• SerpentPeaked@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    There is no possible way that can meet the true threat standard. Unfortunately, the cops will face zero consequences for violating her first amendment rights.

    • StaticFalconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Judge, it was a judge that made that decision. You know , someone that has way more education with an actual degree in law.

    • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      That’s because the headline left out the very next sentence she said, “You’re next”

      Combined, with the fact that it was recorded, it’s a very clear threat. The rest of the way it was handled is pure BS, but there is no denying that what she said was a threat.

      • Styxia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        “I was being sarcastic” surely could be the defensible response… right… right?!/s

    • quixotic120@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is one of those post 9/11 things that really fucked over countless people. I used to work with the homeless and inconsistently homed and the amount of times those people were taken in for “terroristic threats” was obscene

      It depends on the state but generally the laws were hastily passed post 9/11 and give the cops free rein to jail you for saying anything vaguely threatening.