# Freedom of speech v threats **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 22, 2017, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835 "2017-01-22T17:16:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Patx2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/73ab20/32.png) [@Patx2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patx2)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/1 "2017-01-22T17:16:21Z")
I’m not sure I’m in the correct forum on this, so I may be moved. I got to thinking about this after catching a comment Maddona made. I apologize, I don’t have the exact quote, but, to paraphrase she said, I thought about blowing up the White House. Ok, on the one hand, that’s her expressing an opinion about her anger over the election. On the other hand, isn’t that a terroristic threat? I mean whether or not she intended to do something of that nature shouldn’t she have been arrested and gone through due process? So, where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and making threats that should be investigated by the legal system? I don’t think the mindset, she didn’t mean it applies because then we would be applying a very subjective set of rules on each individual basis. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/2 "2017-01-22T17:51:10Z")
The Secret Service does plan to investigate her comments. > **[Secret Service plans to investigate Madonna for saying she wants to blow up...](https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/22/secret-service-plans-to-investigate-madonna-for-saying-she-wants/21660213/)** > > While sporting a black p\*ssyhat she also said the F-word four times, causing broadcasters to have to apologize since they were airing the broadcast live. ---
**Author:** ![Patx2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/73ab20/32.png) [@Patx2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patx2)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/3 "2017-01-22T19:34:10Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > The Secret Service does plan to investigate her comments. > > [Secret Service plans to investigate Madonna for saying she wants to blow up the White House](https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/22/secret-service-plans-to-investigate-madonna-for-saying-she-wants/21660213/) Yes, thanks, I just read that about half an hour ago. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/4 "2017-01-22T19:49:31Z")
I’m no expert on federal law so I’ll give you my opinion as to the law. I know most states have similar wording. My local law: “A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to kill another with the purpose to put him in imminent fear of death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the immediacy of the threat and the likelihood that it will be carried out.” The threat has to be credible enough so a reasonable person feels the imminent fear of death. Hyperbolic statements generally are not terrorist threats. That doesn’t mean the Secret Service shouldn’t have a chat and there are specific statutes that cover the president. ---
**Author:** ![Patx2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/73ab20/32.png) [@Patx2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patx2)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/5 "2017-01-22T20:42:45Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I’m no expert on federal law so I’ll give you my opinion as to the law. I know most states have similar wording. My local law: > “A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to kill another with the purpose to put him in imminent fear of death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the immediacy of the threat and the likelihood that it will be carried out.” > > The threat has to be credible enough so a reasonable person feels the imminent fear of death. Hyperbolic statements generally are not terrorist threats. That doesn’t mean the Secret Service shouldn’t have a chat and there are specific statutes that cover the president. That phrase “hyperbolic statements” makes things clearer and I can understand why the Secret Service may insist on having a chat with her. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/6 "2017-01-22T21:27:53Z")
See the “clear and present danger” test: > **[Imminent lawless action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action)** > > "Imminent lawless action" is one of several legal standards American courts use to determine whether certain speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The standard was first established in 1969 in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio. > Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that ... > **[The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence](https://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/the-brandenburg-test-for-incitement-to-violence/)** > > In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that, to merit conviction, the violence advocated must be intended, likely and imminent. By Jeff Howard. In short, incitement to violence is free speech unless that violence is both imminent and likely. Otherwise it’s just hyperbole… for now. It’s entirely possible for a new Supreme Court to reverse that decision with a liberal uprising. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/7 "2017-01-22T22:50:33Z")
On a tangent… It was pointed out to me earlier that if someone does manage to get a weapon into the vicinity of the president, the agents guarding him will have to yell, “DONALD, DUCK!” Yes, I know that they won’t yell so much as they’ll hit him like a college linebacker to get him out of any line of fire. But still, it’s an amusing scenario. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/8 "2017-01-22T22:54:41Z")
Madonna’s full transcript - and the quote - [QUOTE= [Full Transcript of Madonna's Women's March Speech - Read Madonna's Speech at the Woman's March](http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a42336/madonnas-womens-march-speech-transcript/)] "Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything. We cannot fall into despair. As the poet, W.H. Auden once wrote on the eve of World War II: We must love one another or die. “I choose love. Are you with me? Say this with me: We choose love. We choose love. We choose love.” [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Grumbacher\_Red](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Grumbacher\_Red](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumbacher_Red)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/9 "2017-01-22T23:22:54Z")
It was, at the very least, a truly irresponsible thing for a celebrity to say. I have posted elsewhere about my diminishing opinion of Madge, somebody I used to think was a savy trailblazer, so I won’t go off on a diatribe about it now, but her choice of words was in incredibly poor taste. There are much better ways to get the point across. It was a true “going low” moment, but this is just my opinion, which doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/10 "2017-01-23T02:41:10Z")
> [@Grumbacher\_Red](#): > > It was, at the very least, a truly irresponsible thing for a celebrity to say. I have posted elsewhere about my diminishing opinion of Madge, somebody I used to think was a savy trailblazer, so I won’t go off on a diatribe about it now, but her choice of words was in incredibly poor taste. There are much better ways to get the point across. It was a true “going low” moment, but this is just my opinion, which doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. There are lots of people who feel this way. She just had the courage to not only express that sentiment, but to express why it wouldn’t work. Maybe it doesn’t speak to you, but it has the potential to deescalate the situation by first acknowledging the emotion and then working through it and choosing a better route. This is preferable, wouldn’t you say, to letting the hatred and anger pent up over time and exploding in violent riots? ---
**Author:** ![Grumbacher\_Red](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Grumbacher\_Red](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumbacher_Red)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/11 "2017-01-23T03:20:13Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > There are lots of people who feel this way. She just had the courage to not only express that sentiment, but to express why it wouldn’t work. Maybe it doesn’t speak to you, but it has the potential to deescalate the situation by first acknowledging the emotion and then working through it and choosing a better route. This is preferable, wouldn’t you say, to letting the hatred and anger pent up over time and exploding in violent riots? Yes, it is certainly preferable to a riot (I am Anti-Trump, but those riots bother me a great deal), but as happens so often, the whole quote isn’t what is getting spread around, and a lot of people are not necessarily going to go and look for the whole thing. Not saying that public people should have to think about everything they say in terms of what the sound byte will be, but mercy sakes, this is just asking for a blotch to be put on something that most people wanted to be an overall positive message. Besides, I don’t believe in putting negative energy like that out there in the Universe. You never know where it will land or on whom. It might actually come back on you. As I have said, just my little ol’ 1/2 cents worth of an opinion, but Madonna is ruining her own legacy. Things that fly when you are 27, do not when you are 57. You are supposed to have learned better by now and acquired the ability to lead with strength and intellect, and not fall back on shock value. She has the ability to be much more effective for serious platforms such as this, and she just plain is not. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/12 "2017-01-23T03:47:06Z")
> [@Grumbacher\_Red](#): > > Things that fly when you are 27, do not when you are 57. You are supposed to have learned better by now and acquired the ability to lead with strength and intellect, and not fall back on shock value. She has the ability to be much more effective for serious platforms such as this, and she just plain is not. ^ That’s a good point. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2017, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-v-threats/777835/13 "2017-01-23T06:13:45Z")
The context of her comments removes her words from any reasonable determination that a threat was being made. From a legal standpoint, she’s in the clear. Of course, the Secret Service is legally entitled to ask her any questions they please; she is entitled to disregard their queries and go about her business.