Question for legal scholars – IOTW Report

Question for legal scholars

Tuesday, 7 February 2017, 13:34 BFH Uncategorized 24

Is it legal to post that you will assassinate the next leftist president?

24 Comments on Question for legal scholars

  3. No. Because that is what THEY do. And the Left is a permanent sh!tstain on the fabric of the universe. I mean, when WE say, “We’re better than that”, it actually means something. When Leftists say the same thing, it rings hollow. They’re evil and demonic. We are not.

  4. Define “leftist.”

    I’m a plumber (retired) not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that comes under the “1st Amendment” protection; as it is unspecific, vague, and ill-defined.
    But I have been wrong, before …

    izlamo delenda est …

  5. That would increase the likelihood of you receiving 15 minutes of fame nationwide and be labeled as a nut-job whether it comes from the right or the left.

    If it comes from a right nut-job, everyone (right and left) will disavow, shun and verbally abuse the individual (rightfully so).

    However, if it turns out that it is a far left nut-job they will become the darling of the media and celebrated by the Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Anarchists, BLM, Hollywood and academia. They may even get a movie deal or numerous speaking engagements at Universities Nation-wide.

  10. I would suggest you get a SS visit and then definitely be put on a list to start with.

    U.S.C. § 879 : US Code – Section 879: Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons
    (3) a major candidate for the office of President or Vice
    President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate

  12. Petrus – I’d guess that all the commenters on this site are already on a list.
    ——-
    To the original question, I’m not a legal scholar but this is the net, so it’s OK. It seems of late that making threats of or actually breaking law comes down to intent. So the question is, did you actually mean to threaten and/or kill someone?
    If so, why? If you are proven inept with the weapon of choice, you’d be deemed too stupid or incompetent to be prosecuted.
    NOTE: This line of thinking is the natural progress of the DOJ / Clinton investigation. (Bull Shit Off)

  14. never post anything on line that you may regret one day-
    never say anything in the open that you don’t really want others to hear because there is always someone listening– keep you thoughts to yourself, between you and God because HE knows your heart and what you think will come back to bite you….

  15. Trick question. As we all know, the left gets away with everything. Use the same “rhetoric” toward any leftist, you’re toast before you get up to refill your coffee.

  17. TO “anony”

    CAREFUL!
    Fur’s hypothetical is about someone who is NOT YET President
    (under which the laws has no effect, as far as I know).

    BUT: FORMER Presidents enjoy THE SAME “coverage”
    (as far as I know)
    as current Presidents….

    Draw your own conclusions.

  18. My non-lawyer opinion is that threatening an unnamed, heck unknown, future president isn’t specifically criminal. Present president, past presidents, are different.

    But…not being specifically defined in the USC as a crime has nothing to do with whether or not TPTB would make you very, very sorry you made such a threat.

  21. My opinion, which is worth what you’ve paid, is it would be a bad idea. No upside with possible big downside. Legal advise needs to be practicle and forward looking or its crap.

  24. It’s perfectly fine, and almost expected of you, if you’re a —–, —–, —- & —-, living in your mommies basement. She would kick you out and send you to your Dad’s, if she knew who he was. Or cared.

Comments are closed.

iOTWreport.com ©2024 ----- iOTWreport is not responsible for the content of comments. All opinions in comments are solely the commenter's.