The lawyer’s argument that the death threat to the judge came from someone incapable of carrying it out, therefore of no consequence is interesting. How many death threats would he accept phoned into his home/family before he considered it consequential? Can they all be excused until someone shows up to make it consequential? Isn’t logic/critical thinking part of Juris Doctorates anymore?
@Catawu careful, because the lawyer might simply reply consistently and thus reinforce his position.
Yes, maybe they can all be excused, with logical consistency.
@volkris any judge that would accept that answer would themselves be at risk of such abuse. I doubt it would pan out that way. There can be no legal way to threaten the safety or lives of anyone, famous or not, without consequence. One does not lose their rights to live in peace simply by virtue of being public/govt employee, celebrity, etc. That makes no sense, much less legal sense.
@Catawu the argument is that it was not a legitimate threat to safety, and so it amounts to a restriction on speech without concrete cause.
@volkris Threats, intimidation, harassment are not legitimate Free Speech. Stalking is not Free Speech. There are limits. We don’t wait until the bullet is fired, the knife draws blood, before it is taken as an illegal act. And if you insist that until someone is physically attacked, it’s merely free speech, you and I are done with this conversation.
