On 5/20/2017 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 4:21:00 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Check out his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/GunnerAsch

The second item (as of this moment) on his page is his share of an item
from the Guardian (what?! gummer usually dismisses it as a commie rag)
about how someone is being prosecuted for an intemperate threatening
comment he made on his Facebook page. The story is interesting and
alarming:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tion?CMP=fb_us

Anyway, what's more interesting than that story is that Wieber seems to
be quite sensitive to it...as well he might be, given his history of
much worse threats and suggestions here.

It's a strange commentary that the Guardian article seems to think that threatening to kill someone is a first-amendment issue -- as long as it's on social media.

First of all, the idiot didn't threaten to kill anyone - he advocated
burning down the cop's house, not necessarily with the cop and his
family in it. It's debatable that he really meant it as a threat; it
was an expression of his anger - well justified, in my opinion - at the
cop's brutality.


Fortunately, prosecutors don't agree. Gunner is treading on much thinner ice than he seems to realize. For that matter, Larry, who has openly advocated threatening elected representatives with guns, clearly has crossed the line and is liable to prosecution for a felony.

I haven't seen Larry's threats, but it wouldn't surprise me. You're
right about Wieber's, though. They are directed at specific people and
hint at knowing locations. They're much more direct.

Court cases have gone both ways on this issue, but chancing that you won't run into one that takes a dim view of thinly-veiled threats is a fool's choice.

I think Wieber may be, finally, developing a sense of that.