User Controls
Man who sent bomb and mass shooting threats to Merriam-Webster over gender-inclusive entries pleads guilty
-
2022-09-19 at 9:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump No, saying you will behead someone is more credible than saying you will bomb someone is more credible cos everyone has access to sharp knives, but not many people have access to functional bombs.
this is true.
but there is a thing called "General threat" or a threat that isn't certain. like did they say it out of anger but would never follow through. or did they say it figuratively (though a written manifesto is going to have to be viewed as more of an actual threat). was it snarky or did they drunk text a threat but would never do such a thing? -
2022-09-19 at 10:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump No, saying you will behead someone is more credible than saying you will bomb someone is more credible cos everyone has access to sharp knives, but not many people have access to functional bombs.
smh even if we accepted this (which we don't, because access to the knowledge of functional bomb manufacture is accessible to everyone, and so by extension is access to functional bombs) "im going to kill your top editor" is entirely credible smh -
2022-09-19 at 10:06 PM UTCitt is just white islamophobes exhibiting their typical irrational hatred
-
2022-09-19 at 10:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Murk Lore this is true.
but there is a thing called "General threat" or a threat that isn't certain. like did they say it out of anger but would never follow through. or did they say it figuratively (though a written manifesto is going to have to be viewed as more of an actual threat). was it snarky or did they drunk text a threat but would never do such a thing?
18 U.S.C. § 241 makes it unlawful to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” exercising a constitutional right, including the right to vote.
As the publisher of the dictionary was engaged in the constitutional right of freedom of the press making a death threat against them is a violation of federal law. Ability to carry out the threat has no bearing on guilt. -
2022-09-19 at 10:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker 18 U.S.C. § 241 makes it unlawful to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” exercising a constitutional right, including the right to vote.
As the publisher of the dictionary was engaged in the constitutional right of freedom of the press making a death threat against them is a violation of federal law. Ability to carry out the threat has no bearing on guilt.
god bless america (although credibility is an important factor still: you probably couldn't secure a conviction for this crime with a threat to blow up merriam-webster with a space laser like Donald Trump said - even though it does meet all the criteria listed above - because it's such a facially absurd non-credible threat)
thank you for your service -
2022-09-19 at 10:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker 18 U.S.C. § 241 makes it unlawful to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” exercising a constitutional right, including the right to vote.
As the publisher of the dictionary was engaged in the constitutional right of freedom of the press making a death threat against them is a violation of federal law. Ability to carry out the threat has no bearing on guilt.
Freedom of speech is also a constitutional right. So if someone is yelling their ass off for no reason at 3am while you are trying to sleep and you shout out the window "shut the fuck up right now or I will come down there and I will fucking murder you I swear" you would be in violation of that law. -
2022-09-19 at 10:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump Freedom of speech is also a constitutional right. So if someone is yelling their ass off for no reason at 3am while you are trying to sleep and you shout out the window "shut the fuck up right now or I will come down there and I will fucking murder you I swear" you would be in violation of that law.
Your freedom to use your rights end when you use them in such a fashion that it infringes on the rights of others. -
2022-09-19 at 11:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker The white civilians are notbbombing other civilians who different than them.
ja, they did something more cruel like lynching and internment,The whites don't follow a common "religion" that calls for war against all who don't follow those beliefs or at least pay a tax.
1 Samuel 15:3
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”The whites don't treat women as possessions or execute people based on the choice of gender they choose to have sex with.
hitler.pngIf, as a group, you constantly engage in or support the actions stated above you will and should be "targeted".
terrorism is ok ? -
2022-09-19 at 11:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny ja, they did something more cruel like lynching and internment,
1 Samuel 15:3
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
hitler.png
terrorism is ok ?
I guess you missed the part where I said members of every race including whites and the part where I pointed out Muslim is not a race.
Try arguing with what people say instead of your little strawmen. -
2022-09-19 at 11:23 PM UTC
-
2022-09-19 at 11:27 PM UTC
-
2022-09-20 at 9:20 AM UTC
-
2022-09-20 at 10:35 AM UTCI like this dude's style, he should have stopped short after the "Contact Us" post because it seemed they didn't care until he actually said he was gonna come do it himself.
Telling a place you hope you suffer horrible harm and injury is still free speech. I'm not infringing anyones rights by sharing my opinion on a hypothetical situation. -
2022-09-20 at 10:36 AM UTC
-
2022-09-20 at 3:18 PM UTC