• archonet@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Of course not, but they’re going to make an example out of her to deter the rest of the proles.

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        There is zero chance anyone in a power position in the US can grasp these terms and their real life ramifications.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Unfortunately that’s my conclusion as well. They’ll do this and congratulate themselves on teaching those poors a lesson. In better language I’m sure but that’s the core meaning. And while they’re doing that the “poors” are going to be making protest signs, at the very least.

  • NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    7 days ago

    This reminds me of Minority Report. Arrested by the pre-crime unit.

    Guilty without the crime actually being committed.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      If her crime is threatening then that actually is what she did, in the past.

      The punishment of 15 years is just way over the top

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 days ago

        That’s not what she did. There are legal standards for what constitutes a threat, and what she said isn’t one.

  • VerbFlow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    You know what? Everyone deserves freedom of speech, and threatening healthcare CEOs is not, in my opinion, a breach of it. There is a huge difference between threatening vulnerable minorities and threatening invulnerable minorities.

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 days ago

      Doesn’t a threat have to be credible? As in you can make a threat if you’d like to but it has to actually be a legitimate threat. This isn’t that.

      Realistically unless someone says this phrase and has google searches of the CEOs home address, this isn’t a credible threat at all.

      • Aeri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        You have to make sure you make threats so outlandish that you couldn’t possibly execute them, like “I’m going to grab Trump by the ankle and spin around really fast, and then let go, launching him directly into the sun”

        • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          Maybe if we start a rumor that’s there’s billions of exploitable people on Pluto all the rich CEO’s will race each other there, die like the ones in that shitty submarine and leave us the fuck alone.

          Happy ending.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      “Freedom of speech” in US Law means that the government cannot suppress ideas, expressions, or beliefs so long as those ideas or beliefs do not harm specific peoples, nor negatively impact public health and morals, nor negatively impact national security. In some cases, it isn’t allowed to promote harm of protected classes including race, religion, skin color, gender, or disability, but in the USA that often becomes a civil matter.

      If I had my way we’d be even more strict about it: hate speech would be an actual crime and sexual orientations would also be protected classes.

      So a woman quoting a murderer who assassinated an insurance company CEO, directly sending that quote to the insurance company that denied her claim, is not and will never be covered by freedom of speech.

    • Birdie@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      7 days ago

      I don’t think that’s right. She’s been released on bond to house arrest; the charges still stand.

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      The thing about Jury Nullification is that you have to make it through the majority of a trial. 97-98% of criminal cases (in the U.S.) end in a plea deal without ever going to trial.

      • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Sure, but that’s on them. Taking a deal is always in the hands of the defendant. But if it looks like public opinion is on their side and the concept of jury Nullification has become common knowledge, that might be enough to substantially swing what’s offered in those plea deals. Prosecutor might be generous to avoid the jury letting them off Scott free.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Did she say she was running for the presidency? Because in that case, she could take someone out on main street and she could grab them by the pussy too and nobody would say anything.

    She should have tried to purchase a president or maybe purchase the presidency itself for a self pardon.

    Joe should pardon her wtf Joe!