New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Darwin Award Candidate?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49755062/ns/local_news-minneapolis_st_paul_mn/
This guy will get off on using the first ammendment, but still how dumb do you have to be.
Comments
1st Amendment doesn't cover specific threats against one's life.
yes but the art is considered first amendment protected even though it is a threat.
Though not sure I'd go as far as all the sudden making a usual thread charged as a "terrorist" act.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/aug/27/court-rejects-first-amendment-argument-in-death/
As a similar example, putting death threats in music, doesn't make it protected by the first amendment, I would imagine the same would apply to art work.
Nobody was killed and art is protected as it is different than music.
Also a list of "free speech" exceptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Art and Music are both protected by the first amendment, I would not consider either different than each other, in fact Music would if you wanted to argue that point be more protected as it's "speech".
"Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[36] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[37][38] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[39] However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.[40]"
I don't think any "Reasonable" person would think of such a threat on a gang member's arm as being a obvious hyperbole, and that would easily assume that said gang member would carry out such a threat if given a chance.
PS: how exactly is he removing himself from the gene pool, by such action? Just how many conjugal visits do you think he could get by the time he ever died? That's the point of the Darwin awards... their actions led to them, removing themselves from the gene pool.
Well more of just being an idiot and not being evolved enough as darwins principle stands.
Bradenberg v. Ohio. You have to follow that ruling down to a fine line
@bamn but that particular case didn't specifically target or actually say that violence should take place, so it was a bit vague as such couldn't be enforced as inciting violence. As opposed to a pretty clear picture of a guard getting his head shot in with his name on it. Though around the time of that ruling, it wouldn't be hard to see how even broader examples could still be struck down as not being a 1st amendment issue.
@kbeezie: hey, sorry to be "that guy", but if you could please use the edit button next time.
Awesome! Thanks!
@HalfEatenPie ... right...
Not debating the context of this instance nor care about it.
Your question was:
" 1st Amendment doesn't cover specific threats against one's life."
When it does, and I cited the Supreme Court ruling.
Was that ruling specific (as well as specific means of ending it?) to one's life?
-> Wikipedia
Edit: it was actually in reference to President Lyndon Johnson