• Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 days ago

      First amendment doesn’t cover true threats. So it all kinda depends on context and whether who it was said to felt as though they were in real danger.

      • frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        62
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 days ago

        Bullshit. Denying life saving care is a much much much more direct threat to life, as are abortion denials. The concept of a true threat depends mainly on whether you are an acceptable threat maker or not.

        • meco03211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          10 days ago

          Except if you are actively dying and I refuse to help in my personal capacity, I’m not threatening to harm you. I’m just not helping you from imminent harm (presuming I didn’t cause that imminent harm). Now if you’re on fire and I’m currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it’s shitty of me to not help. But if you’re in a gunfight with someone and you’re asking me to render aid as they are still a threat, sorry pal.

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 days ago

            Now if you’re on fire and I’m currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it’s shitty of me to not help.

            Inaction is still an action. If you have the ability to save someone and you let them die, you may as well have started the fire yourself.

            The only real point you have is that you don’t render aid when there’s an active threat.

          • Lemminary@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 days ago

            I’m just not helping you from imminent harm

            Doesn’t the law protect that in some way? I thought medical professionals were compelled to save lives first and then “worry” about costs later with the Hippocratic Oath and all. Or maybe it’s limited to some instances? Idk, I’m not from the US and our system works way differently.

            • meco03211@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 days ago

              That is a “good Samaritan” law. They can compel you to help, but that could be calling law enforcement. That’s also why in my examples the gunfight still had a deadly threat. No laws compel you to put yourself in danger to help.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        That doesn’t seem like a true threat to me.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/true-threats

        A person speaking out of anger who the person does not have a real reason to fear and believe they’ll follow through is not a true threat. Saying “you’re next” is clearly hyperbole. There’s no chance she loses this case. They’re just trying to make an example out of her for the moment to scare other people.

        You might say it is a true threat in and of itself. There is very good reason for people to believe the state will arrest more people who use this speech. They’re assuming this is true, because they want them to fear them in order to stop them. This is what we call terrorism, except it’s the state doing it so I guess it’s totally fine.

      • samus12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Even more importantly, it matters who you’re threatening. Your wife? Meh, no biggie. An insurance company? Straight to jail.