Former FBI Official: ‘I Would Not Have This Inauguration Outside’ | CNSNews

[–] • 2 pts

All I can say is that I get bored when I plink and start removing the staples in my target's at 100yds

There are certain individuals that should never come within a few miles of me

link

[–] • 2 pts

This is a pretext for so they can cover up the fact not that many people would show up. It's hard to reconcile the most popular president in history can't pull a crowd

link

[–] • 1 pt

Well it's pedo Joe and he a potato

link

[–] • 0 pt

DO IT NIGGERS.

they can't even into 1,500 yards

hurrrrr fed ____ The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States. In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States. The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, "[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts. In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat." In so holding, the Court established that there is a "true threat" exception to protected speech, but also that the statement must be viewed in its context and distinguished from protected hyperbole. The opinion, however, stopped short of defining precisely what constituted a "true threat." (archive.md)

Nothing specific. Nothing actionable. No times. No places. No dates. No events. No names. This is what protected speech looks like.

AOU: if these posts, even when they are clearly within the law, cause you to be concerned in any way for your ability to keep it up... Keep poal up. Feel free to just delete them and tell me to stop. I won't kvetch like the dozens of kikes over the past week about muh freeze peach.

Not that you needed permission. You're an orange man and therefore you're bad.

DO IT NIGGERS. >they can't even into 1,500 yards >hurrrrr fed ____ >[The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States. In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States. The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, "[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts. In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat." In so holding, the Court established that there is a "true threat" exception to protected speech, but also that the statement must be viewed in its context and distinguished from protected hyperbole. The opinion, however, stopped short of defining precisely what constituted a "true threat." ](https://archive.md/zCQfy) [Nothing specific. Nothing actionable. No times. No places. No dates. No events. No names. This is what protected speech looks like.](#spoiler) AOU: if these posts, even when they are clearly within the law, cause you to be concerned in any way for your ability to keep it up... Keep poal up. Feel free to just delete them and tell me to stop. I won't kvetch like the dozens of kikes over the past week about muh freeze peach. Not that you needed permission. You're an orange man and therefore you're bad.

link

(post is archived)