When is a threat not a threat because it is freedom of speech?
"There's one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. Hurry up and die, bitch,"
~
"This is therapeutic... it helped me to deal with the pain," he told the court.
I have made a few comments about other countries having laws limiting the rights to threaten, not in a general way, but with very specific targets in mind and been told basically "that we have freedom of speech here bitch".
So basically the defense in this case is not that the intended target for such threats was terrified but that the threats were therapeutic for the one dong the threatening.
Elonis, meanwhile, contends that his conviction would impact many artists, including singers, writers and cartoonists, who express themselves creatively.
I suppose a song about how all people of color should lynched would merely be artistic expression and therapeutic to the white racist expressing them? In no way should it be treated as incitement to racial hatred?
"When it comes to these types of low-value -- even harmful -- speech, the Roberts court has been clear: if you don't like the speech, speak out against it; but government cannot ban it."
"Given this trend, it is hard to see how this court would rule against Elonis. Sure, Elonis's speech was especially contemptible. But so were the other forms of speech this court has upheld."
Some say that if you follow the line that this type of speech is indeed a real threat than you are on the slippery slope of undermining freedom of speech.
Low-value also brings a whole load of thoughts to mind. So I can have some jackass ex threaten me directly with violence but it is only of low level because somehow it is not important to the grand scheme of things? Or are threats to me not really that important? If they write a nice song about it, it's somehow artistic? I suppose it becomes non low-value when my bloody corpse is dug up? Don't worry the threats will be taken seriously when we are determining the degree of murder committed, if it was artistic; we may allow a plea bargain of manslaughter to go forward.
Some arguments in the freedom of speech category remind me of the same lunacy over second amendment rights arguments. Are these absolute rights or is there some personal responsibility involved?
Aw, I said I was going to rape torture and kill you, it was only because I needed to vent, no harm done, right?
Aw come on bitch, I was only joking in the comment section that I was going to find you and kill you was only lively banter it was a mere expression of feelings on the subject. You didn't have to move to that new apartment, ya know I was only communicating my objections to your article.
OK I'll suck it up because after all
It's freedom of speech bitch and I'll cut you if you don't like it.
It is a contentious issue, but both sides do have rights whether it is freedom of speech or not. Do I have to get a restraining order, change where I live and accept what the other is saying just to protect their rights? That no matter what the threat is that this is acceptable and has zero consequence except to me the target? Been there, done that, and the asshole is still walking around free as a bird. I must be low-value or something. I suppose when you have been the target of such "freedom of speech" and the fear that accompanies it, it colors your world view on the subject.
Just a thought, don't mind me.