https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Levels of Threat

Remarks, even joking remarks, about presidential assassination are beyond the Pale, as far as I am concerned. Even about the current president. Political violence is no joking matter, even if for cheap laughs. Normalizing conversation about it is a dangerous path to take.

That said, there is a significant difference between remarks for applause that deserve social condemnation, and threats that deserve Secret Service investigation. There's also a difference between talking specifically about the assassination of a given individual, and discussing the broader topic of assassination using an individual as an exemplar.




Johnny Depp on Donald Trump: Crime or free speech? – BBC News
It is a crime to make threats against the US president, so could Johnny Depp run into trouble?

View on Google+

61 view(s)  

9 thoughts on “Levels of Threat”

  1. He was in the UK. US law has no power in the UK, no matter what Americans may claim. A country can’t apply it’s laws outside its jurisdiction legally.

  2. Wow that was unacceptable. I hadn't seen the video. I personally don't consider that to be free speech, any more than shouting "fire" in a theater. It's not protected, even if it's for a joke.

    Is it worth a secret service investigation? Probably not, but I wouldn't mind a few more of those for all the people who keep threatening politicians without any seeming recourse.

    They did it all the time with Obama, talking about time for a second amendment solution, can't guarantee his safety, and so on.

  3. Certainly it's protected, but it is justifiably unpopular. That is the precise intent of the First Amendment: to protect unpopular speech. It's the reason why Nazis and other unsavory types in the U.S. are largely allowed to say what they want.

    The analogy to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is flawed, because the intent of that is to cause immediate physical harm to others. That was hardly the case here.

    Now, had he come out and said "I intend to kill the President" that might be a different matter. Might be: there are criteria for what constitutes an actionable threat, and I doubt law enforcement would consider Johnny Depp a credible risk to the President.

    Indeed, the President himself has committed numerous acts of stochastic terrorism for which he will never be held to account.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *