Is threatening to kill, or inciting such action, the President elect

[dan_bgblue]

the same criminal offense as threatening to kill, or inciting such action, a sitting President? Been a whole lot of that going on at these "peaceful" protests of late.

[Darrell KSR]

Should be, if it isn't.

[dan_bgblue]

If it is, there is a secret service detail that is gonna be busy for a while

[UKHistory]

I think it is a felony offense.

And while I have concerns about Trump protesters have no right to threaten Trump

We need to try and come together and move ahead as one country

Come January Donald trump is OUR president and I hope we are successful as a country under him

I am concerned about his ability to lead and fear for the nation but hope I am wrong

[Doc]

Yes

[dan_bgblue]

History, several people have been arrested, charged and prosecuted for posts on twitter, or facebook in which they threatened to kill President Obama. I have no information as to the outcome of a trial, if a grand jury recommended that the case go to trial, or if there was a plea bargain etc but they were arrested for their actions

[KeithKSR]

Definitely illegal.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/threatening_to_assassinate_the_president_has_conse quences.html

[CitizenBBN]

Tht CEO lost his mind. Should certainly lose his job, probably have Secret Service knocking.

FUnny how peace loving they are on the left.

[badrose]

Hopefully someone's taking names.

[Darrell KSR]

The CEO lost his mind.

Correction -- the FORMER CEO. At least the company did the right thing.

[CitizenBBN]

Correction -- the FORMER CEO. At least the company did the right thing.

Yep. Also needs to be checked for mental illness. Let's face it, everyone knows that's one of those huge no nos.

[Darrell KSR]

I don't think I would sell him a gun.

[PedroDaGr8]

An interesting discussion on Popehat.com (a legal blog) discussing this topic: https://popehat.com/2016/11/16/true-threats-v-protected-speech-post-election-edition/

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[badrose]

Good to see you back, Pedro.

[jazyd]

says a lot about college profs doesn't it.

As you watch some of these so called protests, they are nothing more than mobs of thugs burning and acting like complete aholes. Most didnt' vote or register to vote, many are paid to do what they are doing and they have done zero to help their so called cause or thought process.

I am worried for the country in the sense that I am looking at complete idiots in college and who is teaching them.

[CitizenBBN]

An interesting discussion on Popehat.com (a legal blog) discussing this topic: https://popehat.com/2016/11/16/true-threats-v-protected-speech-post-election-edition/

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

The author takes a pretty broadly generous approach to include Harrigan's comments as protected speech. He said quote: "I"m going to kill the President - Elect". Whether part of a stream of rage or not he was super specific about it and even called out the Secret Service to come get him.

PRactically he's right, that will get you a visit, and maybe it's a waste of resources to prosecute him, but I have a hard time calling it protected speech. He wasn't being satirical or anything, just mad, and I presume being mad is a big part of what drives some of these people to then act, so that's not much of a qualifier.

[PedroDaGr8]

The author takes a pretty broadly generous approach to include Harrigan's comments as protected speech. He said quote: "I"m going to kill the President - Elect". Whether part of a stream of rage or not he was super specific about it and even called out the Secret Service to come get him.

PRactically he's right, that will get you a visit, and maybe it's a waste of resources to prosecute him, but I have a hard time calling it protected speech. He wasn't being satirical or anything, just mad, and I presume being mad is a big part of what drives some of these people to then act, so that's not much of a qualifier.

Ken White tends to be a first amendment maximalist so his examples will often reflect that. He has consistently been pro-first amendment including taking pro bono cases in support/defense of said cause. That being said, his points about what criteria determine the difference between protected and non-protected speech are valid. Even if his examples and the degree to which he takes those points is extreme.