• @satans_methpipe
    link
    121 month ago

    The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not protect speech that threatens or incites violence.

    • @BonesOfTheMoonOP
      link
      51 month ago

      Is it really a threat though? Idk. She’s repeating some words and saying “you’re next”, but not what they’re next for.

      • @WhatYouNeed
        link
        51 month ago

        You’re next…to get no health insurance cover.

      • @theonetruedroid
        link
        51 month ago

        It seems pretty obvious what she was implying, but that’s what a trial is for. She may not have meant it, but it is clearly a threat of violence.

          • @theonetruedroid
            link
            41 month ago

            They are going to have a tough time proving that in court. I bet this will get pleaded out to some small charge though.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 month ago

            If someone referenced a recent assassination then said, “You people are next,” would you seriously not take that as a threat?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 month ago

              I worked in a call center for several years and received no shortage of bizarre threats. Never once did I feel that any of the threats were worth being concerned about. Granted these would be threats over lack of warranty coverage on usually budget model phones so very different from health insurance where the dollar values and stakes are many orders of magnitude higher

            • @zergtoshi
              link
              English
              21 month ago

              I might.
              That doesn’t necessarily prove it was meant this way and because we’re talking potential criminal offense it has to be proven it was meant as a threat if I’m not mistaken.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 month ago

                Yes, that’s proven in the courts, not by the cops.

                She said something that could easily be taken for a terroristic threat, given the context. It would be a bad thing to not take terroristic threats seriously. Whether she was being serious or not is irrelevant regarding her arrest.

      • @Shardikprime
        link
        01 month ago

        If she were a parrot yeah sure, but there she is, and yet, featherless