Secret Service Probes Elon Musk’s Prez Biden and VP Harris Killing ‘Joke’
Secret Service Probes Elon Musk’s Prez Biden and VP Harris Killing ‘Joke’
The tech billionaire deleted the X post and then lamented over why no one seemed to find it funny.
The Secret Service has launched a probe into an X post by Elon Musk in which he tweeted that “no one is even trying” to kill Kamala Harris or Joe Biden.
The tech billionaire deleted the post on his X platform and passed it off as a “joke.” However, the White House did not find it funny and instead called it “irresponsible.”
“Violence should only be condemned, never encouraged or joked about,” the White House said in a statement. Now the Secret Service is involved.
You're viewing a single thread.
Now it’s funny— or, at least, I’m laughing
I REALLY hope Taylor Swift finds some legal way to sue him for threatening to forcibly impregnate her against her will.
I think the guy is terrible but threatening to forcibly impregnate is not how I read that tweet. Didn't he say "okay I will give you a child" or some shit. That doesn't imply non consent, it sounded to me as an offer, which was gross. Could maybeee be considered harassment, but 1 tweet would be hard to classify as that as well. It would be like trying to make catcalling illegal. It's gross, but by no means would it ever make a law that wouldn't be abused.
Ya we should leave making stuff up to Musky
Well, yes…
But I also hope she finds some diabolically genius way to foil him a la Real Genius. I wanna see lasers make a house explode full of popcorn!
#genxdreams
So you'd like her to act like a Mastermind?
I'll see myself out
It's funny/scary how quickly people abandon the first amendment the minute somebody says something gross.
Guess you haven't seen this one?
Guess you missed the part where the person was talking about seeking a legal result not just shitting on Elon?
Aside from the fact that we’re talking about a civil matter between private citizens, you can legitimately get serious government intervention and punishment for certain types of speech. Let’s say you yell fire in a theater, or threaten the president, or publish classified national security secrets.
People who claim to be free speech absolutists (like one of the private parties in this discussion!) usually just mean for them or for stuff they disagree with.
Let’s say you yell fire in a theater,
Legal. This is no longer the standard for speech limitations.
or threaten the president,
So long as it's a "true threat" and not hyperbole.
or publish classified national security secrets.
This is legal, so long as you didn't steal them.
You're technically correct, but you're still an asshole.
Punishment for yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't a first amendment violation. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire, you know there isn't a fire, and a stampede occurs resulting in a death, is involuntarily manslaughter.
Punishment for death threats isn't a first amendment violation, but it is usually coercion.
And publishing classified data without authorization is illegal, but it's highly nuanced. It can be considered a first amendment right of the press to publish classified documents in some circumstances, but how they obtained those documents is definitely scrutinized. Then there's always the question of "what is press" nowadays when literally everybody carries their own personal printing press in their pocket.
"Everything I said was correct."
Guess you missed the part where two private citizens involved in a lawsuit is not the government.
Full text of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Disapproving of what Musk says, or desiring for Musk to face consequences for what he says, is not in conflict with the 1st amendment.
Legal consequences.
Swift can violate Musk's "free speech" because she is not the government.
Clearly you don't know what the 1st amendment means.
Do you not understand the difference between criminal and civil?
This is like 4th grade social studies my man. Maybe you should go back.
Sooo - this is slander or libel then???
My client isn't very good at showing context. What is this about? Biden or Swift?
Anyway...violent threats aren't protected speech...
• The First Amendment does not protect violent or unlawful conduct, even if the person engaging in it intends to express an idea. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968).
• The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites imminent violence or lawlessness. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).
And also a federal felony...
It is is felony under federal law to communicate a threat to injure or kidnap another person online, by phone or mail, or using other interstate channels. 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)
It is a felony under federal law to intentionally “solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade” another person to engage in a crime of violence against a person or property. 18 U.S.C. § 373.
(PDF link hosted by Georgetown University Law Center) https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/12/Fact-Sheet-on-Threats-Related-to-the-Election.pdf
"true threats" and "imminent lawless action" have meanings that most people wildly misunderstand though. The courts take a narrow view on both.
What part of Leon Musk and Taylor Swift are the government in this violation of First Amendment rights?