What are the Limits of Free Speech?

[sparky]

Oh? i thought them manning the helm by now Pismoe.....~S~

 

[pismoe]

they are making inroads so a little while longer .Sparky

 

[Joe Bruno]

I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is, does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence? A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.


Personally I am undecided on the first question because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know, that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.


As for it being protected under the religious freedom clause, I don't think so. The fact that he is a preacher is not sufficient to grant him that protection. That is especially true given the fact that he is not citing any religious dogma to justify his words. Here is what he said:

http://[URL="https://www.patheos.co... Be Violence’ If Trump Is Removed From Office

[/URL]

Threats of violence: Christian TV Host Rick Wiles warns that “there is going to be violence in America” if Trump is impeached and removed from office.

Appearing on his TruNews program earlier this week Wiles declared that if President Donald Trump is removed from office his supporters who “know how to fight” will target Democratic lawmakers responsible for removing Trump and “hunt them down.”

Wiles said:

If they take him out, there is going to be violence in America. There are people in this country—veterans, cowboys, mountain men, guys that know how to fight—and they’re going to make a decision that the people that did this to Donald Trump are not going to get away with it and they’re going to hunt them down.

Here is some guidance on the issue;

What are some exceptions to the right to free speech?

Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Honest opinions only please.

For a threat to be actionable, it has to be credible. That means the person making the threat has to have control of the means of violence, In this case, the speaker has no army or militia under his control. If someone did beat up
the Democrats, then law enforcement would investigate to see who incited it.If
Wiles is found guilty of this, he would be arrested.

 

[anynameyouwish]

I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is, does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence? A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.


Personally I am undecided on the first question because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know, that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.


As for it being protected under the religious freedom clause, I don't think so. The fact that he is a preacher is not sufficient to grant him that protection. That is especially true given the fact that he is not citing any religious dogma to justify his words. Here is what he said:

http://[URL='https://www.patheos.co... Be Violence’ If Trump Is Removed From Office

[/URL]

Threats of violence: Christian TV Host Rick Wiles warns that “there is going to be violence in America” if Trump is impeached and removed from office.

Appearing on his TruNews program earlier this week Wiles declared that if President Donald Trump is removed from office his supporters who “know how to fight” will target Democratic lawmakers responsible for removing Trump and “hunt them down.”

Wiles said:

If they take him out, there is going to be violence in America. There are people in this country—veterans, cowboys, mountain men, guys that know how to fight—and they’re going to make a decision that the people that did this to Donald Trump are not going to get away with it and they’re going to hunt them down.

Here is some guidance on the issue;

What are some exceptions to the right to free speech?

Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Honest opinions only please.

Maxine Waters telling people to go after Republicans and Trump voters.
That's going too far.
Don't you think???

rush limbaugh saying "we are war with liberals. liberals are the enemy. in war it is ok to KILL your enemy"

or


rush limbaugh saying "leave only a few liberals left alive as a warning to future generations"


or

ann coulter saying "we should shoot a few (liberals) to let the rest know it can happen to them"

 

[anynameyouwish]

I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is, does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence? A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.


Personally I am undecided on the first question because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know, that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.


As for it being protected under the religious freedom clause, I don't think so. The fact that he is a preacher is not sufficient to grant him that protection. That is especially true given the fact that he is not citing any religious dogma to justify his words. Here is what he said:

http://[URL='https://www.patheos.co... Be Violence’ If Trump Is Removed From Office

[/URL]

Threats of violence: Christian TV Host Rick Wiles warns that “there is going to be violence in America” if Trump is impeached and removed from office.

Appearing on his TruNews program earlier this week Wiles declared that if President Donald Trump is removed from office his supporters who “know how to fight” will target Democratic lawmakers responsible for removing Trump and “hunt them down.”

Wiles said:

If they take him out, there is going to be violence in America. There are people in this country—veterans, cowboys, mountain men, guys that know how to fight—and they’re going to make a decision that the people that did this to Donald Trump are not going to get away with it and they’re going to hunt them down.

Here is some guidance on the issue;

What are some exceptions to the right to free speech?

Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Honest opinions only please.

Mehh. What he said didn't incite me into wanting to hunt down Democrats like coyotes, so it was within his First Amendment right.

"What he said didn't incite me into wanting to hunt down Democrats like coyotes"

no?


then why do you want to?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Yeah all is well in left wing progressive nazi Germany
Sleepy nappy

October 23,2019

A sincere proposal to criminalize a word was formally considered at the highest level of a state’s government.

On Tuesday, Massachusetts legislators considered a bill that would criminalize certain uses of the word “bitch” — making it punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine up to $200.

The bill, introduced a month ago by state Democratic representative Dan Hunt, states that “a person who uses the word ‘bitch’ directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person” and would be guilty of a criminal offense punishable by “a fine of not more than either $150 or $200, or jail time of up to six months.” The offense could be reported not only by the person being called a bitch, but also a third-party witness.

What could possibly go wrong

Free Speech: Massachusetts Considers Bill to Criminalize Use of the Word 'Bitch' | National Review

 

[mudwhistle]

I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is, does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence? A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.


Personally I am undecided on the first question because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know, that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.


As for it being protected under the religious freedom clause, I don't think so. The fact that he is a preacher is not sufficient to grant him that protection. That is especially true given the fact that he is not citing any religious dogma to justify his words. Here is what he said:

http://[URL='https://www.patheos.co... Be Violence’ If Trump Is Removed From Office

[/URL]

Threats of violence: Christian TV Host Rick Wiles warns that “there is going to be violence in America” if Trump is impeached and removed from office.

Appearing on his TruNews program earlier this week Wiles declared that if President Donald Trump is removed from office his supporters who “know how to fight” will target Democratic lawmakers responsible for removing Trump and “hunt them down.”

Wiles said:

If they take him out, there is going to be violence in America. There are people in this country—veterans, cowboys, mountain men, guys that know how to fight—and they’re going to make a decision that the people that did this to Donald Trump are not going to get away with it and they’re going to hunt them down.

Here is some guidance on the issue;

What are some exceptions to the right to free speech?

Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Honest opinions only please.

Maxine Waters telling people to go after Republicans and Trump voters.
That's going too far.
Don't you think???

rush limbaugh saying "we are war with liberals. liberals are the enemy. in war it is ok to KILL your enemy"

or


rush limbaugh saying "leave only a few liberals left alive as a warning to future generations"


or

ann coulter saying "we should shoot a few (liberals) to let the rest know it can happen to them"

It's hard to make a valued judgment on anything without a link to provide context

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A warning to trump supporters Brought to you from the left's freedom fighters who wrap themselves in soviet flags



a brainwashed misfit angry little half a fag a member of antifa .....gee that's uusual
And I have no problem with him saying any of it ..but if we apply lefty rules that they wanna force upon you ....even through the courts which thier are tons of examples of then that should be a no no ....I mean we keep hearing about how moral and what values all these wonderful progressives have ....

So


Here comes the condemnations from the left...thats is after they're done ripping up an antiabortion poster and attack the person of carrying it all while accusing the person of displaying the sign as a promoter of hate and violence against women ...

Or someone watching a video in public that was over heard

Or someone doing the tomahawk chop
Or some kid in a maga hat just standing there and smiling while off in the background ******* are screaming racial slurs


And they wonder why somedays some of us hope for civil war 2 to turn hot

The number in nations
The god in their hearts
The justice in swine
The devil in god


View attachment 285935

View attachment 285959

View attachment 285960

So what your saying is lefties dont acucuse other of promotion hate an violence over nothing ,or something they disagree with

Really that's a lie . Funny I was told that modern man still doesnt know how ancients kangz moved giant blocks of stone that modern White 20th and 21 technology still can't do ..
...it was a lie I was called a liar for it

All lies

Thats right I'm liar ,racist , nazi , homophobe ,xenophobe, islamaphobe
Oh yeah and my words are violent and hateful
You dont feel safe

Zzzzzzzzzzzz


What your personal pronoun so I dont offend you
Is fresh and fruity acceptable?
Continue on being just a dumb whore ...its your right to



Lefty nazis whaddya gonna do eh
Sigh
Just one of the reasons why thiers no high road to take with them
Still a lot of normies out there that need to wake up to that

Just more Gish Gallop. Try dealing with the topic

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As a freedom of expression purist, I grudgingly make exceptions for a few things, such as DIRECTLY inciting illegal acts or violence, shouting FIRE in a theater or BOMB in an airport, and libel and slander laws.

Freedom of expression is the most liberal of all rights, but unfortunately many who call themselves liberal are all too willing to shut down, shout down, intimidate and punish speech that dares to challenge their belief system.

Those people are not liberals, they are frauds.

This is ignorant as it is wrong – and fails as a strawman fallacy.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not speech in private society, not speech between or among private persons or private entities.

Private citizens opposing speech that private society considers to be offensive does not ‘violate’ anyone’s rights – only government has the potential to violate citizens’ First Amendment rights.

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that the conflicts and controversies of the day be resolved through public discourse and debate – absent involvement by government or the courts; private citizens would determine what is or is not appropriate speech, as long as that determination doesn’t involve government coercion.

Liberals understand this; liberals have always been champions of free speech and free expression, in opposition to government seeking to silence speech considered to be offensive or inappropriate.

To claim that liberals oppose free speech and free expression is a lie.

And no one can claim to be a free speech ‘purist’ if he fails to understand the fact that the free speech right is not unlimited, that the courts alone determine what speech is or is not within she scope of the First Amendment, and that private citizens have neither the capacity nor authority to ‘violate’ the free speech rights of other private citizens.

 

[Mac1958]

As a freedom of expression purist, I grudgingly make exceptions for a few things, such as DIRECTLY inciting illegal acts or violence, shouting FIRE in a theater or BOMB in an airport, and libel and slander laws.

Freedom of expression is the most liberal of all rights, but unfortunately many who call themselves liberal are all too willing to shut down, shout down, intimidate and punish speech that dares to challenge their belief system.

Those people are not liberals, they are frauds.

This is ignorant as it is wrong – and fails as a strawman fallacy.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not speech in private society, not speech between or among private persons or private entities.

Private citizens opposing speech that private society considers to be offensive does not ‘violate’ anyone’s rights – only government has the potential to violate citizens’ First Amendment rights.

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that the conflicts and controversies of the day be resolved through public discourse and debate – absent involvement by government or the courts; private citizens would determine what is or is not appropriate speech, as long as that determination doesn’t involve government coercion.

Liberals understand this; liberals have always been champions of free speech and free expression, in opposition to government seeking to silence speech considered to be offensive or inappropriate.

To claim that liberals oppose free speech and free expression is a lie.

And no one can claim to be a free speech ‘purist’ if he fails to understand the fact that the free speech right is not unlimited, that the courts alone determine what speech is or is not within she scope of the First Amendment, and that private citizens have neither the capacity nor authority to ‘violate’ the free speech rights of other private citizens.

And one of those to whom I referred jumps in to self-identify for me.
.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

rush limbaugh saying "we are war with liberals. liberals are the enemy. in war it is ok to KILL your enemy"

LIE! He said we are at war with the Left, that's ALL......produce the evidence.

or


rush limbaugh saying "leave only a few liberals left alive as a warning to future generations"

LIE # 2....post the evidence......

or

ann coulter saying "we should shoot a few (liberals) to let the rest know it can happen to them"

If she said that....post the video.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

As a freedom of expression purist, I grudgingly make exceptions for a few things, such as DIRECTLY inciting illegal acts or violence, shouting FIRE in a theater or BOMB in an airport, and libel and slander laws.

Freedom of expression is the most liberal of all rights, but unfortunately many who call themselves liberal are all too willing to shut down, shout down, intimidate and punish speech that dares to challenge their belief system.

Those people are not liberals, they are frauds.

This is ignorant as it is wrong – and fails as a strawman fallacy.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not speech in private society, not speech between or among private persons or private entities.

Private citizens opposing speech that private society considers to be offensive does not ‘violate’ anyone’s rights – only government has the potential to violate citizens’ First Amendment rights.

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that the conflicts and controversies of the day be resolved through public discourse and debate – absent involvement by government or the courts; private citizens would determine what is or is not appropriate speech, as long as that determination doesn’t involve government coercion.

Liberals understand this; liberals have always been champions of free speech and free expression, in opposition to government seeking to silence speech considered to be offensive or inappropriate.

To claim that liberals oppose free speech and free expression is a lie.

And no one can claim to be a free speech ‘purist’ if he fails to understand the fact that the free speech right is not unlimited, that the courts alone determine what speech is or is not within she scope of the First Amendment, and that private citizens have neither the capacity nor authority to ‘violate’ the free speech rights of other private citizens.

When do you plan on becoming liberal, Clayton?

There is no time like the present to take that first step.

 

[Jitss617]

I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is, does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence? A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.


Personally I am undecided on the first question because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know, that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.


As for it being protected under the religious freedom clause, I don't think so. The fact that he is a preacher is not sufficient to grant him that protection. That is especially true given the fact that he is not citing any religious dogma to justify his words. Here is what he said:

http://[URL="https://www.patheos.co... Be Violence’ If Trump Is Removed From Office

[/URL]

Threats of violence: Christian TV Host Rick Wiles warns that “there is going to be violence in America” if Trump is impeached and removed from office.

Appearing on his TruNews program earlier this week Wiles declared that if President Donald Trump is removed from office his supporters who “know how to fight” will target Democratic lawmakers responsible for removing Trump and “hunt them down.”

Wiles said:

If they take him out, there is going to be violence in America. There are people in this country—veterans, cowboys, mountain men, guys that know how to fight—and they’re going to make a decision that the people that did this to Donald Trump are not going to get away with it and they’re going to hunt them down.

Here is some guidance on the issue;

What are some exceptions to the right to free speech?

Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Honest opinions only please.

There are none.. you can try to Prosecute but it will be taken to the supreme court it’ll be throwing your fucking face

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

This is ignorant as it is wrong – and fails as a strawman fallacy.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not speech in private society, not speech between or among private persons or private entities.

Private citizens opposing speech that private society considers to be offensive does not ‘violate’ anyone’s rights – only government has the potential to violate citizens’ First Amendment rights.

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that the conflicts and controversies of the day be resolved through public discourse and debate – absent involvement by government or the courts; private citizens would determine what is or is not appropriate speech, as long as that determination doesn’t involve government coercion.

Liberals understand this; liberals have always been champions of free speech and free expression, in opposition to government seeking to silence speech considered to be offensive or inappropriate.

To claim that liberals oppose free speech and free expression is a lie.

And no one can claim to be a free speech ‘purist’ if he fails to understand the fact that the free speech right is not unlimited, that the courts alone determine what speech is or is not within she scope of the First Amendment, and that private citizens have neither the capacity nor authority to ‘violate’ the free speech rights of other private citizens.

But what we've seen goes FAR beyond simply "opposing".....

Great. Then go to a crowded theater and yell 'FIRE!" Private venue.....nothing to do with government.

Get on a plane and jokingly say "You are THE BOMB!!"....private entity....private individuals.

When a publicly funded college allows or actively suppresses the voice of one group to be suppressed while advocating for another....it's a Constitutional violation.
You are not allowed (as an individual) to suppress the Constitutional Rights of another individual.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Consider the concept of evolving standards of human rights.

Objectively, and i mean from a very broad objective, the more humans, the less freedom, and by proxy rights we'll have PP

~S~

I can't say that I understand you very well . Can you please speak human?

apologies ,my adhd, etc etc.... PP

Yes there are 'evolving standards' of human rights, in fact they've always been in flux

We could ring up any given point in time, and debate just how 'free' we were in terms of rights, laws, or even in the case of the lack of them

Historically , we could consider any given point in our history , from the Magna Carta on forward a millennium to current times.

And as our rights are also synonymous with our freedoms , a metric can be delineated. No need to re invent that wheel either, as we can find various groups on line who's aspirations are just that.

BUT, one factor is undeniably population density

This is one sore subject when it comes to 'rights' , because individual rights decline , when one has little chance to actually exist as an individual alone

~S~

It’s not so much a matter of standards or rights ‘evolving’ – it’s more a discovery of rights and protected liberties which have always existed.

As Justice Kennedy observed in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

The Founding Generation had the wisdom to recognize the fact that they did not have a finite, comprehensive understanding of all rights and freedoms, that a full accounting of our rights and freedoms would be realized through the political and judicial process, safeguarded by the principles codified in Constitutional case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Maxine Waters telling people to go after Republicans and Trump voters.
That's going too far.
Don't you think???

Did she incite violence and if so how?

^^^^This from the person who only wants honesty.

Funny how he cant bring himself to condemn this.

Condemn what exactly?

Maxine Waters inciting violence. You're not an honest person.

This fails as a red herring fallacy – failed attempts to deflect are indeed dishonest.

 

[miketx]

Did she incite violence and if so how?

^^^^This from the person who only wants honesty.

Funny how he cant bring himself to condemn this.

Condemn what exactly?

Maxine Waters inciting violence. You're not an honest person.

This fails as a red herring fallacy – failed attempts to deflect are indeed dishonest.

I think you've posted "Fallacy" more times than you have posted "Trump". What's up with that girl?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

^^^^This from the person who only wants honesty.

Funny how he cant bring himself to condemn this.

Condemn what exactly?

Maxine Waters inciting violence. You're not an honest person.

This fails as a red herring fallacy – failed attempts to deflect are indeed dishonest.

I think you've posted "Fallacy" more times than you have posted "Trump". What's up with that girl?

tI be perfectly fair to Clayton, though, those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by his use of the terms "racist", "bigot" and "conseevatives are all big meanie poopooheads."

there are just two choices in his childish little world - March in lockstep with his extreme leftist orthodoxy or be called names.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Funny how he cant bring himself to condemn this.

Condemn what exactly?

Maxine Waters inciting violence. You're not an honest person.

This fails as a red herring fallacy – failed attempts to deflect are indeed dishonest.

I think you've posted "Fallacy" more times than you have posted "Trump". What's up with that girl?

tI be perfectly fair to Clayton, though, those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by his use of the terms "racist", "bigot" and "conseevatives are all big meanie poopooheads."

there are just two choices in his childish little world - March in lockstep with his extreme leftist orthodoxy or be called names.

"there are just two choices in his childish little world - March in lockstep with his extreme leftist orthodoxy or be called names"

and this is different from the typical conservative?
every trump supporter?

march in lockstep with THEIR EXTREME IDEOLOGY or be called;
libtard
libernazi
liberscum
LIEberal
LIEbeRATS
DEMONcRATS
scum
nazis
commies
god haters
christian haters
America haters
flag burners
traitors'teasounous
satanists


kinda like that?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I have a serious question for everyone. All rights have limitations and free speech is no exception. The question is, does the example below cross the line. Does it violate what should be allowed because it can be interpreted as inciting violence? A second question which may complicate the issue further might be whether or not freedom of religion might protect this speech.


Personally I am undecided on the first question because he is not telling people to commit acts of violence. On the other hand, is giving them permission, and planting a suggestion to commit violence, and as we know, that is all it takes to light a fire under certain people.


As for it being protected under the religious freedom clause, I don't think so. The fact that he is a preacher is not sufficient to grant him that protection. That is especially true given the fact that he is not citing any religious dogma to justify his words. Here is what he said:

http://[URL='https://www.patheos.co... Be Violence’ If Trump Is Removed From Office

[/URL]

Threats of violence: Christian TV Host Rick Wiles warns that “there is going to be violence in America” if Trump is impeached and removed from office.

Appearing on his TruNews program earlier this week Wiles declared that if President Donald Trump is removed from office his supporters who “know how to fight” will target Democratic lawmakers responsible for removing Trump and “hunt them down.”

Wiles said:

If they take him out, there is going to be violence in America. There are people in this country—veterans, cowboys, mountain men, guys that know how to fight—and they’re going to make a decision that the people that did this to Donald Trump are not going to get away with it and they’re going to hunt them down.

Here is some guidance on the issue;

What are some exceptions to the right to free speech?

Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Honest opinions only please.

He didnt make a personal threat, he issued a warning. I agree.

Personally, I WILL target you at the ballot box. And I'm not worried. Your political lynching will fail. I have no doubt. God is with this man. You are fighting GOD.

god has a message for you: