Does the 1st Amendment protect calling for the assassination of a President? Does it protect inciting murder, violence? It appears that it does. The deomcrat party, the msdnc media propagandist, late night "comedy host" and many others believe that it does. They use their platforms to demonize, vilify and dehumanize their political opponents knowing full well that there are lunatics out there who will act on their rhetoric, who look at themselves and rationalize, "I've got to save democracy".

The 1st Amenment DOES NOT protect this kind of speech and those who engage in this know damn well what they are doing. The inciting of murder is a felony and should be held accountable. The calling for the assassinaion of a President is treasonous and should be prosecuted.

Anyone who believes that this can be reconciled and unity of the country brought about between these evil people and right minded America? Does not know their history. This doesn't get better. It gets worse.

>>24546703

This is not a random process if I understand the meaning of Stochastic. This is purposeful and meant to incite. Hate speech is subjective at best. Speech that incites violence and is purposely stated to do so is imo is a direct threat as they intend it to be.

Am I wrong?

>>24546711

I don't think it would deter them anon. That fuck had to know that the Hilton was absolutely crawling with USSS, DHS and who knows how many other abc's. I doubt he thought he was going to be alive after he put all this in motion. I think these peoople look at themselves as "saviors" and are willing to do whatever they need to do to save………………democracy.

>>24546740

You're right anon and this war was declared a long, long time ago.

>>24546768

Gaslighting? kmfao. You offended?

>>24546788

>well you can purposefully hate and the deciding factor is can it really incite?

It has to go beyond just a thought doesn't it? I fucking hate comcast. Doesn't mean I'm going to do something irrational to them. It's one thing to "think it" it's another thing to knowingly use that hate to inspire and incite others. In these instances, the incitement aspect is purposeful and meant to manipulate others into carrying out an act.

I don't think the 1st Amendment protects this. Can you just randomly yell "FIRE" in a crowed theater if there is no fire? This would only instill fear in those people there and they could possibly hurt themsselves or others trying to GTFO. This is way below the threshold of what these people are doing.

[They], know exactly what they are doing.

>>24546811

I give one rat's ass what you're giving anon. And fuck off while you're at it.

>>24546809

Hmm…………….I guess the 1st Amendment does protect this kind of rhetoric because an "act" or "lawless action" may not be imminent. I think this interpretation of the 1st Amendment should be tested. We are talking about the promoting of the killing of a POTUS.

>>24546927

Well, I see your point anon.