Doesn't it rely on whether the average Joe or Josephine would reasonably believe 8647 shells was an actual threat to KILL him....and reasonably thought .... with means to do so or means to cause it....?
What “freedom of speech” actually means, under our Constitution, does not include the making of any threats (or recommendations to others for) the murder of our President.
The judge’s determination about that flag is evidently consistent with the view expressed by the SCOTUS in Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
Virginia v. Black: The government may not ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate if the act of cross burning itself is considered evidence of the intent to intimidate.supreme.justia.com
It held that states may prohibit “true threats” because such speech places people in fear of violence and disrupts public safety. That makes the question one of determining the actual intent of that call to eliminate the President (“86 47”). See, Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023) which most recently addressed that issue.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/22-138/
Last edited:
