I’m glad you’re here, because I thought of you immediately.
This is most assuredly terroristic threat, but I thought this was protected by 1A, free speech. Do we have any evidence that he tried to implement any of this plan?
How is this not 1A protected?
“Patriot,” huh? Another word drained of meaning.
I don’t know the history in sufficient detail to know the answer, but I wonder – did Confederates use that word? Did they too think they were more American than other Americans?
And Donnie, the perpetrator of all things unlawful and sowing disorder, has the audacity to adopt a “SAVE AMERICA” theme? The Repubs have never been the party of law and order. It was all a sham.
Gawd, that sounds like the kind of shit that sometimes courses through my mind and here I am full throated loyal supporter of America’s Gandiesque Party!
At least two fifths more.
OT: Don’t feel too bad for them. University of Moscow-Politburo awarded them with high honors.
Well said.
Well, there’s a terrifying almost-history. Thanks for posting that. It reads like a right-winger wet dream. I’m frankly amazed they didn’t try it.
IANAL but wouldn’t advertising for someone to kill specific people be outside the 1A protections?
This wasn’t an utterance blurted out in the heat of the moment, this was in an advertisement.
Patriot, my ass. It is all about low self image and the need to carry a big gun.
I have to ask: What on earth is the editorial policy for Craigslist that would permit something so blatantly criminal to be posted in the first place?
Whatever it is, I’d think/hope some lawyers are having a chin-wag over it.
It might be! But the standard for whether the First covers this type of speech is whether it is likely to incite imminent lawless conduct, and this is violent and specific enough to have crossed that line, IMHO. There is also a First Amendment doctrine called “true threats” where the speaker intends to scare the target into believing they’re under actual threat of harm, but that’s not likely applicable since Chad here was posting on Craigslist, not calling their offices or whatever.
Yes now please do the other 10,000 death-threaters if you are listening DOJ
These are all cut-n-dried crimes.
I am rooting for you
Yes, it feels like a curious question. They were totally on board with all the other crazy, dangerous, fraudulent stuff… but why not this? Who said no? And why?
Timothy McVeigh, one of our greatest domestic terrorists, at least was morally torn. He was also an early expression of right-wing militias that seem to be at the heart of Trump’s 1/6 manipulation. He was also ex-military, which kind of makes you wonder what the hell is going on in the DOD these days.
looking forward to seeing what else is.in there.
Thank you for the distinction.
So now I don’t know whether this was even worth the while, because a judge could find for protected speech, particularly since no action came from it. I’ve had a situation like this in my own life - asking for a protection order because of a verbal threat. Judge told me he couldn’t do it until some action was taken - verbal wasn’t enough (this was back in the 1980s before we had nutcases on the bench).
No, these people literally refer to themselves as “patriots”. I know, go figure.
OT:
This is going to be VERY helpful to our governor in November:
The number of Wisconsin residents without jobs and who were actively seeking work fell to 86,200 in December, for an unemployment rate of 2.8%, the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) reported…
The number of employed Wisconsin residents exceeded 3 million in December. In that same month, the state’s total labor force — those people who have jobs or say they’re actively seeking work — topped 3.1 million, or 66.4% of the adult population. All three are higher than in February 2020.
Wisconsin’s labor force participation rate has historically been higher than the national average, which was 61.9% in December…
Dennis Winters, chief economist at DWD, said the discrepancy reflects in part the fact that fewer Wisconsin residents are holding more than one job now than in the past.
Not really. He said he regretted the deaths of all the children, but claimed he did not know they were there. I know people on both sides of that prosecution, and neither of them ever described McVeigh as in any way tore up about it.