Poor MPs. Being power hungry must really suck in the age of social media :(
You can disagree with the position, whilst accepting that MPs have been murdered, and MPs do get threatened online.
What specific level of power hunger makes a threat to life acceptable?
Further, I wasn't in favour of these proposals, but if you have people on HN of all places thinking its acceptable to threaten people, maybe we do need this law.
MPs are getting murdered, so they introduce a new law to prevent murder.
Is the parents comment acceptable?
I'm saying that making sarcastic comments suggesting that MPs deserve to be murdered or threatened isn't acceptable.
Its a completely separate issue from the law theyve introduced, which as I said, I'm not in favour of, and I agree they need to make the case before they remove your toilets, I've already made such a comment elsewhere in this thread.
Law === Threat
That is a threat in the broadest sense.
the more useful comparisons are
law != violence || threat of violence threat != violence
unless youre just equivocating the 2 meanings of threat to construct an argument?
So as law isn't equivalent to violence, why is it acceptable to bring violence into it?