Nope. Call for Violence isn't even close to what you are assuming it is.
In Perez v. Florida (2017), Justice Sonia Sotomayor urged the Court to re-evaluate its true threats jurisprudence in a future case with the proper procedural posture. “States must prove more than the mere utterance of threatening words – some level of intent is required,”
Additionally 3 factors (Watts factors) of the true threat doctrine EACH must be PROVEN WITH INTENT; 1 the context of the statement or statements in question; 2 the reaction of the recipient or listeners; and 3 whether the threat was conditional.
Nope.
Call for Violence isn't even close to what you are assuming it is.
>In Perez v. Florida (2017), Justice Sonia Sotomayor urged the Court to re-evaluate its true threats jurisprudence in a future case with the proper procedural posture. “States must prove more than the mere utterance of threatening words – some level of intent is required,”
Additionally 3 factors (Watts factors) of the true threat doctrine EACH must be PROVEN WITH INTENT;
1 the context of the statement or statements in question;
2 the reaction of the recipient or listeners; and
3 whether the threat was conditional.
https://archive.md/D2fGf
(post is archived)