Federal prosecutors say former President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform what he claimed was the home address of former President Barack Obama the same day a man with guns in his van was arrested near the property.
    • FIash Mob #5678@beehaw.orgEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Same. It’s also hard for me to imagine the monumental stupidity required to go after that particular ex-president. I’d wager Obama has the most robust security of them all.

      • TechyDad@beehaw.orgEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yup. The guy was caught by the Secret Service as he was “trying to find an opening in the security.” About the only saving grace in all this is that the people trying to do this are idiots. Like that guy who came up with a brilliant plan to get past the bullet proof glass at an FBI building by using a nail gun.

        Unfortunately, throw enough idiots into the mix and some of them will succeed just by dumb luck. And the right has plenty of idiots to throw.

  • MJBrune@beehaw.orgEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t this incitement? Isn’t this exactly what is illegal? He’s literally pointing out places to hit.

    So I did some digging and… Funny enough here is a SCOTUS case on someone advocating communism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California In the end “Defendant’s conviction under California’s criminal syndicalism statute for membership in the Communist Labor Party did not violate her free speech rights as protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, because states may constitutionally prohibit speech tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or threaten the overthrow of government by unlawful means.”

    So it is illegal, right? He’s literally trying to incite crime! But wait! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio is literally the KKK and Ohio tried to jail the KKK leader for 10 years and a 1,000 dollar fine but SCOTUS struct it down “Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute violated the First Amendment, as applied to the state through the Fourteenth, because it broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence rather than the constitutionally unprotected incitement to imminent lawless action.”

    So advocating violence isn’t a crime but advocating crime is incitement and violence in the cases being talked about is a crime. So realistically when a white supremacist talks about killing a black person, it’s free speech. When communists advocate a peaceful change in government it’s a crime. Just so we are clear.

  • colournoun@beehaw.orgEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    intended to blow up the National Institute of Standards and Technology

    “I’ll never convert to metric, you bastaaaards!”

    What the hell did NIST ever do to him?