On the same day as the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the Helluva Boss NSFW short “Barbie’s Bad Day” was released. Then the FBI and DOJ pivoted to indicting Comey for an Instagram post because, according to Trump, mob folk in the movies once used "86" as code for murder. The bare-bones indictment certainly didn't disclose that Comey deleted the post, said he had no idea a 1930s diner code still in daily use today had violent implications, or “apologized” (citation required!) — claimed facts Kash Patel went ahead and described at his press conference, apparently violating grand jury secrecy in the process.

So while AG Blanche tries to dig himself out of the hole of vindictive prosecution and to wrestle with the “true threat” standard of Elonis v. US (2015); US v. White, (4th Cir. 2016); and Counterman v. Colorado (2023), let’s look at the following AI slop.

• Quotes are from “Barbie’s Bad Day” and "Mammon's Magnificent Musical Mid-Season Special (ft Fizzarolli)"

• I know the difference between Barbie Wire and some generic Verosika/Imp/Hot Topic girl — this is AI slop, not the work of a talented artist

• Obsessive fans will know the actual Asmodeus quote is “Mammon can eat my ass. In a bad way.” but the “but” is necessary to capture the duality of meaning to the average person on the street.

• And duality of meaning is just one of the many, many reasons this Comey indictment needs to be mocked rather than being respected as administration of justice.

#JamesComey #DonaldTrump #CriminalIndictment #Indictment #TrueThreat #Law #GrandJury #KashPatel #ToddBlanche #HelluvaBoss #HotTopic

Jonathan Majors Sets Action Movie ‘True Threat’

Jonathan Majors Joins Action Movie 'True Threat'

Deadline
Supreme Court Makes it Tougher to Convict Someone for Making Violent Threat - Political IQ

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday on First Amendment grounds to make it more difficult to convict a person of making a violent threat.

Political IQ

The Court decided on recklessness.

What exactly does recklessness entail? According to #Counterman, "in the threats context, it means the speaker is aware that others could regard his statements as threatening violence and delivers them anyway."

Kagan notes: "reckless defendants have done more than make a bad mistake. They have consciously accpeted a substantial risk of inflicting serious harm."

#SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #TrueThreat #speech #FreeSpeech #law #lawFedi #lawFed #FediLaw

On the other, too high a standard of subjective intent for a true threat unprotected by the Free Speech Clause would allow speakers to terrify their targets and claim lack of sufficent proof that they intended or knew that speech was threatening.

#SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #FreeSpeech #Speech #FirstAmendment #TrueThreat #Counterman #law #FediLaw #LawFedi

In #Counterman, #SupremeCourt had to balance the risk of chilling useful speech against the risk of letting people terrify & intimidate others w/o consequences

On the one hand, the lack of a subjective requirement for a true threat might chill speech that was rhetorical or joking or art bc speakers could not be sure what a court would conclude about reasonableness and stay silent

#SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #FreeSpeech #Speech #FirstAmendment #TrueThreat #Counterman #law #FediLaw #LawFedi

Second #SCOTUS ruling is Counterman v. Colorado

Kagan writing for 7-2 Court

Speaker must have some subjective understanding that speech was threatening in order to count as a true threat, but need only be recklessness

Here is the link: https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf

#SupremeCourt #law #LawFedi #FediLaw #speech #trueThreat #FreeSpeech #FirstAmendment

2. Groff v. DeJoy: What counts as an “undue hardship” under Title VII’s requirement that employers accommodate employees religion unless it imposes an undue hardship.

3. Counterman v. Colorado: what kind of an intent must a speaker have for their speech to qualify as a true threat unprotected by the First Amendment Free Speech Clause

#SupremeCourt #equality #truethreat #unduehardship #freeSpeech #religion #Sabbath #FirstAmendment #speech #religion

The added twist in Counterman v. Colorado is that the Supreme Court has adopted an orginalist approach to unprotected categories of speech, arguing an unprotected category must date to the founding to be unprotected.

#FediLaw #LawFedi #law #LawProf #orginalism #freespeech #speech #FirstAmendment #TrueThreat #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt

Note there are different levels of intent: specific intent, knowledge, recklessness

Did he intend to frighten his target (specific intent)

or know full well that his comments would terrify (knowledge) or

suspected that they would but said them anyway (recklessness).

#LawFedi #FediLaw #law #lawprof #FreeSpeech Speech #TrueThreat #FirstAmendment