Hacker News Reader

Comment by _almosnow | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for the explanation and the examples. I'm currently reading about hate speech cases and laws, definitely learning a lot. Apparently, even hate speech is protected as long as it is not thought to be the cause for an 'imminent danger'. Do you think that a terrorist threat could (or should) classify as an 'imminent danger' when it escalates to situations like these?

View on HN

Terroristic threats are already illegal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

Again, though, that's things similar to "I'm going to bomb your store" or "I have placed a hidden explosive near your offices" or similar; things that, even if they're false, cause other people to have to take them seriously and waste time and resources.

In short, a terroristic threat doesn't insult someone, it makes that person think some specific terroristic action is going to be performed in the immediate future. It's not really that fine of a line. I'm fully in favor of those threats being illegal.

In short:

Legal: "[Those people] are stupid and smell bad."

Legal: "[Those people] shouldn't live around here."

Still Legal: "If [those people] don't move, bad things will happen."

Yes, Legal: "I have a gun. [Those people] shouldn't mess with me. I have ever so many firearms. I love to shoot, especially [those people]."

Legal: "It is time for [our people] to kill [those people]."

Not Legal: "Tonight, we all move in on [those people] and kill them."

Not Legal: "There is a bomb in the [Those People] Recreational Center."

The line isn't insults. It isn't even threats as such. It's threats of immediate violence.

About the terrorist threats, I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? or does the immediate violence threat has to be something implicit within the published message.

Btw, thanks, those examples are awesome.

> I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication?

If they made a specific and credible threat to cause death, bodily harm, or serious property damage if someone published something, yes, I think that would qualify as an illegal terroristic threat under the law.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal...

Note that threatening to picket or boycott or otherwise protest isn't a terroristic threat. The threat has to be about something in the specific list I mentioned above.

I think the parent commenter's question was whether it would be illegal to publish something that was the subject of a credible terrorist threat, not to make a credible terrorist threat. You addressed whether people are allowed to make threats (no) rather than whether the government can use the threats as a reason to prevent the thing that is the target of the threats (generally also no).

> I think the parent commenter's question was whether it would be illegal to publish something that was the subject of a credible terrorist threat, not to make a credible terrorist threat.

Oh. Sorry. I guess I didn't even consider that, because it would be obvious to me: Yes, of course you can publish something that was the subject of a threat. That isn't even mildly controversial here; in fact, not publishing something because you were threatened would be seen as rank cowardice. Look at what happened to Sony for what was ultimately a brief delay in releasing The Interview.

> You addressed whether people are allowed to make threats (no) rather than whether the government can use the threats as a reason to prevent the thing that is the target of the threats (generally also no).

Right. Exactly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com