re: New subtle phrase being used to call for the assassination of the President of the US

quote:

---

Calling for the assassination of the President doesn’t fall under the “free speech” umbrella

---

Certainly posting 8647 does fall under freedom of speech, but reporting them puts them on the secret service radar and they can be monitored.

quote:

---

Are you serious Clarke? Words…freaking words and you want to contact Federal law enforcement due to offensive words? GTFO you looney.

---

I bet when Trump told the crowd to “protest peacefully and patriotically” you thought he was leading an overthrow of the government and was guilty of “treason.”

quote:

---

Saying you hope somebody dies falls under free speech.

---

Maybe, but that’s not what they’re saying. 86 is a verb.

quote:

---

but 86 also commonly refers to ejecting a customer from the premises


No it doesn’t.

---

This isn't even worth arguing so I'll just hand this one off to grok

quote:

---

is 86 commonly used to mean eject a customer?

Yes, "86" is commonly used in the restaurant and bar industry to mean ejecting a customer, particularly when they’re disruptive or unwelcome. For example, staff might say, “86 that drunk guy,” to indicate removing them. While it also means running out of an item (e.g., “86 the soup”), its use for ejecting customers is widespread in hospitality settings, especially in the U.S.

---

quote:

---

Speaking code for “kill the president” is still saying “kill the president.” That is absolutely not protected under free speech.

---

8647
Good luck convicting me.

“86” is also used in the military — or least in the Marine Corp — as slang for 1) rescinding a previous order or 2) disposing of some item:

“The CO 86’d our leave privileges after last night’s bar fight….”

“86 that broken collimator….”

quote:

---

but 86 also commonly refers to ejecting a customer from the premises

---

Tuscaloosa:

quote:

---

No it doesn’t.

---

Family Guy says you're as wrong as the father listed on your birth certificate

.

quote:

---

The USSC agreed with Watts’s counsel’s characterization of Watts’s speech as “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” that did not qualify as a true threat.

---

It looks like the reason Watts was quoted by Grok was to bring up USSC establishment of “true threat” doctrine for context of the discussion. “True threat” would obviously vary case by case.

The topic of this thread is about influencers on social media & other forums promoting “8647,” which would more clearly fall under Brandenburg v. Ohio. Given the proclivity of mentally ill, deranged Democrats to attempt to physically harm the President, every instance of someone posting that should result in being sent to a camp.

quote:

---

“Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution,” he concluded.

---

This is pretty hilarious coming from the party of people who banned Babylon Bee, a satire website, from Twitter - along with anyone else who dared question the draconian Covid laws or “science.”

Lastly, I would like to use my own freedom of speech to tell you to go frick yourself.

Love that "RESPECT" plate in the back. MIchigan's biggest grifter in a few decades who respects nobody but those that can give her more. Rich I tell ya.