It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.
Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
I'm curious if this threat would apply to someone vehemently posting that they will "sue you"
NAIS Supporters Fighting Dirty
The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.” In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment. The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,” it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”
In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity. During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.” The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....” Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg. . . . An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.” While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action, the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.” Source
Originally posted by kosmicjack
Holy cow! Come on,, let's don't add fuel to the fire lit by the Home-Grown Terror and Violent Radicalization Bill.
Originally posted by deathpoet69
I urge mods to recognize of the actual seriousness & responsibility. I believe strongly in such an act, it should be taken further to contact law enforcement officers as I believe the internet should not be a place to hide.
[edit on 27-8-2008 by deathpoet69]