• RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    16 days ago

    To give you an actual answer

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat

    The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States.[3] In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States.[3]

    The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, “[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”[3] Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts.

    In reviewing the lower court’s analysis of the case, the Court noted that “a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.”[3] The Court recognized that “uninhibited, robust, and wide open” political debate can at times be characterized by “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” In light of the context of Watts’ statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” than a “true threat.”[3]

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      16 days ago

      That’s a banger of a quote and a feeling I can totally get behind. Oh, you’re gonna make me kill people? Then let’s start with you.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 days ago

        I love how the statement receiving laughter from the crowd was a point in showing how it was political commentary.

    • Johnmannesca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      16 days ago

      So basically the shit-talker’s easy way out? I’m ashamed of, but not surprised, the fact that the Supreme Court was the one that came up with the coward’s way out to hate speech.

      • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        16 days ago

        What a simplistic, destructive take.

        Nuance exists in this world. In a free society, a distinction needs to be made between real, credible threats and simple hyperbole.

        Also, “hate speech” is a real term, and it doesn’t mean ‘saying you hate someone.’