Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a lawyer so I won't say if they could win. I'm just saying that not all speech is covered under freedom of expression. Threats are not covered. Slander/libel is not covered.
that's called moving the goalpost, the original discussion is about whether or not the specific tweats would be considered threats under the law. The answer is they wouldn't because there's nothing immediately actionable. "Someone standing in front of you with a knife who says they're going to stab you would be considered a threat! therefore ... something something something ... a tweat by a politician should be puni…
>to clarify, in the US, "I will kill you" may or may not be considered a threat
This is all I'm responding to. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to assert that you absolutely can or cannot consider it a threat. But it's not black and white like you're implied, and are currently implying.
Please don't accuse someone of derailing a discussion if you forgot the context. I've been patient but you've been incindiary in every response. That's not illegal but it is not in the spirit of HN rules.
>As I said before, you're not the first to try and curb someone's freedom of expression using the law.
You're not the first person to pretend you can threaten to end lives and "be oppressed" when the authorities come.
I'll remind you once more that we're talking about a theory here, since Tan did not literally say "I will kill you". Is Tan's literal words a threat? My mind hasn't changed in this discussion so I'll repeat my point and end it here before it devolves into a flame war:
>it will depend on the interpretation of the judge in question who is reading the quotes.
Reflect on this conversation for next time, others would be less hesitant to flag your comments.