Reposted by @milenaac
This email is not a threat. It's moral condemnation. It's political hyperbole. It's exactly in line with what the Supreme Court said was protected by the First Amendment in Watts v. United States: www.fire.org/supreme-cour...
![[T]he statute initially requires the Government to prove a true "threat." We do not believe that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner fits within that statutory term. For we must interpret the language Congress chose "against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). The language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes, see Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U. S. 53, 58 (1966), is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7r477jd7q7p2mzmyqfm7jmp7/bafkreidykcci3edauahlr56epac25m6vi5bgxunkh3yjvuel6ev3ygf4oy)
@milenaac
@milenaac.bsky.social
1.6K followers 2.4K following 1.1K posts
“I don’t think anything I do will change the world. But nothing in the world releases me from my obligation to try.” - Ehren Tool
