I’m not defending him I’m defending his right to have opinions. He’s a worthless, abhorrent piece of shit.
by insisting he doesn’t get to be charged for making threats against elected members of government? he committed a crime. the speech itself might be protected, but those protections don’t protect against consequences. insisting otherwise is absolutely defending that worthless, abhorrent piece of shit.
I’m insisting his speech is shitty but political speech.
I don’t think he could sanely be charged, though, either. It doesn’t meet the legal requirements to be a threat. You can look up the legal threshold for speech to be considered a threat in the US.
Until they breached the capitol, yeah. Of course. It’s a fucking protest. By your definition lots of CEOs public death threats on lemmy daily. But they’re just doing their jobs. Right? You’re supposed to have a wide berth on speech and robust response to action. Especially political figures, even when they’re doing their job.
You don’t have to demonize and mistreat people having genuine dialog with you. We’re allowed to have different opinions and still treat each other like human beings. Overall this is a small disagreement over human rights.
Until they breached the capitol, yeah. Of course. It’s a fucking protest.
It was always their plan- including this guy’s plan- to breach the capital. it was never just a protest, it was a straight up insurrection. Derrick actively encouraged people to break into the capital, and always planned on doing so. and he was convicted for being a leader in the insurrection.
i could accept it was political speech if one never went inside. There were plenty of people that got caught up in the rally. It was this guy’s role, in the insurrection to whip up the crowd at the capital complex. the people that weren’t part of the plan.
This is the same guy that now posted political leaders hung in effigy. Do you really believe the intent of his post wasn’t to incite and encourage more political violence? because that’s fundamentally crossing the line from political speech… and there was never any protection from the consequences of that speech. which, you so blithely seem to want to ignore.
I am not calling for him to be hung in a mob lynching- which seems to be exactly what Dereck was calling for, to happen to elected leaders. I am calling for him to lawfully arrested and tried for inciting hate speech. Which is a crime in this country.
This is the same guy that now posted political leaders hung in effigy. Do you really believe the intent of his post wasn’t to incite and encourage more political violence? because that’s fundamentally crossing the line from political speech… and there was never any protection from the consequences of that speech. which, you so blithely seem to want to ignore.
I don’t know his intent and I’m pretty lenient on plausible deniability. Some of the most vitriolic arguments I get in at work are about criminal justice reform and I have very strong opinions about individual liberties.
You have budged me a bit, though. I think, all strung together, a search warrant for texts and social media around those days would be in order, but if the private communications were useful for anything, it’d probably be the reason to prosecute and the rest of it is just supporting.
Why would it matter if it was a private display? People are allowed to have and express their opinions, even if they’re shitty opinions.
Legally there are boundaries on speech as well, that ornaments don’t cross.
I’m not defending him I’m defending his right to have opinions. He’s a worthless, abhorrent piece of shit.
by insisting he doesn’t get to be charged for making threats against elected members of government? he committed a crime. the speech itself might be protected, but those protections don’t protect against consequences. insisting otherwise is absolutely defending that worthless, abhorrent piece of shit.
I’m insisting his speech is shitty but political speech.
I don’t think he could sanely be charged, though, either. It doesn’t meet the legal requirements to be a threat. You can look up the legal threshold for speech to be considered a threat in the US.
I suppose you feel the same way when he was chanting “HANG MIKE PENCE” outside the complex where… Mike Pence was trying to do his fucking job, huh?
Until they breached the capitol, yeah. Of course. It’s a fucking protest. By your definition lots of CEOs public death threats on lemmy daily. But they’re just doing their jobs. Right? You’re supposed to have a wide berth on speech and robust response to action. Especially political figures, even when they’re doing their job.
You don’t have to demonize and mistreat people having genuine dialog with you. We’re allowed to have different opinions and still treat each other like human beings. Overall this is a small disagreement over human rights.
It was always their plan- including this guy’s plan- to breach the capital. it was never just a protest, it was a straight up insurrection. Derrick actively encouraged people to break into the capital, and always planned on doing so. and he was convicted for being a leader in the insurrection.
i could accept it was political speech if one never went inside. There were plenty of people that got caught up in the rally. It was this guy’s role, in the insurrection to whip up the crowd at the capital complex. the people that weren’t part of the plan.
This is the same guy that now posted political leaders hung in effigy. Do you really believe the intent of his post wasn’t to incite and encourage more political violence? because that’s fundamentally crossing the line from political speech… and there was never any protection from the consequences of that speech. which, you so blithely seem to want to ignore.
I am not calling for him to be hung in a mob lynching- which seems to be exactly what Dereck was calling for, to happen to elected leaders. I am calling for him to lawfully arrested and tried for inciting hate speech. Which is a crime in this country.
I don’t know his intent and I’m pretty lenient on plausible deniability. Some of the most vitriolic arguments I get in at work are about criminal justice reform and I have very strong opinions about individual liberties.
You have budged me a bit, though. I think, all strung together, a search warrant for texts and social media around those days would be in order, but if the private communications were useful for anything, it’d probably be the reason to prosecute and the rest of it is just supporting.