- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Upstate NY man receives ICE warning about social media posts
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:26 pm to onmymedicalgrind
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:26 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Dude you have to read better. My whole argument from my first post in this thread was that his speech was protected and doesn't constitute a true threat. ....which you finally admitted you agree with
Take your own advice. I simply claimed you stating it was not a threat does not make it true. You came at me in this thread. I simply responded.
1
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:26 pm to Eurocat
Just based on the details reported in this one post, doesn’t sound like he crossed a line by sending that email. They probably should have ignored him.
That stated, the dude is triggered and probably needs a therapist.
That stated, the dude is triggered and probably needs a therapist.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:28 pm to BBONDS25
Email, social media post, letter, etc. Not a bad argument for him to make.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:29 pm to Decatur
quote:
Email, social media post, letter, etc. Not a bad argument for him to make.
It’s the only argument he can make. I think it’s a very weak one. The argument he made a threat is much stronger.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:30 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Do you get embarrassed posting nonsense like this?
This is something we should all be worried about. The government can frick off telling us what we can say. The only thing in that, admittedly unhinged, letter bordering a threat was the “You will know no peace”. And you have to stretch to see that as a threat.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:31 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The argument he made a threat is much stronger.
It’s a terrible argument under the true threat jurisprudence.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:33 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Take your own advice. I simply claimed you stating it was not a threat does not make it true.
....a statement of mine you later admitted to agreeing with
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:33 pm to Decatur
quote:
It’s a terrible argument under the true threat jurisprudence.
It is a much stronger argument than his speech rights were violated by receiving the letter.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:34 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The speech already occurred. Are you claiming his damages are that he felt he couldn’t write another email?
Why does this concept sound so foreign to you?
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:34 pm to Eurocat
quote:
But federal officers did not wait and instead attempted to confront him at a New York City hotel after he returned from Finland, although they were turned away by hotel staff.
WTF
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:35 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
a statement of mine you later admitted to agreeing with
Wrong. I think a reasonable person could perceive what was said as a threat. There are several in this thread that said that. I don’t think it ALONE is a criminal threat. However, the overall tone of the parts of the email we have seen combined with that statement can certainly be considered a threat by the person who received it.
Clearly the person who received it felt it was a threat. Was that reasonably foreseeable?
It’s not a binary issue.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:36 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Why does this concept sound so foreign to you?
Keep reading.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:36 pm to Eurocat
No rights were violated.
He is a bitchy whiny cuck.
Signed
Aristotle
He is a bitchy whiny cuck.
Signed
Aristotle
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:39 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Wrong. I think a reasonable person could perceive what was said as a threat. There are several in this thread that said that.
Your first mistake: most posters on this board aren't reasonable.
quote:
I don’t think it ALONE is a criminal threat.
Again....................you are agreeing with me. It's OK to admit it and stand proud. 99% of the time agreeing with me means you are in the right.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:41 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Again....................you are agreeing with me. It's OK to admit it and stand proud. 99% of the time agreeing with me means you are in the right.
I can’t type it any slower. That statement COMBINED with the rest of the email is what is important. If it is foreseeable that a person could perceive it as a threat is the question. Clearly the person who received it did…so…..
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
If it is foreseeable that a person could perceive it as a threat is the question. Clearly the person who received it did…so…..
You forgot "reasonable."
A person can perceive me walking in their direction as a threat. Who cares if it isn't a reasonable perception.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:47 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
You forgot "reasonable."
Foreseeable that a reasonable person could see it as a threat is the question. I believe the email as a whole meets that standard.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 2:53 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Foreseeable that a reasonable person could see it as a threat is the question. I believe the email as a whole meets that standard.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that email as a whole falls under aggressive, offensive political hyperbole. It criticized specific actions this official did while in the performing of his public duties. It noted that history will not look kindly upon his actions, and therefore he will never know piece. I don't think it comes close to a true threat.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 3:28 pm to OccamsStubble
quote:
quote:
Upstate NY man receives ICE warning about social media posts
This bothers me. Not as much as 40 million people being encouraged by federal politicians to break federal law, but still it bothers me.
Which bothers you more?
I'm not bothered at all by people threatening federal agents and politicians online and receiving a visit and/or warning. Free speech isn't absolute. You don't get to say anything you want about anything you want, especially if perceived as a threat.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News