# Drawing the Line Between Free Speech and Terrorism. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439 "2018-03-12T17:59:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Crazy\_Canuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazy_canuck/32/5282_2.png) [@Crazy\_Canuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazy_Canuck)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/41 "2018-03-14T16:06:57Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This seems to get perilously close to thought police. > > People running their mouth happens a lot. Would you be ok with a visit from federal agents if you said, during a discussion in a bar with your friends, that you wished some politician would die? Nice strawman. Do you understand the difference between passively wishing harm on another (ex. “I wish some politician would die”) and actively threatening another? (ex. "I am going to kill that politician.) Because the only way I can see your thought police comment making sense is if you are mixing those two very different things up. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/42 "2018-03-14T16:17:47Z")
> [@Crazy\_Canuck](#): > > Nice strawman. Do you understand the difference between passively wishing harm on another (ex. “I wish some politician would die”) and actively threatening another? (ex. "I am going to kill that politician.) Because the only way I can see your thought police comment making sense is if you are mixing those two very different things up. Where do federal agents draw the line? Honest question. How does the SS decide a threat is credible enough to go visit someone? Do you know? Is there any limit? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/43 "2018-03-14T16:46:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Where do federal agents draw the line? Honest question. How does the SS decide a threat is credible enough to go visit someone? Do you know? Is there any limit? Well, a guy publicly claiming to be an ex-Secret Service agent (and take that for what it’s worth, I haven’t checked this claim in any way)\* [asserts that the credibility bar is set extremely low for threats against official protectees](https://www.quora.com/What-action-if-any-is-the-Secret-Service-likely-to-take-against-Joe-Walsh-in-light-of-his-threats-and-tweets-against-President-Obama): > [@](#): > > […] These would be considered any/all threats. They include: Implied threats (like Congressman Walsh’ tweets); Direct threats (self-explanatory); Veiled threats (“I’m not saying that I want _enter name_ hurt, but I wouldn’t mind if a piano fell on _enter name_ head”). All of these are considered FEDERAL CRIMES. > > During my tenure as an agent, the one that I most frequently investigated were the veiled threats. People would say something in a public forum or with some other group, maybe out with some friends at a bar or a club. Maybe they posted a message on a chat line…. Anyway, they thought that they were being funny or witty, until it was reported to the local Secret Service field office by some concerned citizen. **The U.S. Secret Service investigates every single threat that is reported. No exceptions. No matter how mundane or outlandish. Every report is followed up with a thorough, exhaustive investigation.** > > Within 24 hours, I was knocking on the person’s door and beginning a full investigation. I was there to determine the validity of the person’s threatening statements and whether that person could be considered a legitimate threat to the most important person in our country. > > Here’s how the typical, garden-variety scenario usually played out: > > I would identify myself and confirm that I had found the person I was looking for. > > The person of interest would be taken aback by my presence and comply with speaking with me. They were not under arrest. > > I explained my reason for being there, and that I was there to ensure that the person I was speaking with was not a threat to the President or other person under the protection of the U.S. Secret Service. > > This is where the implied insults usually started. The person I was interviewing would usually begin with some kind of subtle belittling or mockery of my job. […] > > For anyone still reading, let me give you a nickels worth of free advice: Statements like these may work with the drinking buddies, or even the parents, but it doesn’t work with federal agents. I honestly think that sometimes people thought I was just going to say, “You know what? You’re totally right. This never even crossed my mind, I’m so sorry to waste your time with this. Take care, have a great day!” > > I would then explain to the person that they were being investigated by the federal government for possible violations of 18 USC 3056 as it pertained to threatening the President of the United States of America, and that it was in their best interest to cooperate. Most understood the seriousness of the situation at that point. […] > > You can criticize, you can call them names, you can hate. You can’t threaten their lives. You can’t imply harm to them. You can’t “wish” harm on them. You definitely better not write it out online or on a tweet. > > I assure you Congressman Walsh got a visit from the Secret Service. It doesn’t matter what he meant to get across with his words; his tweet could be implied as a threat to the President. […] \*Actually I did later go back and check, and [this guy seems to be very well known as an ex-federal agent who has published a lot about his service](https://insidethelaw.podiant.co/e/35763598e99d90/). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/44 "2018-03-14T17:06:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, a guy publicly claiming to be an ex-Secret Service agent (and take that for what it’s worth, I haven’t checked this claim in any way)\* [asserts that the credibility bar is set extremely low for threats against official protectees](https://www.quora.com/What-action-if-any-is-the-Secret-Service-likely-to-take-against-Joe-Walsh-in-light-of-his-threats-and-tweets-against-President-Obama): > > \*Actually I did later go back and check, and [this guy seems to be very well known as an ex-federal agent who has published a lot about his service](https://insidethelaw.podiant.co/e/35763598e99d90/). Thanks. So it is not a strawman as **Crazy Canuck** suggests. ---
**Author:** ![Crazy\_Canuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazy_canuck/32/5282_2.png) [@Crazy\_Canuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazy_Canuck)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/45 "2018-03-14T18:16:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So it is not a strawman as **Crazy Canuck** suggests. The strawman assertion was because in a thread about the implications of free speech rights of students who threatened to shoot up a school (which is an active threat), you switched the argument to the implications of the government interfering with the free speech rights of people who passively wish harm on others. That’s a different argument which is (coincidentally I’m sure) a lot easier to defend. That’s a strawman argument to me. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/46 "2018-03-14T19:11:04Z")
> [@Crazy\_Canuck](#): > > The strawman assertion was because in a thread about the implications of free speech rights of students who threatened to shoot up a school (which is an active threat), you switched the argument to the implications of the government interfering with the free speech rights of people who passively wish harm on others. That’s a different argument which is (coincidentally I’m sure) a lot easier to defend. That’s a strawman argument to me. Huh? I said, _“I hope you need more than, “I wish president “X” would drop dead” to get a visit from the SS. I imagine a lot of people make similar statements regardless of who is president.”_ You said that was a strawman. **Kimstu** posted that it actually happens. The SS does go after that. So tell me again where the strawman is? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/47 "2018-03-14T19:49:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This seems to get perilously close to thought police. > > People running their mouth happens a lot. Would you be ok with a visit from federal agents if you said, during a discussion in a bar with your friends, that you wished some politician would die? What does and does not constitute a threat is pretty well defined in law (and has been for centuries), without having to dig into the innermost thoughts of the person making the threats. As a grown adult I have no problem with having to understand where the line is between a threat and an opinion, and facing legal repercussions if I cross it. The key point in this case is these are children we are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/48 "2018-03-14T20:00:54Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > It is impossible to know beforehand whether a threat is credible or the work of dumb kids running their mouth. Therefore every threat has to be responded to. Because of this every threat should be a crime. Even the false ones make it more likely the real ones will slip through. It is certain not impossible. If you are in charge of enforcing the law at school (as police or school authorities) it is literally your job to work out whether the threat is credible. Both the decision to prosecute or not to has risks. If you unnecessarily prosecute a child that is a failure just as much as letting a child who poses a genuine risk continue unchecked. I realize in the current atmosphere there is probably a tendency to err on the side of caution. But the track record of authorities in these kind of cases is not a good one. And there a countless incidents of the legal system getting involved in cases where it absolutely should have remained a school discipline matter. Not that this cases is definitely one of them (we know none of the details, it could be completely justified) ---
**Author:** ![Crazy\_Canuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazy_canuck/32/5282_2.png) [@Crazy\_Canuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazy_Canuck)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/49 "2018-03-14T20:06:57Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh? > > I said, _“I hope you need more than, “I wish president “X” would drop dead” to get a visit from the SS. I imagine a lot of people make similar statements regardless of who is president.”_ > > You said that was a strawman. Maybe it would help your confusion if you would read the post where I said nice strawman, read the the portion of your post that I quoted for context, and notice that I was replying to a separate comment that you made two posts earlier. Let me try again. You said … > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Would you be ok with a visit from federal agents if you said, during a discussion in a bar with your friends, that you wished some politician would die? Now this is a strawman, because in this thread no one was talking about “wishing” that people would die. The discussion was on actual threats. So if you have said something like this … > [@A Totally Hypothetical Person](#): > > Would you be ok with a visit from federal agents if you said, during a discussion in a bar with your friends, that you were planning on shooting up congress? That wouldn’t be a strawman. Do you see the difference between the two quotes? Do you notice how one seems a lot more reasonable than the other? Do you see how the version you are using is a lot easier to defend? That’s the shit I’m calling out. Does this help your confusion? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/50 "2018-03-14T20:16:43Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, a guy publicly claiming to be an ex-Secret Service agent (and take that for what it’s worth, I haven’t checked this claim in any way)\* [asserts that the credibility bar is set extremely low for threats against official protectees](https://www.quora.com/What-action-if-any-is-the-Secret-Service-likely-to-take-against-Joe-Walsh-in-light-of-his-threats-and-tweets-against-President-Obama): > > \*Actually I did later go back and check, and [this guy seems to be very well known as an ex-federal agent who has published a lot about his service](https://insidethelaw.podiant.co/e/35763598e99d90/). Warranting a visit from the Secret Service does not mean you have committed a crime. Whatever they may consider a threat. Have there actually been successful prosecutions where just “wishing harm” on someone alone was considered a threat? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/51 "2018-03-14T20:34:04Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Warranting a visit from the Secret Service does not mean you have committed a crime. Who said it did? I was answering **Whack-a-Mole** ’s question: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How does the SS decide a threat is credible enough to go visit someone? ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/52 "2018-03-15T00:48:22Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > It seems the standard in the US which on the whole tends to be (IMO as a non-lawyer) “threats are illegal and not covered the 1st Amendment, most everything else is\*”. This seems the correct attitude to me. Threats are a well defined concept in law, going back to long before the US was a thing. > > Other countries which have made “extremism” or “hate speech” illegal have impinged the right to free speech for their citizens, in a way that has made society less free IMO **Any** limit on any right makes society less free, **in some sense**. But limiting a right ought to be for the purpose of avoiding infringing on some other right. Should someone whose aims include taking away free speech from some other person, have free speech himself? In my opinion, denying free speech for those who aim to infringe on important rights of others is not necessarily wrong. (I guess it would be if free speech was the single most important right, above every other right in every case - but that doesn’t seem sane to me.) ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/53 "2018-03-15T01:28:17Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > Should someone whose aims include taking away free speech from some other person, have free speech himself? In my opinion, denying free speech for those who aim to infringe on important rights of others is not necessarily wrong. (I guess it would be if free speech was the single most important right, above every other right in every case - but that doesn’t seem sane to me.) If they don’t then society does not in fact have free speech. Free speech that doesn’t cover view points that society considers offensive or unpleasant is not actually free speech. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/54 "2018-03-15T03:08:34Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > If they don’t then society does not in fact have free speech. > > Free speech that doesn’t cover view points that society considers offensive or unpleasant is not actually free speech. This is not true. Speech is already restricted in several ways - that is, there are already a number of offensive and/or unpleasant things that you yourself are not permitted to say, because saying them would take rights away from others. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/55 "2018-03-15T03:21:25Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > This is not true. Speech is already restricted in several ways - that is, there are already a number of offensive and/or unpleasant things that you yourself are not permitted to say, because saying them would take rights away from others. Words cannot “take rights away” from anyone. Yeah there are a very few, very well defined areas such as actual threats of violence, which we, as a society, have historically said are excluded from the right of free speech. But any time society adds to the words that that are not covered by the free speech it is become objectively less free and more oppressive. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/56 "2018-03-15T03:32:02Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Words cannot “take rights away” from anyone. Yeah there are a very few, very well defined areas such as actual threats of violence, which we, as a society, have historically said are excluded from the right of free speech. But any time society adds to the words that that are not covered by the free speech it is become objectively less free and more oppressive. What you’re claiming is not true, if the words no longer covered by freedom of speech are in themselves oppressive. Or - to put it another way - please show exactly why it’s acceptable to you that certain things are already excluded from freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/57 "2018-03-15T04:23:13Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > **Any** limit on any right makes society less free, **in some sense**. But limiting a right ought to be for the purpose of avoiding infringing on some other right. > .) That’s correct, and is why you guys in America can’t ask several types of questions in job interviews, where in other countries you still can. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/58 "2018-03-15T05:32:50Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > That’s correct, and is why you guys in America can’t ask several types of questions in job interviews, where in other countries you still can. You can ask whatever questions you want in a job interview, without fear of prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/59 "2018-03-15T06:44:48Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > You can ask whatever questions you want in a job interview, without fear of prosecution. OK! ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439/60 "2018-03-15T11:29:49Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > You can ask whatever questions you want in a job interview, without fear of prosecution. You may be mixing up what’s allowed to interviewees with what’s allowed to employers. There are most definitely [certain specific questions that it’s illegal for employers to ask interviewees in the US.](http://www.businessinsider.com/11-illegal-interview-questions-2013-7) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drawing-the-line-between-free-speech-and-terrorism/810439.md?page=4)