I thought Threatening Someone was ALREADY Against the LAW

[GURPS]

Democrats Want to Make It a Federal Crime to Threaten Journalists

The Journalist Protection Act is a bad idea, for a number of reasons.

​

First, it should be noted that the anti-media sentiment expressed in the Trump parody video is protected speech. It's vile and offensive, but clearly satire—not a true threat of violence against anyone. The person who digitally transformed the infamous church shootout scene from Kingsman: The Secret Service into a Trumpian Battle Royale is protected by the First Amendment, and any attempt to criminalize such expression would be unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny.

The House version of the bill doesn't actually attempt to criminalize mere threats. Instead, it establishes "journalist" as a protected class, and defines the category very broadly as "anyone engaging in regular gathering, preparation, collection, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing concerning a local, national, or international event or other matter of public interest." Causing bodily injury to a journalist carries a penalty of three to six years in prison.

Journalists don't need a new law to protect them from violence, though. Needless to say, it is already illegal to cause bodily injury to another person. At best, creating an additional law at the federal level is pointless. In reality, such a law could have the effect of infringing upon the civil liberties of people accused of violence. When something is criminalized at both the state and federal level, or criminalized on several different grounds, prosecutors have additional opportunities to bring charges. In practice, additional charges often give defendants little option but to plead guilty in exchange for a deal: The authorities simply have too many chances to convict them.

what a bunch of Toddlers ......

 

[vraiblonde]

Threatening a cop: not against the law

Threatening the President: supposed to be against the law but apparently not because Democrat politicians and celebrities do it all the time

Threatening journalists: are you freaking kidding me???

 

[Hijinx]

The House Democrats are anxious to protect their propaganda arm.
Where would they be without the fake news.?

 

[SamSpade]

Threatening journalists: are you freaking kidding me???

There’s a small sentiment in me that believes all journalists - and lawyers - should get at least one punch in the nose daily without consequences to the puncher. But just one.

Of course this WILL result in daily lines forming from people who want to be first.

 

[vraiblonde]

There’s a small sentiment in me that believes all journalists - and lawyers - should get at least one punch in the nose daily without consequences to the puncher. But just one.

Of course this WILL result in daily lines forming from people who want to be first.

See, that's the thing: if there weren't so many lying corrupt aholes in those professions, they wouldn't have the reputation they do. Lawyers didn't just get chosen at random to be the butt of jokes; stereotypes come from somewhere. Journalists are all like, "Stop being mean to us!" and the correct response to that is, "Stop lying and manipulating the public and I'll stop being mean to you."

They are that longtime bully who finally gets punched in the face, then runs off crying. "Teacher! Billy hit me!!"

 

[Hijinx]

There is nothing more dangerous to your reputation and good name than responding to a Journalist.

 

[Kyle]

There is nothing more dangerous to your reputation and good name than responding to a Journalist.

The very reason my standard answer to them has always been "#### OFF!"

... Of course that has provided me with a less than pleasant visit to my bosses office a time or two.

 

[SamSpade]

Lawyers didn't just get chosen at random to be the butt of jokes; stereotypes come from somewhere.

Odd thing is, you don't hear a lot of nurse or doctor jokes, unless it's describing a doctor's arrogance.
Ditto schoolteachers or cops or firemen.

The toughest part of being a lawyer is, you're still constrained - usually - by law. It's not their job to argue whatever
seems right, and it's not their job to defend only those who are innocent. You can be disbarred for deliberately NOT defending your client.
So it's no surprise there are lawyers who get the guilty off scot-free or who use any angle to win a case, no matter how cruel.
If the purpose of a courtroom was to expose the truth, it might be different.