Secret Service Investigating Twitter Accounts Calling for Assassination

reply to post by HunkaHunka


O my bad I didn't mean twitter was getting bad fast, I just meant that the situation in America is getting bad. People do not like what our government is doing without our go ahead. It is no longer for the people and the reactions that our government is getting should show them that they do not have our support

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Phlynx
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to yell fire in a movie theater or bomb in an airplane when there isn't one.

Yes it does. Show me in the first Amendment where it says you cannot yell fire in a theater.

The point is the ruling regarding yelling fire in a theater is a court interpretation. The 1st Amendment does not actually say that.

Once you start limiting speech even if the reason seems justified, you are on a slippery slope. Give a inch and they will take a foot.
You can find many other reasons or laws to arrest the idiot for yelling fire in a theater, but don't invoke the first amendment as a reason for arrest.

But that's our system. The courts interpret the Constitution.

By your logic, yelling "I have a bomb" on a plane would be acceptable, since you're free to say that. And, if the Constitution is absolute, you should be allowed to carry a bomb on an airliner since your right to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms shall not be infringed.

Hell, if political contributions by corporations are protected speech, then how is an act not considered speech in the form of expression? Taking a shot at a political leader would then be protected.

THERE is your slippery slope.

reply to post by AwakeinNM

It isn't censorship as this website is privately owned. The reminder was posted in accordance with our Terms and Conditions -

2e.) Illicit Activity: Discussion of illicit activities; specifically the use of mind-altering drugs & substances, engaging in computer hacking, promoting criminal hate, dicussing sexual relations with minors, and furtherance of financial schemes and scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites or online content that contains discussion or advocacy of such material.

Advocation and or support of assassination threats have never been tolerated on ATS.

Please remain on topic. If you have any further comment please u2u me.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
But that's our system. The courts interpret the Constitution.

No, judges are supposed to follow and uphold the Constitution and NOT interpret it to fit their own beliefs. The Constitution is crystal clear and you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it. It was written this way intentionally.

reply to post by WhatTheory


Actually, you're right.

What the first amendment means is that there can be no law that prevents you from saying whatever you want. It's true. Any law that suppresses speech of any form is unconstitutional. "You can't say that" is barred by the first amendment.

However, once you've said whatever it is you were going to say, it is perfectly legal and constitutional to hold you accountable for what you said and the results of it.

The first amendment protects your right to speech. it doesn't give you immunity from the consequences of what you say.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by Pajjikor


They should get arrested. You do not threaten the President for any reason. Just because you may not like the man you had better respect the office. They should use them as examples to the other nuts who actually might try something. Words are powerful and this type of thing is not acceptable in the great nation.




The office is more than the man you can always vote him out in a few years relax. Voting is the only way to keep this nation together and don't forget it.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Actually, you're right.

I know, 99.999% of the time I am right.

The first amendment protects your right to speech. it doesn't give you immunity from the consequences of what you say.

I agree and did not say otherwise which is why I stated that the guy who yells fire in a crowded theater should be dealt with. However, don't invoke the 1st Amendment as the reason. You could get him for disturbing the peace or numerous other local laws.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
But that's our system. The courts interpret the Constitution.

No, judges are supposed to follow and uphold the Constitution and NOT interpret it to fit their own beliefs. The Constitution is crystal clear and you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it. It was written this way intentionally.

You missed most of my post, so I'll ask you directly:

Does the First Amendment mean ANY AND ALL speech, including threats of harm?

Does the Second Amendment mean ANY AND ALL arms, including bombs?

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Actually, you're right.

I know, 99.999% of the time I am right.

The first amendment protects your right to speech. it doesn't give you immunity from the consequences of what you say.

I agree and did not say otherwise which is why I stated that the guy who yells fire in a crowded theater should be dealt with. However, don't invoke the 1st Amendment as the reason. You could get him for disturbing the peace or numerous other local laws.

There's the flaw in your logic - you apparently believe the First Amendment is absolute...yet the guy yelling "FIRE!" is using that right, and his right is being infringed by arresting him for disturbing the peace.

Do "local laws" supplant the Constitution?

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Does the First Amendment mean ANY AND ALL speech, including threats of harm?

Yes, the federal government cannot pass a law preventing you from saying a specific word or phrase.

Does the Second Amendment mean ANY AND ALL arms, including bombs?

IMO, yes. If you want to ban bombs then amend the law, don't trample on it.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Actually, you're right.

I know, 99.999% of the time I am right.

The first amendment protects your right to speech. it doesn't give you immunity from the consequences of what you say.

I agree and did not say otherwise.

Except for where you said this:

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Phlynx
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to yell fire in a movie theater or bomb in an airplane when there isn't one.

Yes it does. Show me in the first Amendment where it says you cannot yell fire in a theater.

The First Amendment says your right to speech cannot be infringed. Period.

If yelling "fire" is protected speech (as you claim), then it cannot be infringed. So the yeller can't be punished for his speech, even if it causes a disturbance of the peace.

By the "disturbing the peace" rationale, you could ban ALL KINDS of speech - political rallies, tea party protests, etc.

I am fully in favor of prosecuting the person in question. You are too...yet you think his speech is protected, so you have to find some OTHER way to prosecute him for his "protected speech."

You seem to be the one with the First Amendment issues.

reply to post by Pajjikor
I guess some people just don't get it. YOU ARE BEING MONITORED. Have I told the NSA lately how much I love them. I think that the boys and girls at the NSA are the greatest. I love President Obama. I think he's the best thing sinced sliced bread. I love Congress and my whole beautiful government, what would I ever do without them. OK enough with my psych ops. I now feel sick to my stomach!

reply to post by MemoryShock


I hope no one would support the Twits.

You can disagree with policies, and dislike Presidents, but anyone who would call for killing a President of the US should go to jail. Period. Murder isnt funny.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Does the First Amendment mean ANY AND ALL speech, including threats of harm?

Yes, the federal government cannot pass a law preventing you from saying a specific word or phrase.

Does the Second Amendment mean ANY AND ALL arms, including bombs?

IMO, yes. If you want to ban bombs then amend the law, don't trample on it.

Sweet. So now, according to WhatTheory conspiracy is no longer a crime (it's just speech, after all). And threatening someone's life is not actionable. No, you can't do anything about a threat until something actually happens.

And if you carry that forward to cover political EXPRESSION, then you might say shooting a politician is protected speech as well, so long as it's a political act. Let us know if you endorse that - wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.

Oh, and, according to WhatTheory wearing a suicide vest on a plane, on a mall or wherever is perfectly legitimate. You can't do anything about it until he detonates it...[pending his answer on political expression - that may be protected as well].

Thank you for your erudite Constitutional knowledge. You are truly a gentleman and a scholar.

reply to post by WhatTheory
]

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Klaatumagnum]

reply to post by WhatTheory
[

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Klaatumagnum]

Here is some information for those that think that this individual committed no crime:

Imminent lawless action is a term used in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The rule overturned the decision of the earlier Schenck v. United States (1919), which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned.[citation needed]

The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2009

Important Topic Updates
, "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.

The Court upheld the statute on the ground that, without more, "advocating" violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 23-3-2010 by Aggie Man] extra DIV