Proof that our Freedom of Speech is Taken Away?

I don't know if any of you remember over the course of the past month or so there have been 2 death threats in particular towards Obama. Basically I know one of them said something to the effect of "I swear I'm going to kill Borack Obama!" or something probably more creative then that but to the same effect. Now this guy might face up to 5 years in prison. Is this normal? Is it not freedom of speech? Or is it because he had weapondry in his apartment that shows the man had intent?

oh, come on. You mean to say you still believe in that freedom of speach cr@p??!! Come on, that was gone with the homegrown terrorist act.

I'm afraid though because I was in a pissy mood and said something like that to the effect of George W.. Even though I don't even agree with it and was half joking. Well, I didn't actually say it. I wrote it over AIM. Is it possible the government will sort through the "a/s/l, lol's, and sup's" and find my message and put me in the camps? Or am I just over paranoid?

Darlin'.. no one give a flying flip if you say you wanna kill 'dubbya' because... well, since ya said it there should be no explanation needed

People are in such denial though about Obama and the "hope" he promises. Give it time.. the view on him should be much worse should he get into office.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by justamomma]

honestly, i think of that everytime i post any message such as "i cant believe no one has shot bush yet" or "history should show us that peaceful protest never accomplishes anything but getting the protesters killed, beaten, and raped" or "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable".....and then i go with my heart, knowing that life is cheap, and i should spend mine doing what i believe in.

oops, did i post that out loud?? i better go hide now!!

Technically, even the IRS is guilty of intimidation, extortion & outright fraud when they decide to pick on somebody...And that's illegal, even though I've never heard them of issuing death threats. However, it's up to the job of the prosecution to state the "availability of means, motive & opportunity" to actually carry out a death threat. However, with Bush's "new laws", the court may never even hear the case at all...

A death threat against anybody indicates a violation on the Rights of someone else & that's something that is not covered by the 1st Amendment. It's a violation of someone's Rights to "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" because, let's face it, it's hard to live a normal life under the fear of a death threat, isn't it?

It's just as much of an abuse of the 2nd Amendment for anyone to just pull out their gun & pull the trigger, even with no bullets in it...It's the same as a death threat.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by pexx421


hehe, I have tested as well. I don't guess I test so much with what I believe in. If others wanna give away their rights, then so be it. I just am ready for all the *snip* to hit the fan already. Lets get it out there that they want to own our lives so that we can stand up for ourselves and either win or rest in peace. This waiting around for it all to go down is what drives me the most nuts. I have made my stance clear in both my words and the actions I have taken to get the *snip* out of my life... I am just ready for the "stare down" to come to a head already!!

MOD Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors


[edit on 8/27/2008 by semperfortis]

reply to post by Soulstone


a threat of death is no more covered by freedom of speech than yelling fire in a crowded theater. there have always been limits to free speech when it becomes a detriment to the rights of others in this country. or do you just wish that people could run around threatening to kill presidential candidates because that is an intelligent and constructive modeo f criticizm?

the wording of the law is not "death threats" its "any language which can be construed or inferred to incite violence" ....Point here being Who is doing the construing or inferring?? Some peoples inferrment can be different than others, no? And language to rise up against a rogue government, while perhaps not in the governments interest, is what was meant to be protected by our right to free speech, just as our 2nd amendment is not there to protect our right to weapons so we can not be mugged, but rather to protect the citizens from oppressive government. Our right to free speech is not there to protect our right to say happy joy things about our government...its to protect us when we recognize our government is stealing our liberties so we may take appropriate (and perhaps violent, if necessary, as it usually is when govt turns to authoritarian and fascist) action.

Originally posted by pexx421
the wording of the law is not "death threats" its "any language which can be construed or inferred to incite violence" ....Point here being Who is doing the construing or inferring?? Some peoples inferrment can be different than others, no? And language to rise up against a rogue government, while perhaps not in the governments interest, is what was meant to be protected by our right to free speech, just as our 2nd amendment is not there to protect our right to weapons so we can not be mugged, but rather to protect the citizens from oppressive government. Our right to free speech is not there to protect our right to say happy joy things about our government...its to protect us when we recognize our government is stealing our liberties so we may take appropriate (and perhaps violent, if necessary, as it usually is when govt turns to authoritarian and fascist) action.

The inferring (not "infernment") is done by a judge, and / or a grand jury. As a general rule, once the word "kill" or any of its more 'polite' synonyms enters the discussion, you're probably over the line. It's true that, in a technical sense, this is a 'restriction' on your freedom of speech, but it's neither a new one, nor a particularly repressive one. As was pointed out by a previous poster, this is a case similar to shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. That isn't an exercise in free speech, that's intentionally causing panic for no reason other than panic's sake...and that is not protected speech.

It's perfectly acceptable to discuss changing the government through non-violent means...discussions of who to vote for (or against), criticism of public policy, discussion of constitutional amendments (existing ones or needed ones)...all of those are fine, criminal activity isn't. As a quick and dirty example, "George Bush is the worst President ever! He ought to be run out of town on a rail!" is fine. "Kill the (insert colorful and profane description) in the White House!" is over the line.

As for your assertion about the purpose of the second amendment, I happen to agree with you in principle that one of its purposes was to keep the government in check...but I disagree with your implication that that was its only purpose.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The security of a free state does, indeed, include security for the citizen against the excesses of government...but it also includes security of my person against criminal activity.

So you sheeple actually believe that threatening the life of someone, especially a prominent public figure, has only recently become illegal?

Wow!

Sorry stormhammer, but the Bush administration has already demonstrated that their hand is not bound by a judge or jury. The first prisoner in guantanamo was an american citizen, and he was held without representation, without habeus corpus, and never held in front of a judge or jury, but rather a military tribunal. And he is not the only one. My aunt has two very close friends who were american citizens who went to iraq last year. They were constantly picked up and harrassed by the american military, and finally released after the husband promised to control his wife. They disappeared one month later. There are many many examples on here and ICH of people, american citizens, who spent time in these facilities without any rights whatsoever, subject to torture, rape, and abuse.