this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
244 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

355 readers
195 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Your affiant asked Boston if she used the phrase “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next.” during her call earlier today with BlueCross BlueShield to which she acknowledged she said it and apologized. Boston stated she used those words because it’s what is in the news right now. Boston advised she learned of the phrase because of the current events regarding the UnitedHeathcare homicide. Boston stated she did not own any firearms, and she was not a danger to anyone. Boston further stated the healthcare companies played games and deserved karma from the world because they are evil.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

She said "you're next" very obviously referring to the murder of the United Health CEO. If that's not a direct that, I don't know what is.

[–] Darorad 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The supreme court has defined legally actionable threats extremely narrowly. Yeah that's a pretty direct threat, but I don't think it meets the legal standard of a "true threat"

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. The Supreme Court ruled someone saying "If we catch any of you going into these racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck." was protected speech.

That's more direct than her threat.

There's an insanely high standard for convicting someone over a threat.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sure but did someone actually break someone's neck a few days before? I think context is also important.

Btw, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't think this woman should've been arrested. Her threat was obviously empty.

[–] Darorad 2 points 4 days ago

For the 'true threat' standard, it doesn't matter since she had no connection to the shooting.

Not broken necks, but from the Wikipedia page: "In at least 10 instances, individuals who violated the boycott experienced instances of violence, including shots fired into their homes, bricks thrown through their windshields, and tires on their cars slashed."