Politics
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
view the rest of the comments
Excuse me? Just what do you think "it's unjust" means?
I'm not saying it's right she's arrested, but we live in a state that values the lives of the wealthy over the rights of the proles. Of course she's going to get arrested for parroting threats against the wealthy, they're scared now and the police serve their interests over those of the public.
I'm not a class traitor for noticing that. If you make threats against the state, the state is going to take action against you.
A death threat is a death threat.
You don't make death threats on record like she did. You send an anonymous letter with the words made up of cut out letters from magazines and newspapers then pasted on the paper, being careful not to leave any prints or DNA.
Yeah, obviously stupid to do it in a way that could be tied back to you, but this is constitutionally protected speech.
The supreme court ruled in Virginia v Black that only “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” are unlawful, and this doesn't communicate an intent to commit violence, just that someone should.
She said "you're next" very obviously referring to the murder of the United Health CEO. If that's not a direct that, I don't know what is.
The supreme court has defined legally actionable threats extremely narrowly. Yeah that's a pretty direct threat, but I don't think it meets the legal standard of a "true threat"
In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. The Supreme Court ruled someone saying "If we catch any of you going into these racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck." was protected speech.
That's more direct than her threat.
There's an insanely high standard for convicting someone over a threat.
Sure but did someone actually break someone's neck a few days before? I think context is also important.
Btw, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't think this woman should've been arrested. Her threat was obviously empty.
For the 'true threat' standard, it doesn't matter since she had no connection to the shooting.
Not broken necks, but from the Wikipedia page: "In at least 10 instances, individuals who violated the boycott experienced instances of violence, including shots fired into their homes, bricks thrown through their windshields, and tires on their cars slashed."
Lol, I think the magazine letters would tip them off. When is the last time you read a physical magazine or had access to one?
I was gonna say to print different web pages, but apparently printers have fingerprints that can tie the printed material directly to the unique printer.