|
Post by turbonium on Apr 12, 2007 2:28:45 GMT -4
The problem isn't just one or two loons on an isolated forum. The Loose Change Forum is one of the main truther forums almost none of the "truthers" objected, indeed the only ones who did were irregular posters. The others agreed with him. Dylan Avery one of the gurus of the movement encouraged it, even the moderator who stopped the thread saw nothing wrong with Jack's threats and comments. On the other forum where he said that his wife being killed was a good thing no one objected and several concurred. I admit that the provocative title of the other thread was 'bait' to get one of you guys to reply. Maybe the entire movement isn’t made up of nut jobs but they make up a significant part of the movement and many of the others seem to accept that. Are you completely unaware of the threats made by official 9/11 story supporters - against 9/11 "truthers"? Or are you aware of them, but are ignoring them? Whatever the case, you haven't mentioned them. Such as this recent piece from "Scarborough Country", on MSNBC: Danny Bonaduce (Danny Partridge), as Joe Scarborough's so-called "political expert"!, suggests that Rosie O'Donnell should be "strung up for treason". www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pYesEy5GgIScarborough doesn't mind that his demented...., um..."expert", is calling for the murder of O'Donnell on mainstream TV. And Bill O'Reilly? Last year, he said that he would like to see 9/11 activist Kevin Barrett murdered and thrown into Boston Harbor. www.911podcasts.com/files/video/oreilly_nass.wmv These are just two examples from FOX and MSNBC, which reach much greater numbers of the public than the Loose Change forum you've been citing. And, unlike the anonymous poster(s) on that forum, these two threats came from well-known public figures, clearly identified. You argue this pertains to the 9/11 "truth" movement..... "Maybe the entire movement isn’t made up of nut jobs but they make up a significant part of the movement and many of the others seem to accept that."I'd wager that the "official" 9/11group has just as many, if not more, "nut jobs" than the "truth" group does. As to Rodriguez he is a liar, I can only speculate as to why. Come on. Your accusation is - as ever - completely unfounded. Lie - 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true You have no evidence whatsoever that he is a liar - to wit, no evidence that he has intentionally made false claims or statements. On top of that, you can't even come up with any valid reason(s) why he would be lying! His account of David's appearance was greatly toned down since the CNN interview on 9/11, and since then, has never been "embellished" - which totally contradicts your basic argument. You need to present some real evidence that proves he is a liar. If you've already made your best case, then you need to stop calling him a liar. Because that essentially makes it slander. One last note in regard to the thread topic. Imo, anyone who makes death threats, or advocates harming others, simply because of what they say and believe about 9/11 (or any issue), is truly scum. Your claim that a handful of "nut jobs" is characteristic of a majority of people in a group numbering millions in the US, and many more millions worldwide, is beyond ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 12, 2007 15:35:04 GMT -4
Danny Bonaduce . . . suggests that Rosie O'Donnell should be "strung up for treason".
Scarborough doesn't mind that his demented...., um..."expert", is calling for the murder of O'Donnell on mainstream TV. You seem to have difficulty with the concept of "murder." Execution for treason is not murder (unless the condemned was somehow framed for treason, in which case the act of the perpetrator, but not the good-faith acts of the government or the executioners, would qualify as murder). Further, even assuming for the sake of argument that Bonaduce was serious, and not engaging in hyperbole, claiming that someone is guilty of a crime, and advocating that that person ought to be punished for that crime, is neither illegal nor a threat (though it might constitute the tort of libel or slander in some cases). And Bill O'Reilly? Last year, he said that he would like to see 9/11 activist Kevin Barrett murdered and thrown into Boston Harbor. Did you even watch the clip?? What O'Reilly said was that former Boston University president John Silber would never have tolerated Barrett's behavior from a member of his faculty, and that Silber would have tossed Barrett into the Charles River, from whence Barrett would have floated into Boston Harbor. Barrett wrote a letter to FOX claiming that O'Reilly said he wanted to see Barrett murdered. O'Reilly merely gave as his opinion that Silber, who had a reputation for being extremely tough on leftist faculty members and student organizations (he was nicknamed "Long John Silber" by some disgruntled students), would have reacted in that manner. This is neither a threat, nor libel, against Barrett, though theoretically it might be considered libel against Silber. These are just two examples from FOX and MSNBC, If these are what you consider typical examples, you have no case whatsoever. which reach much greater numbers of the public than the Loose Change forum you've been citing.Irrelevant to the issue of whether the statements in question constitute threats. And, unlike the anonymous poster(s) on that forum, these two threats came from well-known public figures, clearly identified. Why do you imagine that any reputable news organization would not fire an on-air personality who actually threatened someone on the air? I'd wager that the "official" 9/11group has just as many, if not more, "nut jobs" than the "truth" group does. You'd lose, provided the matter could be objectively tested. One last note in regard to the thread topic. Imo, anyone who makes death threats, or advocates harming others, simply because of what they say and believe about 9/11 (or any issue), is truly scum.IMO, anyone who routinely accuses government and law-enforcement officials of complicity in monstrous crimes, and fails to retract such accusations, even when repeatedly proven wrong, is truly scum. Your claim that a handful of "nut jobs" is characteristic of a majority of people in a group numbering millions in the US, and many more millions worldwide, is beyond ridiculous. [emphasis original] For whatever reason (likely deliberate obtuseness), you are missing the point, which is that no one admonished him on moral gounds, and many expressed sympathy or approval.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 12, 2007 15:52:56 GMT -4
I don't disagree that O'Reilly is a rotten scoundrel. But playing down the threats that truther made and the awful things he said about his family is equally rotten. I have no sympathy for people who make threats no matter what their viewpoint is. Defending that man's words because he shares your viewpoint is inexcusable.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 13, 2007 8:36:11 GMT -4
Danny Bonaduce . . . suggests that Rosie O'Donnell should be "strung up for treason".
Scarborough doesn't mind that his demented...., um..."expert", is calling for the murder of O'Donnell on mainstream TV. You seem to have difficulty with the concept of "murder." Execution for treason is not murder (unless the condemned was somehow framed for treason, in which case the act of the perpetrator, but not the good-faith acts of the government or the executioners, would qualify as murder). Further, even assuming for the sake of argument that Bonaduce was serious, and not engaging in hyperbole, claiming that someone is guilty of a crime, and advocating that that person ought to be punished for that crime, is neither illegal nor a threat (though it might constitute the tort of libel or slander in some cases). And Bill O'Reilly? Last year, he said that he would like to see 9/11 activist Kevin Barrett murdered and thrown into Boston Harbor. Did you even watch the clip?? What O'Reilly said was that former Boston University president John Silber would never have tolerated Barrett's behavior from a member of his faculty, and that Silber would have tossed Barrett into the Charles River, from whence Barrett would have floated into Boston Harbor. Barrett wrote a letter to FOX claiming that O'Reilly said he wanted to see Barrett murdered. O'Reilly merely gave as his opinion that Silber, who had a reputation for being extremely tough on leftist faculty members and student organizations (he was nicknamed "Long John Silber" by some disgruntled students), would have reacted in that manner. This is neither a threat, nor libel, against Barrett, though theoretically it might be considered libel against Silber. These are just two examples from FOX and MSNBC, If these are what you consider typical examples, you have no case whatsoever. which reach much greater numbers of the public than the Loose Change forum you've been citing.Irrelevant to the issue of whether the statements in question constitute threats. And, unlike the anonymous poster(s) on that forum, these two threats came from well-known public figures, clearly identified. Why do you imagine that any reputable news organization would not fire an on-air personality who actually threatened someone on the air? I'd wager that the "official" 9/11group has just as many, if not more, "nut jobs" than the "truth" group does. You'd lose, provided the matter could be objectively tested. One last note in regard to the thread topic. Imo, anyone who makes death threats, or advocates harming others, simply because of what they say and believe about 9/11 (or any issue), is truly scum.IMO, anyone who routinely accuses government and law-enforcement officials of complicity in monstrous crimes, and fails to retract such accusations, even when repeatedly proven wrong, is truly scum. Your claim that a handful of "nut jobs" is characteristic of a majority of people in a group numbering millions in the US, and many more millions worldwide, is beyond ridiculous. [emphasis original] For whatever reason (likely deliberate obtuseness), you are missing the point, which is that no one admonished him on moral gounds, and many expressed sympathy or approval. Thanks to Spitfire for saving me some typing. Yes Donny was obviously being facetious and much as I think he is an idiot O’Rielly didn’t threaten Barrett. Nor are these people really representative of the debunkers. They are rightwing pundits part of whose shtick. They don’t argue the facts of the case. Search in vain for anything parallel from debunkers here or on BAUT or JREF or other forums. You have yet to deal with the fact that there was virtually no objection to Jack’s comments on 2 forums. On one of the leading “truth” forums virtually no “truthers” and none of the moderators or regular members objected to the death threat and several including the list owner encouraged it. So do you agree Avery is scum, by your definition you should. The 1 or 2 members who objected we accused of being closet debunkers. On the English forum no one objected when he said his wife’s death was a good thing and God’s will and as on the LCF several members agreed. So there are two possibilities either these sentiments are representative of the movement, at least on those 2 forums, or many truthers objected but were too cowed by peer pressure to say anything. Perhaps “truthers” find easy to accept that people are so ‘sheeeple’ like because they are. As for "Slick Willie" you have failed to dent the case that he intentionally changed his story.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 13, 2007 22:00:52 GMT -4
Thanks to Spitfire for saving me some typing.Glad I could be of help.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 14, 2007 21:58:31 GMT -4
I don't disagree that O'Reilly is a rotten scoundrel. But playing down the threats that truther made and the awful things he said about his family is equally rotten. I have no sympathy for people who make threats no matter what their viewpoint is. Defending that man's words because he shares your viewpoint is inexcusable. If you had actually read my last post, I said.... Imo, anyone who makes death threats, or advocates harming others, simply because of what they say and believe about 9/11 (or any issue), is truly scum. I don't play down death threats, nor defend those who make them. Whether they do or do not share my viewpoint on issues such as 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 15, 2007 4:04:14 GMT -4
I said..... Danny Bonaduce . . . suggests that Rosie O'Donnell should be "strung up for treason".
Scarborough doesn't mind that his demented...., um..."expert", is calling for the murder of O'Donnell on mainstream TV. You seem to have difficulty with the concept of "murder" Execution for treason is not murder (unless the condemned was somehow framed for treason, in which case the act of the perpetrator, but not the good-faith acts of the government or the executioners, would qualify as murder). Logic goes out the window, yet again. - Bonaduce says that O'Donnell should be "strung up for treason". - You reply that "Execution for treason is not murder" And indeed, you are correct - the execution of someone found guilty of treason is not murder! And when one calls for the execution of the person found guilty of treason, that is not a death threat! But when one person unfoundedly accuses another person of treason, and calls for the execution of that person - it is a death threat, based on slander. O'Donnell has not been found guilty of treason, not even so charged. Got it now? Further, even assuming for the sake of argument that Bonaduce was serious, and not engaging in hyperbole, claiming that someone is guilty of a crime, and advocating that that person ought to be punished for that crime, is neither illegal nor a threat (though it might constitute the tort of libel or slander in some cases). So if I called you a traitor who should be strung up, it wouldn't be a threat? But if I just said you should be strung up, it would be a threat? So, as long as you falsely accuse someone of a crime before you suggest they should be executed for that false accused crime, it's perfectly OK!! Slander the person first, then suggest the person be killed. Got it. Did you even watch the clip?? What O'Reilly said was that former Boston University president John Silber would never have tolerated Barrett's behavior from a member of his faculty, and that Silber would have tossed Barrett into the Charles River, from whence Barrett would have floated into Boston Harbor. Barrett wrote a letter to FOX claiming that O'Reilly said he wanted to see Barrett murdered. O'Reilly merely gave as his opinion that Silber, who had a reputation for being extremely tough on leftist faculty members and student organizations (he was nicknamed "Long John Silber" by some disgruntled students), would have reacted in that manner. This is neither a threat, nor libel, against Barrett, though theoretically it might be considered libel against Silber. O'Reilly said... “At the University of Wisconsin there are no standards. . . . I'm stunned. This guy would have been gone at Boston University, my alma mater, in a heartbeat. The Chancellor there, John Silber, would of--would have--this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor."O'Reilly "merely gave as his opinion" on how Silber would deal with Barrett? Get real. O'Reilly was gushing with pride about how his hero/idol Silber would have dealt with Barrett!! He's a pathetic lapdog who worships scumbags like Silber and Bush. I said... One last note in regard to the thread topic. Imo, anyone who makes death threats, or advocates harming others, simply because of what they say and believe about 9/11 (or any issue), is truly scum.IMO, anyone who routinely accuses government and law-enforcement officials of complicity in monstrous crimes, and fails to retract such accusations, even when repeatedly proven wrong, is truly scum. And IMO, anyone who routinely defends the government anytime they are accused of complicity in monstrous crimes, even with overwhelming evidence of such complicity, are the lowest scum of them all. We all have our own opinions. I said.... Your claim that a handful of "nut jobs" is characteristic of a majority of people in a group numbering millions in the US, and many more millions worldwide, is beyond ridiculous. For whatever reason (likely deliberate obtuseness), you are missing the point, which is that no one admonished him on moral gounds, and many expressed sympathy or approval. As I said, a handful of nutjobs that support his view. (Btw, the first post here has a link which has since been removed) There are now several posts by members who have admonished his behavior... z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6889And the original claim - that most "truthers" are "morally bankrupt" - is completely unfounded and false.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 15, 2007 5:05:21 GMT -4
Yes Donny was obviously being facetious ?? He was "obviously being facetious"? What indicated to you that Bonaduce was being facetious? You should have no problem, if it was so "obvious" to you. He was completely serious, imo. No smirk, no smile, no wink of an eye, and no change in tone of voice. And he defended his comment moments later. and much as I think he is an idiot O’Rielly didn’t threaten Barrett. He didn't threaten Barrett. He just got all giddy fantasizing about how his heroic Chancellor would have snuffed him. That's how pathetic O'Reilly is. He wouldn't have the nads to threaten anybody directly, but he'll gleefully brown-nose up to anybody who he thinks would. Nor are these people really representative of the debunkers. They are rightwing pundits part of whose shtick. They don’t argue the facts of the case. Search in vain for anything parallel from debunkers here or on BAUT or JREF or other forums. That is exactly the same as the majority of "truthers" - they argue the facts. And they don't threaten to kill those who oppose their view. And they don't condone or support such behavior, "truther" or not. But the "debunkers" on TV don't argue the facts. Why not? You have yet to deal with the fact that there was virtually no objection to Jack’s comments on 2 forums. On one of the leading “truth” forums virtually no “truthers” and none of the moderators or regular members objected to the death threat and several including the list owner encouraged it. So do you agree Avery is scum, by your definition you should. The 1 or 2 members who objected we accused of being closet debunkers. On the English forum no one objected when he said his wife’s death was a good thing and God’s will and as on the LCF several members agreed.. As I said earlier, that thread was removed, so I can't review it. And I also noted and linked to posts by members who have objected to it. It's been dealt with. As for "Slick Willie" you have failed to dent the case that he intentionally changed his story. No. You have failed to support your claim of intentional lying. It's purely unfounded speculation. Total nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 15, 2007 6:36:48 GMT -4
But if I just said you should be strung up, it would be a threat? Nope, not even then. "I'm going to string you up" would be a threat. With or without the treason clause, " X should be strung up" is only a statement of opinion. And no, saying "Fire has never melted steel" isn't treason... it's just monumentally ignorant. Still not a threat.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 15, 2007 11:04:34 GMT -4
So if I called you a traitor who should be strung up, it wouldn't be a threat? But if I just said you should be strung up, it would be a threat? Actually neither would be a threat. A threat is when someone says they or someone else will do harm to someone (and the latter could be a warning depending on the situation). You can’t ignore the 1st part of the quote where he said Barrett should have been fired, which brings up free speech issues but wasn’t a call to violence. The second part seems to be a bit of hyperbole but even taken literally it still wasn’t a threat or even a call for violence to be done, I tend to agree but that doesn’t change the differences between what he and Jack said So do you agree Dylan Avery is scum for encouraging Jack on his forum? As I said I so entitled the other thread to get your attention, it worked. Two of those nutjobs are Avery and another administrator of LCF, one of the main truther forums. One thinks that if a significant number of the members of the two forums Jack posted on disagreed more than two or three irregular posters would have objected on moral grounds. The administrator who removed said he (or she) did so because another poster included some of Robert’s personal details. What they failed to mention is that it was the forum’s “owner” who had done so and that post could have been deleted, so much for standing up for the “truth”. Presumably it was deleted because it was so embarrassing as another administrator admitted. Fortunately Google cached the pages Page 1 72.14.209.104/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&q=cache:http%3A//z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D6799 Page 2 72.14.209.104/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&q=cache:http%3A//z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D6799%26st%3D50 Let’s correct your sentence “There are now several posts by a single now ex-member (FMB who only made 34 posts) who admonished his behavior on moral grounds”. Saying Jack’s comments were ‘bad for the movement’ doesn’t really count. Yes Donny was obviously being facetious ?? He was "obviously being facetious"? What indicated to you that Bonaduce was being facetious? You should have no problem, if it was so "obvious" to you. He was completely serious, imo. No smirk, no smile, no wink of an eye, and no change in tone of voice. How do we know Jonathan Swift wasn’t serious? The comment was so absurd I find it hard to believe he was serious. What exactly did he say? Fire him, seems more like it. Jack’s comments seem to have been condoned by all the regular members of 2 forums one of which is one of the main ones They aren’t really debunkers, just right-wing pundits, they rarely honestly argue the facts about anything and merely blovate. There are several forums were debunkers debate the facts with truthers. I have never seen a debunker make comments like Jack’s. I find it hard to believe such comments would have gotten the level of support and lack of condemnation his did. It was removed well after it was brought to your attention, so you had ample opportunity to review it and now you can do so again. Also see comments above. ‘Dealt with’ here or on LCF? I note that you seem to have abandoned that thread; It isn’t appropriate to transfer that debate here. If you have reasonable replies to my lasts posts on that thread I suggest you post them there. Otherwise my evidence that he intentionally gave contradictory accounts remains unchallenged.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 15, 2007 18:25:33 GMT -4
And IMO, anyone who routinely defends the government anytime they are accused of complicity in monstrous crimes, even with overwhelming evidence of such complicity, are the lowest scum of them all. That's funny--all the "evidence" I've seen has been remarkably underwhelming. If you could even call it evidence at all, which I don't; it's rampant speculation based on what people want to believe is true. So, Turbonium, what are you doing about the American policies you don't like? Are you just blathering on uninformed garbage on a website, or are you active in the real world? What are you doing about the war? Are you active in protests? Are you writing your congressional representatives? What are you doing about the things you don't like?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 15, 2007 23:37:41 GMT -4
Can't you see? He's complaining about it on the Internet! What more effective tool for government change is there than internet forums that discuss whether Apollo was hoaxed or not?
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 16, 2007 16:45:37 GMT -4
Logic goes out the window, yet again.Oh, please. Your opinions about legal matters have been conclusively demonstrated to be, quite frankly, absurd. For example: You accused Gerald Ford of "illegally" tampering with evidence merely because he altered the wording of one passage of the Warren Report. You accused Arlen Specter of asking questions that "lacked foundation," even though his entire line of questioning was based on Warren Commission evidence. You demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the objection "assumes facts not in evidence," and the difference between adversarial and non-adversarial proceedings, yet you acted as if you were an expert. These and several other examples are documented here. But when one person unfoundedly accuses another person of treason, and calls for the execution of that person - it is a death threat, based on slander. [emphasis original]Non sequitur. A death threat is a crime, but slander is a tort (at least in the US). Further, the concept that you don't seem to grasp, for whatever reason, is that, in order to be a threat, Bonaduce would have had to have stated that he was going to kill her, or that he was going to have someone kill her. From the US Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual: See here for the cases cited O'Donnell has not been found guilty of treason, not even so charged.Irrelevent to the issue of whether Bonaduce's statement was a threat. To reiterate, expressing one's opinion that someone is guilty of a crime, and should be punished for that crime, is not a threat. Further, according to Wikipedia, what Bonaduce actually said was, "personally I think at this point if anyone had a rope thick enough, I think that Rosie should be strung up for treason." This is clearly a shot at her weight, which tends to indicate that the statement was made in jest. Got it now?Yes, I've got that you just made up this ridiculous claim that Bonaduce and O'Reilly threatened "truthers" in order to attempt to deflect attention from the appalling statements of approval and encouragement of the threats against Gravy on the LC forum. So if I called you a traitor who should be strung up, it wouldn't be a threat?
But if I just said you should be strung up, it would be a threat?Neither is a threat. There is no "avowed . . . intent" on your part to do anything to me. Note that in certain cases your statements might qualify as incitement (if, for example, you were addressing an angry mob outside my home); however, neither Bonaduce's nor O'Reilly's statements rise to that level. So, as long as you falsely accuse someone of a crime before you suggest they should be executed for that false accused crime, it's perfectly OK!! Again, the point that you are missing is that accusations and opinions are not threats. As noted, a threat must contain an "avowed . . . intent." Slander the person first, then suggest the person be killed. Got it. As noted, this is still not a threat. O'Reilly "merely gave as his opinion" on how Silber would deal with Barrett? Get real. O'Reilly was gushing with pride about how his hero/idol Silber would have dealt with Barrett!!Your histrionics are irrelevant to the issue of whether O'Reilly's comments constitute a threat. He's a pathetic lapdog who worships scumbags like Silber and Bush.Er, pardon me, but your agenda is showing. And IMO, anyone who routinely defends the government anytime they are accused of complicity in monstrous crimes, even with overwhelming evidence of such complicity, are the lowest scum of them all.There is no "overwhelming" evidence. There isn't even any credible evidence. All of the so-called "evidence" put forth by conspiracists has been shown to be based on ignorance and misinformation. For example, how many qualified structural engineers have questioned the substance of the NIST report? Going back to your JFK claims, where is your "overwhelming" evidence? You put forth 39 claims, all but two of which were refuted, and you were unable to provide any evidence for those two. You repeatedly refused to answer several direct questions, despite numerous requests to do so, and after you had clearly lost the debate, you merely abandoned the thread. So, again, I ask you, where is your "overwhelming" evidence? As I said, a handful of nutjobs that support his view.Are you saying the regular posters and administrators on the LC forum are not representative of the "truth" movement? There are now several posts by members who have admonished his behavior...Covered by lenbrazil. And the original claim - that most "truthers" are "morally bankrupt" - is completely unfounded and false. You accused two Dallas police detectives of complicity in the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. When I called you on it, you implied that it didn't matter because the Dallas P.D. must have been connected to organized crime (through Jack Ruby) and weren't "a group of boy scouts." You declined to retract your accusation even after it was demonstrated to be non-credible. I consider that to be strong evidence of moral bankruptcy. [edit: typo and grammar]
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Apr 16, 2007 18:40:03 GMT -4
Jackchit is only one of those who has threatened Mark robert's life. The owner and administrator of "Pilots for 911 truth" has also stated he would like to kill Roberts. He has also called for the execution (lined up and shot - no mention of a trial) of all who have opposed the 'truth movement' once the revolution has overthrown the evil government.
Don't look for any moderator on that forum concerning such behaviour by anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job. However, anyone opposed to the 'movement' (refered to on that site as 'government loyalists') who steps even slightly over the line will be immediatly banned.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 17, 2007 1:09:22 GMT -4
"I'm going to string you up" would be a threat. Indeed, it would be considered a death threat. With or without the treason clause, " X should be strung up" is only a statement of opinion. No. Bonaduce crossed the line of acceptable opinion. Free speech does not mean one can enter into a public forum and promote the murder of a specific, identified person. A site addressing the issue of a "death threat" in legal terms.... That is, the prosecution must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning they would convey. It also must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously, that is, to intimidate or strike fear into the recipient. It is not necessary that the person making the threat intend to carry it out or be capable of doing so. The motive for making the threat is equally irrelevant.www.defencelaw.com/textversion-utter-threats.html#ThreatenThreats - Spoken or written words tending to intimidate or menace others.What Bonaduce said was certainly a threat to O'Donnell. I said... O'Reilly was gushing with pride about how his hero/idol Silber would have dealt with Barrett!! No, it still is a threat. O'Reilly - in a public forum - essentially portrays Barrett as someone who deserves to be killed. That Barrett would feel threatened as a potential target is easy to understand. Same with O'Donnell. Think about it. How would you feel if Bonaduce or O'Reilly held up your driver's license to millions of viewers, then said you should be strung up? Or that if there were still some "standards", you'd be dumped in a lake?
|
|