Kathy Griffin Under Secret Service Investigation

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Running Gator said:

based upon previous SCOTUS decision, it is.  This is not an area we want to give the government even more control and power of us.  In the area of freespecch is it always, 100% of the time better to err on the side of freedom. 

Where does the SCOTUS claim that something like what Griffin did is protected speech?

[SchmaltzWeasel]

1 minute ago, Running Gator said:

based upon previous SCOTUS decision, it is.  This is not an area we want to give the government even more control and power of us.  In the area of freespecch is it always, 100% of the time better to err on the side of freedom. 

Death threats aren't free speech. Threaten someone that way in California and admit you were wrong from behind bars. In California if you are mad and scream at someone, "I'll flippin kill you!" , you can be arrested for a death threat.That's not free speech. 
Someone inciting the beheading of our president isn't exercising free speech. 

 

If she'd have done this against Obama I doubt her defenders would exist. And she sure would be in a lot more trouble than she is now.

[Running Gator]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

Where does the SCOTUS claim that something like what Griffin did is protected speech?

SCOTUS said that saying you were going to put the president in the crosshairs of your rifle was protected speech.   That is far more threatening than what Griffin did.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Running Gator said:

SCOTUS said that saying you were going to put the president in the crosshairs of your rifle was protected speech.   That is far more threatening than what Griffin did.

When did they say that and can you cite the ruling?

[Running Gator]

Just now, SchmaltzWeasel said:

Death threats aren't free speech. Threaten someone that way in California and admit you were wrong from behind bars. In California if you are mad and scream at someone, "I'll flippin kill you!" , you can be arrested for a death threat.That's not free speech. 
Someone inciting the beheading of our president isn't exercising free speech. 

 

If she'd have done this against Obama I doubt her defenders would exist. And she sure would be in a lot more trouble than she is now.

There was no threat.  She might even wish the president were dead, but that is not against the law.   There was no inciting, there was no "go do this".  She is paying a price and we are not losing our freedom of speech, that is the best outcome.

[SchmaltzWeasel]

Just now, Running Gator said:

There was no threat.  She might even wish the president were dead, but that is not against the law.   There was no inciting, there was no "go do this".  She is paying a price and we are not losing our freedom of speech, that is the best outcome.

You're wrong. 

[Running Gator]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

When did they say that and can you cite the ruling?

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/case.html

[SchmaltzWeasel]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

When did they say that and can you cite the ruling?

He's misrepresenting what the defendant in the SCOTUS case actually did say in order to arrive at a SCOTUS decision judging what he said. 

 

The antagonist role is getting really old. And weak. 

[Running Gator]

Just now, SchmaltzWeasel said:

You're wrong. 

That may well be, time will tell what the courts choose to do.  But I would rather be wrong on the side of freedom than the side of oppression. 

[Running Gator]

2 minutes ago, SchmaltzWeasel said:

He's misrepresenting what the defendant in the SCOTUS case actually did say in order to arrive at a SCOTUS decision judging what he said. 

 

The antagonist role is getting really old. And weak. 

This is what he said...If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."