No
Betteridge’s Law of Headlines. Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “No.”
/thread
No need to scroll further, folks.
She’s a scapegoat. They arrested her to make a public example of her. Fuck those bastards, set her free.
Of course not, but they’re going to make an example out of her to deter the rest of the proles.
Except that’s not how that works. She’s going to be a martyr instead.
There is zero chance anyone in a power position in the US can grasp these terms and their real life ramifications.
Unfortunately that’s my conclusion as well. They’ll do this and congratulate themselves on teaching those poors a lesson. In better language I’m sure but that’s the core meaning. And while they’re doing that the “poors” are going to be making protest signs, at the very least.
I think Luigi Mangione is the martyr here.
There’s always room for another.
On the other hand when women complain about threats from stalkers the police do nothing. You might as well delete the word justice from this criminal justice system.
The system is definitely criminal alright
This reminds me of Minority Report. Arrested by the pre-crime unit.
Guilty without the crime actually being committed.
If her crime is threatening then that actually is what she did, in the past.
The punishment of 15 years is just way over the top
That’s not what she did. There are legal standards for what constitutes a threat, and what she said isn’t one.
The legal standards you mentioned seem to disagree with you
She absolutely does not deserve that. Isn’t America the home of free speech? I guess not for the plebs!
We should erect a giant bronze statue of Luigi. Put it in a road right near UHC’s headquarters in Minnesota. Make them all drive past it each and every day on the way to work.
deleted by creator
It worked for that bullgirl in NYC, didn’t it? Let’s make it happen.
You know what? Everyone deserves freedom of speech, and threatening healthcare CEOs is not, in my opinion, a breach of it. There is a huge difference between threatening vulnerable minorities and threatening invulnerable minorities.
Doesn’t a threat have to be credible? As in you can make a threat if you’d like to but it has to actually be a legitimate threat. This isn’t that.
Realistically unless someone says this phrase and has google searches of the CEOs home address, this isn’t a credible threat at all.
You have to make sure you make threats so outlandish that you couldn’t possibly execute them, like “I’m going to grab Trump by the ankle and spin around really fast, and then let go, launching him directly into the sun”
Maybe if we start a rumor that’s there’s billions of exploitable people on Pluto all the rich CEO’s will race each other there, die like the ones in that shitty submarine and leave us the fuck alone.
Happy ending.
“Freedom of speech” in US Law means that the government cannot suppress ideas, expressions, or beliefs so long as those ideas or beliefs do not harm specific peoples, nor negatively impact public health and morals, nor negatively impact national security. In some cases, it isn’t allowed to promote harm of protected classes including race, religion, skin color, gender, or disability, but in the USA that often becomes a civil matter.
If I had my way we’d be even more strict about it: hate speech would be an actual crime and sexual orientations would also be protected classes.
So a woman quoting a murderer who assassinated an insurance company CEO, directly sending that quote to the insurance company that denied her claim, is not and will never be covered by freedom of speech.
Where is her free speech?
Free speech is for nazis, as far as I can tell
In the freezer, next to the peaches.
Ah, so basically next to the freeze peach; got it :)
They are going to argue it’s not protected under the true threat doctrine.
No, the executives, BoD and major investors do.
She was released and all charges dropped. This was a silly farce by the judge and prosecutors from the jump
I don’t think that’s right. She’s been released on bond to house arrest; the charges still stand.
It’s called wrong thinking from the book 1984
Prosecutors throw the book at people, sentences get reduced by dropping things, aclu better get on this and keep her from getting a stupid plea deal, and fight for free speech
Yeah, it’s hard to judge how people ought to respond to plea deals, but 15 years is long enough where she doesn’t have much incentive to take one unless it’s for time served or probation or something tiny like that.
Because her alternative is to go into court and play all the audio and then let the jury imagine what they would do if they were getting f***** over, and let them remember all the times they’ve said things that are definitely not threats, but someone else could be an a****** and erroneously construe them as such. And you’re always taking a gamble when you go to a jury trial, but that’s not a bad gamble to take.
There is no goddamned way UHC doesn’t pressure the prosecutor to drop this to avoid that recording going public because half the jury will be left with the same sentiment when they hear it. And when it is public they will have a lot more to deal with.
If this woman’s lawyers are smart they call the bluff and say “why yes, let’s get this out into trial, use discovery to add context, and play that recording”. There’s law, justice, but the most important thing sometimes when the moment is right is perception.
The US justice system is f’ed up.
We have a legal system, not a justice system.
Shit like this is going to happen until us poors remember our place.
