862
submitted 3 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] finley@lemm.ee 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Now it’s funny— or, at least, I’m laughing

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago

I REALLY hope Taylor Swift finds some legal way to sue him for threatening to forcibly impregnate her against her will.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago

Ya we should leave making stuff up to Musky

[-] finley@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

[-] YakTrimmer 1 points 3 months ago

So you'd like her to act like a Mastermind?

I'll see myself out

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

It's funny/scary how quickly people abandon the first amendment the minute somebody says something gross.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Guess you haven't seen this one?

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Guess you missed the part where the person was talking about seeking a legal result not just shitting on Elon?

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Guess you missed the part where two private citizens involved in a lawsuit is not the government.

[-] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"Everything I said was correct."

[-] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago
[-] wildcardology@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Swift can violate Musk's "free speech" because she is not the government.

Clearly you don't know what the 1st amendment means.

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago

Do you not understand the difference between criminal and civil?

This is like 4th grade social studies my man. Maybe you should go back.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Sooo - this is slander or libel then???

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

"true threats" and "imminent lawless action" have meanings that most people wildly misunderstand though. The courts take a narrow view on both.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

What part of Leon Musk and Taylor Swift are the government in this violation of First Amendment rights?

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
862 points (100.0% liked)

News

23634 readers
2544 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS