[QUOTE="bytgames"]
nope a law was passed against terroistic threats while george bush was in office. Danm_999
You can't expunge the First Amendment like that. The Patriot Act did not neutralise freedom of speech, nor did it redefine terrorism to include a definition that would support you here.
saying "WE meaning ME except plural is going to shoot POLICEMEN...in ARIZONA....isnt specific enough for you?bytgames
Not really, it fails the immediate incitement of violence test. He's advocating violence, sure, but its the same as when the Klan would hold rallies calling to round up and assault African Americans.
imagine this...imagine it wasnt a sign he was holding up except it was a phone call to the police station saying this...you wouldnt consider that a threat? Thats like me standing in front of the white house saying.....I am going to shoot up the white house if such and such demands arent met...its a terroistic threat and its illegalbytgames
That example is very different though. You ARE threatening a specific target with an immediate act of violence in that scenario.
I'm not saying I agree with the guy, or what he's doing is smart, but that's not terrorism simply advocating the use of violence. The threat needs to be specific and likely to incite immediate violence against a specific target, perpetrated by a specific group.
That's the point of the problems with Brandenburg v. Ohio, courts have had great difficulty in finding something specific enough to test it with. This fake sign isn't going to be the watershed.
my questin is this if its a theat to call the police station and say the same exact words....why is it not a threat if a policemen read that sign.
Log in to comment