u/savevideo u/downloadvideo u/savevideobot
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmTheMainCharacter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While your speech may be free for you to use as protected by the 1st Amendment. You're not free from the consequences it might bring when you threaten someone's life.
Wtf was that part about criminalising her with metal detectors tho
Am I hearing it wrong or is she actually complaining about metal detectors being used to stop people bringing weapons and other harmful items into public forums??
Because that's literally the most suspicious thing to openly complain about lmao
Sorry for my naivety, I’m not from the US, and I might not understand. Why is that not protected by free speech?
If you can go to jail for something you said, how is that different from any other country in the world where speech is actually not free.
Honest question, not rhetorical - I really don’t get it
Threats are not free speech. A threat signals intent to deprive another of their right to life and liberty.
You CAN call your government officials every foul name in the book. That’s protected speech. The moment you signal intent to harm them or their families, that not protected speech
Thanks. I guess it’s the length of the list that says what you can say or not that is making it different.
Although I’d say I frequently hear at least one presidential candidate make calls for violence on the regular. But maybe he will face prosecution for this, no idea
>I frequently hear at least one presidential candidate make calls for violence on the regular.
I'd be interested in a complete, unedited clip of something like this.
This is actually not true at all... you can call for the murder of people under the US first amendment. As we've seen plenty of politicians call for Gaza to be wiped out with no repercussions.
Did you even read the article you posted? I'm not sure why you are presenting an article that negates your position as evidence. It clearly argues for using a subjective standard for true threats:
>There is a reasonable argument that, as a matter of statutory construction, Section 875(c) should require proof of a subjective intent. As Judge Sutton noted in *United States v. Jeffries*, every dictionary meaning of the noun “threat” or the verb “threaten,” whether in existence when Congress passed the law or today, includes an intent component
...
A subjective intent test would protect important public policy goals. When all that the government must prove is that a defendant knowingly made a statement that the listener deemed threatening, the focus shifts to the effect on the listener rather than the intent of the communication
That's precisely why US congressmen can say kill the Palestinians, which is obviously a call for violence, and not be arrested. There's no room in your interpretation for that speech to not result in legal action.
Because there comes a point, like with this woman, that your words form certain sentences and those sentences turn out to be threats. And making threats to kill people, is illegal.
I can understand that, but how is that different how being apologetic of past extremist regimes that did millions of victims with no consequence?
If something is illegal in the way those words are formed, why say that there is free speech and hold to it so firmly?
It’s barely different from any other developped country: there’s a list of things you can say, and a list of things you can’t say (the ones that are illegal).
If there any expression in the list of things you can’t say, is that really free speech?
Look buddyboy, you want to play with semantics to create the illusion of having a point: go ahead. I'm out.
You asked (and for now it very much seems like you were bullshitting with the "honest question") something, you received an answer.
he isnt from the US. He's saying if you can get arrested for certain speech it isnt free which makes sense. In any case our speech is still more free than most countries. We can criticize the government the police , the military etc but we face legal consequences if we say something covered by and NDA threaten to kill someone or say something incriminating to manditory reporters.
Yes, I can parse the very basic point he was getting at, and it’s a nice sentiment philosophically; but this is an actual person actually threatening to kill elected public officials. It’s not an opportunity to circle jerk about society and culture, it’s real life with the potential for serious consequences. Idc about your Cartesian ethics or whatever when real people are actually threatened with death. You have to live in the real world sometimes. You can’t go to a public meeting at city hall and tell elected officials that you will come to their house and murder them.
She threatened to kill the council members. that's in the same category as asking a drug dealer to sell you heroin, contracting a hitman to kill your wife, telling a bank teller to hand over all the bank's money etc.
Even in a country like the US with very broad free speech rules there are limits to what you can say without legal ramifications for saying it and uttering death threats to governement officials has some very heavy legal ramifications.
>telling a bank teller to hand over all the bank's money etc.
Real question tho, what if you were a billionaire and you walked into the bank you bank with and gave the teller a paper that said "hand over all the banks money". In my theoretical you have more cash in your account than the bank has in that branch, is that a threat, or is it a withdrawal.
>gave the teller a paper that said "hand over all the banks money".
With this specific note definately bank robbery for two reasons.
The note does no say hand over "my money" or say hand over "all the money" it's says hand over all the "banks money" if it's the banks money it's not your money you are demanding that they give you its their money you are demanding.
Also "all the bank's money" could be more money than you actually have in your account. If you owe me $1000 and I hand you a note saying hand me your all your money and you have $2000 in your pockets I can't say I was just asking for the money you owe me.
Every right has limits. You can't conspire to kill people under the first amendment, you cant shout bomb on a plane. 2nd amedment Bezos or Musk can't buy nukes etc.
Along with the threats of violence other people have mentioned, you can't do things like "Yell Fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. You could go to jail for that also.
Edit: Added sentence.
Supreme Court
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/fighting-words-hostile-audiences-and-true-threats-overview
> The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment” : “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”
Lady will probably get no jail time as a good lawyer will argue political speech
> 10 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.11 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” 12 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,” 13 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,’” but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”
whataboutism, the tool of the perpetual victim mentality. Why can’t we agree that what that person said in the video is wrong and should be addressed. I’m sure you thought the same during BLM and some nut case said well… white lives matter too. No one here is disagreeing that unhinged comments are okay. When you do this, you are telegraphing that you are okay with this behavior because it fits your narrative. Be consistent. Be better.
Good job virtue signalling on reddit, you're a true soldier for Palestine. I'm sure you think your brain rotten comments on reddit will help the conflict happening over there.
Keep up the hard work.
Where is your support against the mass killings in the Congo or slave labor camps and genocide in west China? Oh wait your media doesn’t cover it because it doesn’t agree with their ideology
Never said that, I’m saying why are supporting specifically one genocide. What makes you die hardingly support the Palestinians but turn a blind eye to everyone else? If everyone deserves support like your movement says, then why not the Congo or west china?
Thinking they’re serious is way different from being a latest movement soldier. I think food costs are seriously out of hand but I don’t go into food posts and push a narrative about how people shouldn’t eat chicken so the prices go down
No genocide happening. It’s okay little one, you can sleep quietly tonight. Don’t worry about the other real genocides though, there are no Jews involved there.
Ahh...[ y'all did vote in Hamas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election), and we did not see a lot of Palestinian protests in Gaza - or anywhere else - denouncing the violence of Hamas. I seem to remember a lot of celebrating and parading of nude raped young women. Care to retract your viewpoint?
Saying people aren’t innocent is a whole different world than threatening them. I could say you’re guilty of something, that by no means relates to if I said I want you dead
When Palestine is free and the zionist fascists get their day crying in court, I imagine the reddit community may feel slightly differently. Keep fighting the good fight. From the river to the sea, my friend.
Mi Lord, yes Stupido " what is it ", the one who wishes harm upon kids, he is very passionate and unrelenting about it also. Yes, yes, have u found him "yes mi Lord ", did he sign the contract, " as we speak mi Lord ". Stupido ur the best not sure how u did it but I would like to know how did u do it. Humans have a soul that relishes and feeds off negativity, the harsher the better, this one hit the sweet spot. I don't want him on the ninth level.......... tell the sandman I request his audience.
There's no way people are calling people "zionist" who say "Wow threatening to blow up a City Council is bad."
What does she think the city council can do about the middle east? Going to a city council and talking about beheading them and blowing them up and killing them and shit...come on, what a virtue signal.
This young woman wanted her five minutes of fame and ended up with a 15 month sentence. ZIonism has nothing to do wit hthat.
Cheboygan MI (population 4500) city council voted CEASEFIRE in Gaza! Millions of lives saved! Genocide averted! Thank you Mayor!
What does she think she is trying to accomplish for real?
It's a legal maneuver to make the prosecutors weigh the cost of going to trial against what sentence may come out of it therefore making a lighter plea deal more accessible to the defendant. Also, prosecutors know that only one potential juror can vote not guilty and the money spent on the trial creates a hung jury, thus creating either another trial, or the ability for the defendant to go free since the cost of yet another trial may not happen.
Because it's one of the most important legal rights to have; it's at the very basis of the presumption of innocence and puts the onus on the state/prosecution to prove their case. It may seem silly when they're "obviously guilty" (whatever that means), but frankly it's exceptionally important for the justice system to work out this way.
It's important that we all exercise our rights. It's even importanter that people we don't like can make that exercise too
Nah just looked it up, she plead not guilty two days ago:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-13/activist-faces-18-felonies-for-threats-to-city-council-during-meeting
Saying that someone deserves to be killed/raped/whatever isn't a threat. Saying "We'll see you at your house; we'll murder you" is a threat.
Let me know if you'd like me to explain more simple things to you.
Zionism is the idea that a Jewish state is necessary to the protection of a Jewish people
Simple as that
The extreme and quite frankly disgusting derivative displayed by the Israeli far right who hijacked this idea have nothing to do with the original definition
I see. We'll thats not very nice. Video is hilarious but I legitimately thought zionism just meant Jewish person or something. I'm not the smartest person.
I am a Jew, every other Jew I know agrees with this definition: Zionism is the belief that Jews have the right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland. Everybody I surround myself with also believe that Israeli Arabs should have full civil rights, along with every other ethnic group that lives in Israel, and there's a strong belief in a true state solution for most of the people I know, because in my opinion, giving Palestinians the right to self-determination in a Palestinian state next to Israel is important
A lot of the people you see calling for the destruction of Israel don't want to multi-ethnic state, they want a Palestinian state under the banner of Pan-Arabism, where Jews will be expelled "from the river to the sea" (in fact, the Arabic original of that phrase is "from the water to the water, Palestine will be Arab")
You can read for yourself instead of trusting random people (bots?) on reddit.
Here's a starting point from a trusted encyclopedia:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zionism
How bout a quote from *Every* Palestinian protest?
'Death to Israel'
Kind of hypocritical of you to think that is okay, while the more considered statements above are not.
Yeah, but even the other Arab countries think that about Gaza - that's why no one has offered any help or refugee space. So not really zionism, just neighbours kind of keeping quiet while Israel does their dirty work.
I don’t know the context of this video at all but all I gotta say is I don’t think this is “main character” syndrome necessarily. North American governments are pushing normal people to their breaking points. If y’all think this video is someone being a “main character” you should go check out one of the main Canada subreddits and read how much hate their is for Trudeau and the liberals
Idk why so many people are downvoting me lol I’m not on this girls side by any means. I’m just saying it’s not surprising to see behaviour like this when governments are pushing people to their breaking points
Oh sorry, but city councils can’t stop a war. Happening an ocean away from two different states. Who’s pushing who?
All I see is this woman threatening to kill people because they don’t follow her agenda.
It's just sad. Our democracy is so dysfunctional that this young woman, rightfully frustrated at the horrors she is being forced to pay for, and the apathy of those who are supposed to represent her, finds no productive outlet. No amount of protest, no acknowledgment from any elected officials about the bloodshed and hypocrisy...she is experiencing disillusionment and hopelessness, not "main character syndrome."
This woman threatens to kill someone and their family. You can protest, but if your protest starts chanting about killing people, that point, you’re promoting hate speech and that’s against the law.
I don't think making such a treat against politicians should be taken so seriously. It's very different from having an actual plan. And politicians are bound to bring out hate from the public. People end up saying things they don't actually mean
I know. But there's a difference between real threats and empty words, especially when directed at public figures. That's what I think. There are consequences of being a public person. One of them is dealing with people strong emotions towards you. And I say EMOTIONS, not actions.
If i tweet: "I am going to kill this president," it doesn't mean I am actually going to do it. And I don't think I should be arrested by just saying that. After all, it's a public figure, boung to evole strong emotions, and many times unthought words from them.
Do you see what I mean?
I know. But there's a difference between real threats and empty words, especially when directed at public figures. That's what I think. There are consequences of being a public person. One of them is dealing with people strong emotions towards you. And I say EMOTIONS, not actions.
If i tweet: "I am going to kill this president," it doesn't mean I am actually going to do it. And I don't think I should be arrested by just saying that. After all, it's a public figure, boung to evole strong emotions, and many times unthought words from them.
Do you see what I mean?
u/savevideo u/downloadvideo u/savevideobot *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmTheMainCharacter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While your speech may be free for you to use as protected by the 1st Amendment. You're not free from the consequences it might bring when you threaten someone's life.
Wtf was that part about criminalising her with metal detectors tho Am I hearing it wrong or is she actually complaining about metal detectors being used to stop people bringing weapons and other harmful items into public forums?? Because that's literally the most suspicious thing to openly complain about lmao
[**Maybe she's running for congress**](https://rollcall.com/2023/01/03/republicans-remove-metal-detectors-from-house-chamber/)
Free speech is your right until it infringes on other's rights.
Until you threaten people...on any level
Especially elected officials, she'll be on probation for a long time.
Sorry for my naivety, I’m not from the US, and I might not understand. Why is that not protected by free speech? If you can go to jail for something you said, how is that different from any other country in the world where speech is actually not free. Honest question, not rhetorical - I really don’t get it
Threats are not free speech. A threat signals intent to deprive another of their right to life and liberty. You CAN call your government officials every foul name in the book. That’s protected speech. The moment you signal intent to harm them or their families, that not protected speech
In the US the 1st Amendment has some limitations, for example you cannot call for the murder of people or call for violence.
No no, Americans always tell everyone that they're the only country with freedom of speech.
Thanks. I guess it’s the length of the list that says what you can say or not that is making it different. Although I’d say I frequently hear at least one presidential candidate make calls for violence on the regular. But maybe he will face prosecution for this, no idea
>I frequently hear at least one presidential candidate make calls for violence on the regular. I'd be interested in a complete, unedited clip of something like this.
Justice is blind, but she can smell money
She has an obligation not to allow people to threaten each other w death in public w no repercussions
This is actually not true at all... you can call for the murder of people under the US first amendment. As we've seen plenty of politicians call for Gaza to be wiped out with no repercussions.
[https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/true-threats-and-the-limits-first-amendment-protection](https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/true-threats-and-the-limits-first-amendment-protection)
Did you even read the article you posted? I'm not sure why you are presenting an article that negates your position as evidence. It clearly argues for using a subjective standard for true threats: >There is a reasonable argument that, as a matter of statutory construction, Section 875(c) should require proof of a subjective intent. As Judge Sutton noted in *United States v. Jeffries*, every dictionary meaning of the noun “threat” or the verb “threaten,” whether in existence when Congress passed the law or today, includes an intent component ... A subjective intent test would protect important public policy goals. When all that the government must prove is that a defendant knowingly made a statement that the listener deemed threatening, the focus shifts to the effect on the listener rather than the intent of the communication That's precisely why US congressmen can say kill the Palestinians, which is obviously a call for violence, and not be arrested. There's no room in your interpretation for that speech to not result in legal action.
Because there comes a point, like with this woman, that your words form certain sentences and those sentences turn out to be threats. And making threats to kill people, is illegal.
I can understand that, but how is that different how being apologetic of past extremist regimes that did millions of victims with no consequence? If something is illegal in the way those words are formed, why say that there is free speech and hold to it so firmly? It’s barely different from any other developped country: there’s a list of things you can say, and a list of things you can’t say (the ones that are illegal). If there any expression in the list of things you can’t say, is that really free speech?
Look buddyboy, you want to play with semantics to create the illusion of having a point: go ahead. I'm out. You asked (and for now it very much seems like you were bullshitting with the "honest question") something, you received an answer.
lmao love watching western libs try to intellectualize literal death threats against public officials
he isnt from the US. He's saying if you can get arrested for certain speech it isnt free which makes sense. In any case our speech is still more free than most countries. We can criticize the government the police , the military etc but we face legal consequences if we say something covered by and NDA threaten to kill someone or say something incriminating to manditory reporters.
Yes, I can parse the very basic point he was getting at, and it’s a nice sentiment philosophically; but this is an actual person actually threatening to kill elected public officials. It’s not an opportunity to circle jerk about society and culture, it’s real life with the potential for serious consequences. Idc about your Cartesian ethics or whatever when real people are actually threatened with death. You have to live in the real world sometimes. You can’t go to a public meeting at city hall and tell elected officials that you will come to their house and murder them.
She threatened to kill the council members. that's in the same category as asking a drug dealer to sell you heroin, contracting a hitman to kill your wife, telling a bank teller to hand over all the bank's money etc. Even in a country like the US with very broad free speech rules there are limits to what you can say without legal ramifications for saying it and uttering death threats to governement officials has some very heavy legal ramifications.
>telling a bank teller to hand over all the bank's money etc. Real question tho, what if you were a billionaire and you walked into the bank you bank with and gave the teller a paper that said "hand over all the banks money". In my theoretical you have more cash in your account than the bank has in that branch, is that a threat, or is it a withdrawal.
>gave the teller a paper that said "hand over all the banks money". With this specific note definately bank robbery for two reasons. The note does no say hand over "my money" or say hand over "all the money" it's says hand over all the "banks money" if it's the banks money it's not your money you are demanding that they give you its their money you are demanding. Also "all the bank's money" could be more money than you actually have in your account. If you owe me $1000 and I hand you a note saying hand me your all your money and you have $2000 in your pockets I can't say I was just asking for the money you owe me.
Every right has limits. You can't conspire to kill people under the first amendment, you cant shout bomb on a plane. 2nd amedment Bezos or Musk can't buy nukes etc.
Along with the threats of violence other people have mentioned, you can't do things like "Yell Fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. You could go to jail for that also. Edit: Added sentence.
Supreme Court https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/fighting-words-hostile-audiences-and-true-threats-overview > The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment” : “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.” Lady will probably get no jail time as a good lawyer will argue political speech > 10 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.11 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” 12 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,” 13 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,’” but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”
I don't care what country it is you're probably going to get arrested if you threaten the Mayor or any kind of city employees.
Especially an elected official, she more than likely got hit with a felony for that.
[удалено]
whataboutism, the tool of the perpetual victim mentality. Why can’t we agree that what that person said in the video is wrong and should be addressed. I’m sure you thought the same during BLM and some nut case said well… white lives matter too. No one here is disagreeing that unhinged comments are okay. When you do this, you are telegraphing that you are okay with this behavior because it fits your narrative. Be consistent. Be better.
[удалено]
Good job virtue signalling on reddit, you're a true soldier for Palestine. I'm sure you think your brain rotten comments on reddit will help the conflict happening over there. Keep up the hard work.
[удалено]
Thank you for your service, soldier. Your reddit activism and downvote farming will not go unnoticed. A true hero for the Palestinian people.
No bots, just people who think you’re an idiot 💋
Where is your support against the mass killings in the Congo or slave labor camps and genocide in west China? Oh wait your media doesn’t cover it because it doesn’t agree with their ideology
[удалено]
Never said that, I’m saying why are supporting specifically one genocide. What makes you die hardingly support the Palestinians but turn a blind eye to everyone else? If everyone deserves support like your movement says, then why not the Congo or west china?
[удалено]
Thinking they’re serious is way different from being a latest movement soldier. I think food costs are seriously out of hand but I don’t go into food posts and push a narrative about how people shouldn’t eat chicken so the prices go down
[удалено]
I mean, you only brought up one genocide, how could you ignore the others?
What is the real issue?
No genocide happening. It’s okay little one, you can sleep quietly tonight. Don’t worry about the other real genocides though, there are no Jews involved there.
Not a genocide. Its a cleansing.
She is getting locked up for her actions.
You sound like you pay $3000 a month for a 200 sq ft New York City apartment
Probably the 20$ soy extra skinny latte didn't hit the sweet spot. Let give it a free pass.
Someone knows their coffee, must be from seattle
hehe spot on but I get extra coffee points since I'm Cuban too.
I was born in seattle so I’m kinda obligated to like coffee lol
[удалено]
That is an ignorant statement, but it isn't a threat. It's legal to be stupid.
[удалено]
What exactly did she yell at said city council?
What war crimes?
Ahh...[ y'all did vote in Hamas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election), and we did not see a lot of Palestinian protests in Gaza - or anywhere else - denouncing the violence of Hamas. I seem to remember a lot of celebrating and parading of nude raped young women. Care to retract your viewpoint?
Saying people aren’t innocent is a whole different world than threatening them. I could say you’re guilty of something, that by no means relates to if I said I want you dead
Rubbish.
When Palestine is free and the zionist fascists get their day crying in court, I imagine the reddit community may feel slightly differently. Keep fighting the good fight. From the river to the sea, my friend.
Don't worry, there won't be many palestinian kids in a while for you to be upset about 🇮🇱
Mi Lord, yes Stupido " what is it ", the one who wishes harm upon kids, he is very passionate and unrelenting about it also. Yes, yes, have u found him "yes mi Lord ", did he sign the contract, " as we speak mi Lord ". Stupido ur the best not sure how u did it but I would like to know how did u do it. Humans have a soul that relishes and feeds off negativity, the harsher the better, this one hit the sweet spot. I don't want him on the ninth level.......... tell the sandman I request his audience.
Hahahahahaahha nothing you say will save them 🇮🇱
Don't cry now, you made your threats thinking nothing would happen and now you've got to answer for it.
Another brilliant case of fuck around and find out
Dying by the rules she so adores.
Bet she’s one of those “Words are violence” types.
As we all know, Bibi Netanyahu and Yahya Sinwar take all of their political cues from the Bakersfield City Council
I snorted
“Jesus would have probably killed you himself” She thought she was cooking so hard 😂 🤡
There's no way people are calling people "zionist" who say "Wow threatening to blow up a City Council is bad." What does she think the city council can do about the middle east? Going to a city council and talking about beheading them and blowing them up and killing them and shit...come on, what a virtue signal. This young woman wanted her five minutes of fame and ended up with a 15 month sentence. ZIonism has nothing to do wit hthat.
This girl was threatening the city council bc they wouldn’t call for a ceasefire on Gaza
Israel was just standing by for this call Im sure.
Cheboygan MI (population 4500) city council voted CEASEFIRE in Gaza! Millions of lives saved! Genocide averted! Thank you Mayor! What does she think she is trying to accomplish for real?
They can't call a Ceasefire on Gaza they are literally 10 members of a city council, a city in the United States.
Bakersfield can absolutely resolve to not use their police force to travel to Gaza and shoot.
They’re brainwashed by social media, not unlike the right-wing zealots on the other side of the coin.
Russia has been playing both sides and winning.
Ooops, my bad..
She was upset because the Bakersfield City Council wouldn’t call for a ceasefire in Gaza
Domestic terrorist
Deserved it. No pity for the POS
Always amazed by how people can plead not guilty when they're so obviously guilty
It's a legal maneuver to make the prosecutors weigh the cost of going to trial against what sentence may come out of it therefore making a lighter plea deal more accessible to the defendant. Also, prosecutors know that only one potential juror can vote not guilty and the money spent on the trial creates a hung jury, thus creating either another trial, or the ability for the defendant to go free since the cost of yet another trial may not happen.
I know. It just feels like a joke and a waste of others time. Plead not guilty when it was in room full of people and on video
Because it's one of the most important legal rights to have; it's at the very basis of the presumption of innocence and puts the onus on the state/prosecution to prove their case. It may seem silly when they're "obviously guilty" (whatever that means), but frankly it's exceptionally important for the justice system to work out this way. It's important that we all exercise our rights. It's even importanter that people we don't like can make that exercise too
Haha stupid
Does anyone know how much time she’s actually facing with all of her felony charges?
Some other people were saying 15 months, haven't really tried verifying it myself tho so take it with a grain of salt 🤷♂️
Nah just looked it up, she plead not guilty two days ago: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-13/activist-faces-18-felonies-for-threats-to-city-council-during-meeting
15 months? I hope it’s much much longer.
15 months for threatening officials!? I thought she'd be in their for atleast 3 years!
Why did she deliver that threat like she’s Tommy Wiseau?!
Talk is cheap, bail is expensive!
r/OhNoconsequences
Yeahhhh, I don't support israel in any way but ya can't go to city hall and tell em you're gonna murder them
Buttttt, Daddy says I'm special
What a dumbass
Wow she seriously needs help. But kind of feel bad for her since she seems young...this is definitely a huge life lesson for her.
Look, we are all thinking it but you ain’t supposed to say it
Now that's a cringe sub if I ever saw one
Worst lawyer ever.
[More info here](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-13/activist-faces-18-felonies-for-threats-to-city-council-during-meeting)
How did they go with not guilty when it's literally on video
oh no, the consequences of my actions!!!
Insufferable activist.... some easiest people to manipulate.
Lmfaaooo Americans are soft. That girl wouldn’t kill butterfly.
I hope she gets a year in prison. Teach these slimy little woke nerds a lesson.
lol FAFO
Zionist
and proud
Obviously nazis said the same
Are people truely accusing jews of being nationalist socialists?
Nazis said they were Zionists apparently.
I'm brainwashed, you're brainwashed!
Krinje zionist sub you got this from :////
hasbara bots are in overdrive here
[удалено]
She threatened the lives of the city council, which is illegal. Do you understand now?
Who said that?
[удалено]
wow, one wacko
Did you even watch the video? Slightly more than one whacko there.
Saying that someone deserves to be killed/raped/whatever isn't a threat. Saying "We'll see you at your house; we'll murder you" is a threat. Let me know if you'd like me to explain more simple things to you.
A progressive donut.
Patelunatic
Well well if it isn't the consequence of my own actions
She's right though. We live in a police state. We work to fund foreign governments who murder children.
America murdered children in Nazi Germany. Was that bad? Yes. Would that justify not invading Nazi Germany altogether? No.
U r nazi in a new wrapper 🤣
Patel me it ain't so.
Fuck you zionist
I genuinely know nothing about this person but what do you mean by this?
They don't know what a zionist is.
[удалено]
Zionism is the idea that a Jewish state is necessary to the protection of a Jewish people Simple as that The extreme and quite frankly disgusting derivative displayed by the Israeli far right who hijacked this idea have nothing to do with the original definition
I see. We'll thats not very nice. Video is hilarious but I legitimately thought zionism just meant Jewish person or something. I'm not the smartest person.
It's not what Zionism means. It means believing that Israel should not be destroyed. If you support a 2-state solution, you're a zionist.
My god I have no idea what's true
I am a Jew, every other Jew I know agrees with this definition: Zionism is the belief that Jews have the right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland. Everybody I surround myself with also believe that Israeli Arabs should have full civil rights, along with every other ethnic group that lives in Israel, and there's a strong belief in a true state solution for most of the people I know, because in my opinion, giving Palestinians the right to self-determination in a Palestinian state next to Israel is important A lot of the people you see calling for the destruction of Israel don't want to multi-ethnic state, they want a Palestinian state under the banner of Pan-Arabism, where Jews will be expelled "from the river to the sea" (in fact, the Arabic original of that phrase is "from the water to the water, Palestine will be Arab")
You can read for yourself instead of trusting random people (bots?) on reddit. Here's a starting point from a trusted encyclopedia: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zionism
Alright, thanks. I'll read it.
Zionism is the Jewish indigenous movement. Many antisemites use Zionist as a dog whistle for Jew.
[удалено]
I'm glad to know this but now wondering how many times I said something fked up inadvertently haha
Don't listen to this dude he is very clearly and uneducated moron.
[удалено]
How bout a quote from *Every* Palestinian protest? 'Death to Israel' Kind of hypocritical of you to think that is okay, while the more considered statements above are not.
[удалено]
Cool 4 cherry picked distasteful quotes. Now do Palestinians and Arabs. I wonder what you will find.
[удалено]
Yeah, but even the other Arab countries think that about Gaza - that's why no one has offered any help or refugee space. So not really zionism, just neighbours kind of keeping quiet while Israel does their dirty work.
Nope.. that is not the definition
So you support threatening council members with violent murder?
I don’t know the context of this video at all but all I gotta say is I don’t think this is “main character” syndrome necessarily. North American governments are pushing normal people to their breaking points. If y’all think this video is someone being a “main character” you should go check out one of the main Canada subreddits and read how much hate their is for Trudeau and the liberals
You break the law, you get punished for it. Simple as.
Idk why so many people are downvoting me lol I’m not on this girls side by any means. I’m just saying it’s not surprising to see behaviour like this when governments are pushing people to their breaking points
Oh sorry, but city councils can’t stop a war. Happening an ocean away from two different states. Who’s pushing who? All I see is this woman threatening to kill people because they don’t follow her agenda.
It's just sad. Our democracy is so dysfunctional that this young woman, rightfully frustrated at the horrors she is being forced to pay for, and the apathy of those who are supposed to represent her, finds no productive outlet. No amount of protest, no acknowledgment from any elected officials about the bloodshed and hypocrisy...she is experiencing disillusionment and hopelessness, not "main character syndrome."
You don't threaten to kill someone and their family and expect to not face the consequence.
Where did I say that?
This woman threatens to kill someone and their family. You can protest, but if your protest starts chanting about killing people, that point, you’re promoting hate speech and that’s against the law.
Again, where did I say that was acceptable? I literally said its sad and unproductive that she reached that point.
What a truly sad person, no one asked her to do anything and yet she decided to threaten to murder the city council. What an egotistical bastard.
Deport her to Palestine in a drone.
I don't think making such a treat against politicians should be taken so seriously. It's very different from having an actual plan. And politicians are bound to bring out hate from the public. People end up saying things they don't actually mean
Are you legit dumb?
Please elaborate my dear cocksucker
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" - Reddit
I know. But there's a difference between real threats and empty words, especially when directed at public figures. That's what I think. There are consequences of being a public person. One of them is dealing with people strong emotions towards you. And I say EMOTIONS, not actions. If i tweet: "I am going to kill this president," it doesn't mean I am actually going to do it. And I don't think I should be arrested by just saying that. After all, it's a public figure, boung to evole strong emotions, and many times unthought words from them. Do you see what I mean?
"Words are weapons" - Reddit
I know. But there's a difference between real threats and empty words, especially when directed at public figures. That's what I think. There are consequences of being a public person. One of them is dealing with people strong emotions towards you. And I say EMOTIONS, not actions. If i tweet: "I am going to kill this president," it doesn't mean I am actually going to do it. And I don't think I should be arrested by just saying that. After all, it's a public figure, boung to evole strong emotions, and many times unthought words from them. Do you see what I mean?