President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Constructing a makeshift gallows has gotta involve multiple people at least working for a couple minutes — and carrying around the materials. Footage has to be out there. So do witnesses.

 

As you feel bad for her, please take a good look at her right hand.

 

Could be free speech. Could be terroristic threat during a domestic terrorist attack.

 

Can I construct anything I want on public property and call it speech? An operational electric chair? A small house?

Seems specious to me.

Or is there settled case law saying a constructed wooden gallows without a permit is protected speech? I’m asking honestly.

 

You only cover us when we get maced during a revolution!

 

On the surface, I'm the poster boy middle age southern white boy. Someone brought up what you said the other day. I said, "So? I'm good with Harris being POTUS. I'm not a bigot, and my dick ain't short, so I'm not intimidated by black women. I think she'll do a good job."

 

The difference between an operational electric chair and a small house is they are intended for use and subject to permits. Yes, the gallows were probably intended for use, but it's up to you to prove my intent beyond bad things happened in the same area.

As to your second point, Kato is right that there is a grey area here. You cannot make terrorists threats (why putting a noose in a garage is potentially a hate crime) but you also can't forbid offensive symbols simply because they are offensive. St. Paul tried to ban such things as cross burning and had the law tossed. However, you can't burn a cross as a specific threat. Simply having a burning cross, say in a field, is symbolic speech. Putting that cross in front of someone's house could be seen as a threat. Putting up gallows doesn't have a specific threat if it is just sitting there unless evidence emerges that there was an active plan to execute members of congress. Even then, I think the gallows would be used as evidence of that crime rather than it being a crime itself.

I'll yield to the actual lawyers on the thread if I am off base here, but that is my understanding.

EDIT: Here is my source for my opinion that goes through the history of symbolic speech. It backs up both sides which is why I'll be more than happy to yield to the thread's lawyers

Symbolic Speech

 

She's palming an actual onion? Don't know why I figured it was promo swag from the site when it was first mentioned.

Stupid, stupid people.

 

Even if it is allowed as speech, could it be used to help build a conspiracy case, if there's evidence that a coordinated attack on the Capitol included the capture and execution of senators and representatives or the VP?

 

Yes, which is why I said the gallows could be used as evidence of your intent rather than it being a crime in it of itself.

 

Fake tan/deadly tantrum
Let's go for a ride
I will not be silenced said the cisgendered white men

 

Barely a month in office. Impressive.