Soliciting murder is protected speech?

[jgoose71 0]

Man offers $500 to anyone who kills an ICE agent gets acquitted. Apparently soliciting murder is protected under the first amendment. This is the new standard now.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-acquits-new-york-man-offered-kill-ice-agent.amp

Edited December 7, 2019 by jgoose71

[mistercwood 287]

ICE should 100% be abolished but yeah the dude absolutely should not have skated on that. I don't think he was serious but that wording was enough that someone could have - don't know about jail time but acquittal does more harm than good, this sets a shitty precedent.

[gowlerk 1,903]

3 hours ago, mistercwood said:

ICE should 100% be abolished but yeah the dude absolutely should not have skated on that. I don't think he was serious but that wording was enough that someone could have - don't know about jail time but acquittal does more harm than good, this sets a shitty precedent.

It doesn't set a legal precedent. The article is skimpy on details, but it does say that a jury acquitted him. That sounds to me like a good lawyer convinced the jury to refuse to convict. Sometimes juries do that, even though it is not really right. I'd like to know what the judges instructions to them were.

[riggerrob 558]

Buddy solicited a murderer on the open internet. How is the internet “protected speech?”

I don’t discuss certain subjects on the internet for fear that government agents will read my comments and arrest me.

[gowlerk 1,903]

10 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

How is the internet “protected speech?”

It isn't Rob, but a jury was convinced anyway. Juries sometimes do outrageous things. This may be one of those times.

[yoink 321]

Edit - requires more thought.

Edited December 8, 2019 by yoink

[jakee 1,254]

5 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Buddy solicited a murderer on the open internet. How is the internet “protected speech?”

I highly doubt that was the argument. Pretty sure they'd be saying it was political satire. 

[kallend 1,621]

6 hours ago, gowlerk said:

It isn't Rob, but a jury was convinced anyway. Juries sometimes do outrageous things. This may be one of those times.

Juries hear all the evidence and all the arguments, unlike viewers of Fox "News".  Clearly the jury didn't think the prosecution made its case.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

The story seems outrageous, but then again Fox has been known to slant their coverage more than a little.  No doubt there was more to the story than what Fox chose to tell.

Anyway, if this case makes it OK to solicit murder, then surely the non-prosecution of Trump even after he bragged on camera about assaulting women makes that behavior legal for everybody?

Don

[rifleman 61]

23 hours ago, kallend said:

Juries hear all the evidence and all the arguments, unlike viewers of Fox "News".  Clearly the jury didn't think the prosecution made its case.

In the UK, Scottish courts operate under a different legal code to the rest of the country. One of the major differences is that there are three verdicts available to a jury - guilty, not guilty and not proven. 

A not proven verdict essentially means that the jury thinks that the defendant did it, but that the prosecution didn't present enough evidence for the jury to return a definitive guilty verdict. Not Proven also allows for a retrial should additional evidence come to light without incurring double jeopardy.

[jimrees 0]

The guy's tweet read: "I am broke but will scrounge and literally give $500 to anyone who kills an ice agent. (at)me seriously who else can pledge get in on this let's make this work."

He used the word 'literally' and then claimed it was said in jest.   Sadly, that's probably the strongest argument in his favor these days.

[turtlespeed 212]

3 hours ago, jimrees said:

The guy's tweet read: "I am broke but will scrounge and literally give $500 to anyone who kills an ice agent. (at)me seriously who else can pledge get in on this let's make this work."

He used the word 'literally' and then claimed it was said in jest.   Sadly, that's probably the strongest argument in his favor these days.

Have you seen and heard how "Literally" is used in the speech and language patterns of today? 

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Have you seen and heard how "Literally" is used in the speech and language patterns of today? 

I'll betcha if that dude was black, or worse yet middle eastern looking the jury would have had his ass in stir.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

I'll betcha if that dude was black, or worse yet middle eastern looking the jury would have had his ass in stir.

I wasn't part of the jury, nor did I hear any of the arguments.

On face value - I think he should be convicted of a lesser crime than what he was charged with.

I don't care what color or affiliation he has - it was wrong and he should be made to never forget it.

He should probably, also be enrolled in some anger management classes.

 

[Rick 67]

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'll betcha if that dude was black, or worse yet middle eastern looking the jury would have had his ass in stir.

not sure about that apparently you can tell a mob turn "burn this mother fucker down" and that's not inciting a riot.

I think both of these are wrong and should have consequences. 

[riggerrob 558]

The words "literal" and "virtual" are used so often these days that I have forgotten the original meanings. To my ears, they are more like swear words: something to be filtered out while I try to filter out what message the speaker is trying to convey.

At minimum, the accused should get probation for slander or libel or hate speech. That sort of language is not used in polite company.

What would happen if he said that to an ICE agent's face and the ICE agent punched him?

[DJL 232]

6 hours ago, jimrees said:

The guy's tweet read: "I am broke but will scrounge and literally give $500 to anyone who kills an ice agent. (at)me seriously who else can pledge get in on this let's make this work."

He used the word 'literally' and then claimed it was said in jest.   Sadly, that's probably the strongest argument in his favor these days.

There was no indication he was serious but he crossed the line in making a statement like this.  He got what he deserved which was getting raked across the courtroom.

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, DJL said:

There was no indication he was serious but he crossed the line in making a statement like this.  He got what he deserved which was getting raked across the courtroom.

I don't understand how you could come to the conclusion that there was no indication that he was serious.

The word literally, LITERALLY makes the threat serious.

 

[kallend 1,621]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't understand how you could come to the conclusion that there was no indication that he was serious.

The word literally, LITERALLY makes the threat serious.

 

No, because literally everyone uses "literally" incorrectly these days.  It literally drives me crazy, literally.

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The word literally, LITERALLY makes the threat serious.

If one more person gets that wrong I am literally going to die.

[DJL 232]

12 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't understand how you could come to the conclusion that there was no indication that he was serious.

The word literally, LITERALLY makes the threat serious.

 

There's no magic word that means someone goes to jail for saying something.  Even if I posted on my FB page that I was going to kill somebody there still needs to be credible intent. This guy is just an asshole.  Considering who he's threatening I'd say they have the clout to appeal and continue the case if they thought the verdict was improper.

[gowlerk 1,903]

8 hours ago, jakee said:

If one more person gets that wrong I am literally going to die.

Off on a tangent here. Another misused word that I hear over and over again is "decimate". No one seems to have a clue what it really means.

[ryoder 1,381]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Off on a tangent here. Another misused word that I hear over and over again is "decimate". No one seems to have a clue what it really means.

Agreed!

[turtlespeed 212]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Off on a tangent here. Another misused word that I hear over and over again is "decimate". No one seems to have a clue what it really means.

I think you are about 10% correct.

[DJL 232]

5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I think you are about 10% correct.

Literally.