User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Rap song that threatened police officers is not protected speech.

  1. #21
    Points: 445,259, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Common's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    339112
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    66,765
    Points
    445,259
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    8,785
    Thanked 18,315x in 10,924 Posts
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Throughout the 70s and 80s there were rap songs calling for killing Police, and various other many insults. Those were never stifled by the courts.

    This is totally different, he not only threatened the officers with violence he specifically named 2 officers and made them targets. Police Officers have families to worry about also, when a person takes it far enough to Name threaten two cops in a rap song, its time to step in and stop that.

    What he did wasnt free speech it was Terroristic threats and we all know the law differentiates between those.
    LETS GO BRANDON
    F Joe Biden

  2. #22
    Points: 64,730, Level: 62
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 1,820
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    The Xl's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    196597
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    27,967
    Points
    64,730
    Level
    62
    Thanks Given
    6,255
    Thanked 19,792x in 11,974 Posts
    Mentioned
    433 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Actually, that's not true. This involves a federal constitutional right so the federal courts can weigh in here.
    That's about all the courts are good for I guess, "weighing in" against free speech when it involves wordplay against cops, but never when it comes to cops using physical violence against civilians.

  3. #23
    Points: 41,437, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 413
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Lummy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6307
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    12,618
    Points
    41,437
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    4,948
    Thanked 6,307x in 4,359 Posts
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Safety View Post
    I don't know, when Ted Nugent told Obama to suck his machine gun, isn't that threatening?
    No, it is not. Nothing there to indicate Nugent intended any injury at all, only that he knew Obama loves to suck hard tubular things, which is fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by donttread View Post
    I'm a huge second amendment guy, but I freely admit that Nugent is bonkers and has made other unacceptible references to the then president
    "Bonkers" is not against the law. What are you talking about "other unacceptible (sic) references"? Speaking truth against that self-appointed un-American dictator was not only not acceptable to Democrats, it was rarely even acknowledged by MSNBC when it happened.
    Last edited by Lummy; 08-29-2018 at 03:08 PM.

  4. #24
    Points: 172,886, Level: 98
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 764
    Overall activity: 47.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    donttread's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    88542
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    51,897
    Points
    172,886
    Level
    98
    Thanks Given
    18,283
    Thanked 20,510x in 14,774 Posts
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Major Lambda View Post
    "Among the category of unprotected speech are “true threats,” statements in which a speaker expresses a “serious” intent “to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”[3] Even though statutes that punish unprotected speech have “never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem”[4] and Congress has made it a crime to use interstate communications facilities to make “threats,” the law governing this subject has been unclear."


    "The federal circuit courts of appeals disagree over the correct mens rea requirement necessary to prove a violation of the federal threat statute. A majority of those courts require the government to prove only that the defendant knowingly made a statement that “was not the result of mistake, duress, or coercion” and that a “reasonable person” would regard as threatening.[6] Other courts have required a different, stricter standard—one that requires the government to prove not only that the defendant knowingly made a statement reasonably perceived as threatening, but also that he subjectively intended for his communication to be threatening."


    https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...ent-protection








    Lummy
    I am for a fairly strict standard but I believe anti-threat laws actually save lives unlike a great many of our thousands of laws

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts