diagda
Ken WhiteThe Supreme Court has clarified the subjective component of the "true threats" test, making the First Amendment's exception for true threats a bit clearer
https://popehat.substack.com/p/supreme-court-clarifies-true-threats
@Popehat
Huh. Like flouting mire in a knouted feeder
Huh. Like flouting mire in a knouted feeder
kkeller@Popehat that's a pretty crazy split among the justices.
Well except for Thomas, who proves once again that he's nutso.
dragonfrog(...)courts have used a (purportedly) objective standard to determine whether a threat is true, asking whether a reasonable person, familiar with the context, would interpret the threat as a sincere expression of intent to do harm.(...)
But for many years, American courts have disagreed on whether there is also a subjective element to the definition (...)"
------
The question to me is not, does that also have a subjective element, but does it have any objective element at all?
@Popehat Hi do,you,think the supreme court is trending towards mirroring Germany’s laws on inciting and making threats or hinting to do harm as not protected and actionable? this case test seems to apply to for example Mr. Trump who has used the public square to bully and threaten public figures like judges and law enforcement? would this mean they as in cities or even states ban trump from speaking or charge trump? interesting
geobeck@Popehat
In light of the difficulty of proving a threat, should the Colorado case have proceeded under a different charge, such as harassment? Or would any such charge be subject to a first amendment defense?
If someone inundates another person with unwelcome (but non-threatening) communication, is it actionable?