As a non-american, this seems unsurprising. The Harris campaign seemed to be running the same playbook as the Clinton one did. The main reason anyone gave for voting for her was not being trump, effectively making her the satus quo candidate. If everything is shit for you under the current status quo, that doesn't encourage you to vote for her.
The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States.[3] In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States.[3]
The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, "[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."[3] Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts.
In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech."[3] The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wide open" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat."[3]
RobotToaster @ RobotToaster @mander.xyz Posts 47Comments 1,454Joined 2 yr. ago
As a non-american, this seems unsurprising. The Harris campaign seemed to be running the same playbook as the Clinton one did. The main reason anyone gave for voting for her was not being trump, effectively making her the satus quo candidate. If everything is shit for you under the current status quo, that doesn't encourage you to vote for her.