HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » seriously, couldn't the N...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:46 PM

seriously, couldn't the NRA ad be considered a threat against the president's daughters?

couldn't secret service make the life difficult of the board of the NRA, the person who made the ad and Wayne La Pierre?

17 replies, 1046 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply seriously, couldn't the NRA ad be considered a threat against the president's daughters? (Original post)
diabeticman Jan 2013 OP
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #1
calimary Jan 2013 #2
patrice Jan 2013 #3
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #4
Paladin Jan 2013 #5
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #6
Paladin Jan 2013 #8
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #11
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #7
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #9
quinnox Jan 2013 #10
madokie Jan 2013 #12
loose wheel Jan 2013 #13
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #14
Coyotl Jan 2013 #15
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #17
B2G Jan 2013 #16

Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:47 PM

1. Yes. It is.

And the SS should visit those asshole cowards every single day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:51 PM

2. I wish they would. This CERTAINLY qualifies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:19 PM

3. Just on statistical probabilities alone, you can predict that about half of the people viewing

the ad will receive that suggestion and the reception of that suggestion will vary from relatively weak, and subject to counter influence, up to the maximum strength of such a suggestion. These theoretical probabilities are referred to as a normal distribution (a theoretical entity, a.k.a. the Bell Curve, based upon numbers of exposures to, roughly, an "independent variable") and it is what all advertising is built upon and why so much money is spent upon mass-marketing.

There is almost never just one interpretation of an event, no matter what the NRA says, and as history has shown us time and time again, especially in the case of the kind of violence we are talking about here, even, relatively speaking, only a few maximally suggestible people can have enormous effects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:48 PM

4. It does not reach the threshold of credible threat

though the Secret Service has considerable discretion in how they do business

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:53 PM

5. Thanks For That Ruling, Professor. Take The Rest Of The Night Off. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:00 PM

6. There are legal standards and they matter, at least to some of us

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:38 AM

8. And You're The Final Word On Proper Legal Standards Around Here?


I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:40 AM

11. Never claimed to be

Others in the thread said it was a real threat I disagreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:01 PM

7. Of course not (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:40 AM

9. Otra vez?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:40 AM

10. I don't see how

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:40 AM

12. You damn tootin it is

I don't get to use that phrase often

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:45 AM

13. No. Not at all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:45 AM

14. No. It doesn't remotely approach a credible threat.

Any legal case based on the ad should be giggled out of court on First Amendment grounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:46 AM

15. Or, an attempt to create one by fostering hatred. When does hate speech cross the line?

Is equating Obama with Hitler treasonous?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022211650

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:53 AM

17. Except it's A-OK to "foster hatred" through speech.

When does hate speech cross the line?
When it is made with the intent to incite imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite imminent lawless action. The standard is very strict in practice. For example, merely saying "If they drafted me, the first man I'd want in my sights is the President" is protected speech.

Is equating Obama with Hitler treasonous?
Not under American law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:49 AM

16. Well since we're being serious...no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread