ShivaX
4959
Sure. People say that sort of thing fairly often. The caveat of “if found guilty of treason” does a lot of work here.
If anyone is still advertising for the dude that launched a crusade against parents who’s kids were murdered, I doubt this is going to register.
Timex
4960
It’s not a threat to assassinate in any sense at all.
It’s a threat to be the guy who pulls the switch in a state execution. It can’t be reasonable interpreted as a threat of violence.
I am more worried about his asshole audience trying to do it for him.
And now that Homeland Security has disbanded its domestic terror intelligence operations, there’ll be fewer obstacles in their way.
I dunno. It’s clearly intended to intimidate, and it is reasonable to see it as in incitement to violence in the context of the medium and method of the statement’s delivery, as well as the intended audience. As the chances of anyone being convicted of treason–a very difficult crime to prosecute, especially without a declared war, without which it’s virtually impossible to even have an effective charge of treason–are non-existent, for the speaker to use that caveat doesn’t mean much.It’s a barely present fig leaf over an incitement to murder in my view. To say “if convicted of treason” is like saying “if aliens attack.”
Given the history of freedom of speech law, it is entirely possible that a court could find something like this as falling outside the realm of protected speech. Or not; there is never an easy answer when those cases are litigated.
Timex
4964
I think the part that makes it clearly not a real threat is that it’s about flipping a switch to open the trap door on gallows.
It’s just not a credible threat to me.
Again, I am not worried about his fat ass, I am more worried about his audience.
Nesrie
4967
Technically those war dead were US citizens, so someone should inform that guy that they’re covered by regular Memorial Day.
As you imply though, that wouldn’t achieve the dogwhistle effect he’s looking for.
ShivaX
4970
Nothing to see here (and it’s actually 4, they just prevented one).
That’s like commemorating traitors. National Traitor Day!
The Union was generally lenient toward former Confederates (Appomattox setting the tone). I don’t know the precise legality of when CSA soldiers would have been granted U.S. citizenship again – keep in mind, from Lincoln’s point of view, they never stopped being U.S. citizens as the Confederacy was never a legitimate government. Of course, Lincoln was dead when Reconstruction began. It’s possible that some kind of oath of loyalty had to be sworn. On the other hand, Lee was famously stripped of his citizenship which was posthumously reinstated over a century later; I assume there were different rules applied to Confederate leaders vs. the rank-and-file.
Timex
4973
Of course. If we wanted to revoke the citizenship of all the confederates, we could have done so without fighting the Civil War, and saved everyone a lot of trouble.
At least 5 times during the hearing on white nationalist violence, GOP members asked if “Muslims hate the Jews.”
Again white nationalist violence.
