47 (Marshall, J., concurring). And the Government fails to show that the instructions in this case required more than a mental state of negligence. Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, distinguished. Section 875(c)’s mental state requirement is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat. The Court declines to address whether a mental state of recklessness would also suffice. Given the disposition here, it is unnecessary to consider any First Amendment issues.

Source: ELONIS v. UNITED STATES decision text (emphasis added on important segment)

That link above gives the decision details, although it is a bit challenging to read. They didn't necessarily write this one to be 'user-friendly' outside lawyers, and how they really seem to on some. The law they are referencing and what actually does seem to have been upheld in nailing this guy (and quite possibly those with the Judge, if not by a law relating to Judges specifically) is this one:

18 U.S. Code § 875 - Interstate communications

(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Source: Cornell Law Reference

Seems to me it's a matter of simple law, at least after this month's decision. Don't make direct and specific threats to kill or maim someone, in a way they even 'may' take seriously and feel threatened by. At least, that is how I'd take the decision above for a legal standard they can seem to prosecute by.

Hmmmmmm.....

Ever since 9/11 there have been all sorts of little sneaky laws passed that usurp our Constitutional rights, including those that curtail our freedom of speech. Words that we consider harmless banter for the purposes of blowing off steam and which should be taken in that context are now being twisted and prosecuted under the guise of "terroristic threats". What pisses me off though more than the prosecution of such speech is how our government picks and chooses which cases to take to court. Either prosecute everyone or prosecute no one and stop using this crap selectively or better yet- quit trying to stifle free speech and stay the frakk out of our business PERIOD!