I reported a guy to the FBI that threatened SoHollywood with murder

[Inactive]

I will be honest, most likely I would not.

I'm sorry you don't take threats against your family members seriously

 

[Inactive]

One can also do an assessment level of a threat by themselves before going too far right? It depends what the threat level is. I don't want to be the boy who cried wolf until the wolf came and ate all his sheep

The threat level is very high. The gay man is a member of a community that hates many groups of people, including gays. It was sent by a man with a throwaway account. We have no idea who he is which makes it very threatening.

 

[Lord Flacko]

The FBI will likely do jackshit, but the guy will most likely stop the threats, so there is no big opinion to be had tbh

 

[Burhan]

Threats of violence against an individual is outside freedom of speech.

For educational purposes, do a research on this and post what you find. It is good for all to see the legality of this. Most people don't understand what freedom of speech is and what is actionable cause for law enforcement. I know you are free to say "Fire", but not in a crowd of people to cause mayhem. But let us do further investigation on this. Shall we?

 

[Burhan]

The FBI will likely do jackshit, but the guy will most likely stop the threats, so there is no big opinion to be had tbh

Good point. Mr Johnson here, had no clear mind to say this simple reasonable fact. In His wisdom, he got busy on other things.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/43-threats-of-violence.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/true-threats-and-the-limits-of-first-amendment-
protection

http://news.psu.edu/story/341896/20...bing-question-are-there-limits-freedom-speech (Keep in mind, I don't know how reliable this is, but it fits with the others)

http://web.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

And a lot more.

 

[Inactive]

The men in blue will get this criminal

 

[Burhan]

Good first read. I clicked on the first link and quickly read the first paragraph.

Watts Vs United States.


A man at a rally makes public threat against the president and says if he is forced to carry a rifle, first man he wants on his sights is the president LB.JOHSON.

Supreme Court at first rules that was outside the first amendment and therefore prosecutable. They convicted the guy. Then it reverses its decision and says only "True" threats are outside the first amendment rights and comments made would be a free speech.

Good first case, so the FBI when they get reports, have to determine whether they have something credible to go on and whether the threat is within or outside free speech. Who determines "True" threats? I can see if it is a terrorism case, and someone is reported to have said they were planning some bombing, FBI would immediately act on it to verify "true" threat or not. But as for someone who verbally threatened another like the guy at the rally did to the sitting president back in draft days, first case here says conviction was overturned and the guy was within his free speech rights. We need to do more reading to be conclusive.

This is interesting. Will do some more reading later.

 

[Burhan]

Abdi, you now have better source for possible prevention of threats with the local police than with the FBI. FBI is too busy nowadays. Also, Europe has clearer laws against online threats than North America does. America is lax when it comes to freedom of speech. It will be hard case always.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

In my second link, you can read this

"Other courts have required a different, stricter standard—one that requires the government to prove not only that the defendant knowingly made a statement reasonably perceived as threatening, but also that he subjectively intended for his communication to be threatening."

To my knowledge. It seems to me that they put the person under investigation if they seem to have a legitimate reason too.

 

[Burhan]

In my second link, you can read this

:Other courts have required a different, stricter standard—one that requires the government to prove not only that the defendant knowingly made a statement reasonably perceived as threatening, but also that he subjectively intended for his communication to be threatening."

To my knowledge. It seems to me that they put the person under investigation if they seem to have a legitimate reason too.

Exactly, to determine "True" threat from the individual. Terrorism threats taking precedence over personal threats like the one reported by Abdi. My message all along, but the kid could not help pull on me that "you are this, you are that" immaturity


Good contribution RagingSince.

 

[Bernie Madoff]

Yaaaasss #love wins

@Knowthyself

 

[Inactive]

Terrorism threats taking precedence over personal threats like the one reported by Abdi. My message all along

That was not your message "all along".

Your message was it is your freedom of speech to give a death threat.

Very dishonest of you.

Also, very shameful of you. I think you should be ashamed of yourself

 

[Burhan]

That was not your message "all along".

Your message was it is your freedom of speech to give a death threat.

Very dishonest of you.

Also, very shameful of you. I think you should be ashamed of yourself

You are back at it again. May be I am reasoning with a drunkard. That or you have your period on.

 

[Inactive]

You are back at it again. May be I am reasoning with a drunkard. That or you have your period on.

If I'm a drunkard and I still take death threats seriously, I am not sure what you're on when you say death threats are freedom of speech.



Or maybe you're not on anything which is even more concerning.

 

[NaomiHoney]

View attachment 10840

View attachment 10841

Govern yourselves accordingly.

Abdi, brother. Please use your time wisely. Life is too short for this. Your life shouldn't be purely based on the internet.

Plug the wifi out and do some self care once in a while.

 

[arawelo 2.0]

You are back at it again. May be I am reasoning with a drunkard. That or you have your period on.

logic and reasoning doesn't work with some people on this site. you are better off talking to a wall

 

[Inactive]

Abdi, brother. Please use your time wisely. Life is too short for this. Your life shouldn't be purely based on the internet.

Plug the wifi out and do some self care once in a while.

No

 

[Inactive]

logic and reasoning doesn't work with some people on this site. you are better off talking to a wall

This one thinks death threats are fine too huh?

 

[Burhan]

If I'm a drunkard and I still take death threats seriously, I am not sure what you're on when you say death threats are freedom of speech.



Or maybe you're not on anything which is even more concerning.

Abdi, we have parallel conversations and you are confused. Reread all I wrote if you have time. May be you are confusing the legality of threats and how FBI determines such threats.

Either way, make it simple, instead of going in circles, copy paste my replies to you on the FBI list or whatever. if you are not that serious and you are joking around repeating the same mantra of me defending some idiot online, then by all means, be reasonable. I would like to do better things with my time other than go in circles. If you believe I am defending the guy, just copy paste my message and alert the FBI. End of Story. Let them handle. they are professionals after all.