zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
The number of people trying to defend what is, at best, extremely childish behavior is fascinating to me. Would you really go up to your city counselor in real life and tell them you wish death on them and their family, and pretend it's OK because it's an obscure reference to 90s rap (mind you the rap song WAS an actual death threat)? Do you think you'd be met with laughter? Do you actually consider that socially acceptable behavior?

If you dislike their politics, so be it - donate to campaigns or personally run against them. Write a letter explaining how you'd like them to vote.. But the amount of absolute crass behavior people allow "because it's the internet" is mind boggling.

>>tw04+ka
Freedom of speech entails allowing for speech you dislike and find abhorrent. Just be honest and say you are against freedom of speech, and you are in favor of compelled speech. SV types have this weird politeness shtick.

>>mise_e+rg
Death threats are not free speech.

>>iinnPP+Rg
... yes and no?

It's debatable.

Imminent exhortations of others to break the law should be illegal.

Past that, it's a slippery slope to pre-arresting people for thought crime.

As abhorrent as some of the language is, it seems... dicey... if the US had simply banned gangster rap, NWA, fuck-the-police style music. And it's a tenuous line from threat to actual violence.

Which is why "credible" is usually the standard for charging. I.e. did you make a threat and take actions to realize the threat?