Woman charged with threatening to kill judge overseeing Donald Trump's election case
telegraph.co.uk
A Texas woman has been charged with threatening to kill the judge overseeing a criminal case against Donald Trump.
Abigail Jo Shry, 43, allegedly called US District Judge Tanya Chutkan a “stupid slave” and used another racial slur in a voicemail message she left at the Washington courthouse.
She is reported to have said: “You are in our sights, we want to kill you... If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly, b----.
“You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it.”
The article also includes an expectation meeting mugshot. For people that talk about violence, I’ve never been less intimidated.
You are viewing a single comment
30% of Republicans believe violence may be necessary to "save" the country.
They legitimately don't think it's an issue to threaten violence against anyone who impedes Donald Trump. In their deluded minds, he's an innocent victim who only wants what's best for the country and all these evil judges and persecutors and federal employees are trying to take him down and literally destroy the country.
This is what you get when you allow people with power and influence lie all the time
Yes, we need freedom of speech, blah.
You don't have true freedom of speech, not even in the US, this article literally shows that
We need more restrictions on speech. If you're a politician and you obviously lie then you need to be at least called out on that, and be forced to correct yourself publicly. Maybe some naming and shaming will make politicians slightly more honest.
All politicians lie up to some point and it's been tolerable and tolerated for a long time but Trump weaponised disinformation and lying. This needs to stop, those in power need to be held accountable. If you're the president and you startte spouting proven conspiracy theories then you need to either be forced to correct yourself and say you were staying dishonest information or you need to leave.
Freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences of said speech. If you go and say some ish then you better be able to handle the consequences of saying the things you're saying.
So, like, what do you have then?
What is there to be 'free' from?
That's an interesting question and highlights the gap between use of the phrase. The question is: who is free? The individual absolutely free from all consequence, or society to be free from dangerous, damaging, and intolerable behaviour?
Does it mean freedom from impediment? Are you are allowed to say whatever you want, but the community has a right to discourage, deplatform, and criminalise the effects of those words have in breaking the social contract (e.g. attempting to cause panic, promoting a riot, trying to over throw democracy, racial intimidation, etc)?
Or does it mean freedom from consequences? Are you allowed to say whatever you want and the community has no right to recourse for the effects of speech on the community (i.e. you can say literally anything and the without fear that it will negatively impact your standing within the wider community and social contract)? Does that mean we should allow people to promote ISIS? Or send direct threats to you and your family, if they never intend to act upon them? How about promote your family be seen as animals to be driven out or killed? Should those speech actions be free from consequences? Even if it escalates to a wider group or is given from a position of authority?
I do not believe the latter is a tenable way of maintaining any form of contract and only enhances the power of bad faith actors. It's also only ever selectively employed.
The same people that tend to promote the latter in cases that suit their cause, threaten officials, promote hate, and drive division are the same group banning history books in schools. We cannot let people in bad faith muddy the waters of what free speech mean.
So then why call it 'free speech'.
Perhaps some other name should be used to better explain the concept.
I disagree.
Free, in this context, means not captive (i.e. not controlled by a single entity). Speech is free. It just isn't free from consequences in the wider standing of society. And most people do know that (my examples highlight it - should I have no consequences for inciting a lynch mob to kill your family if I didn't string the noose?).
Don't let bad faith actors force us to do...anything! They're bad faith actors!