Two and a half centuries of American jurisprudence, inclusive of myriad state and federal court ruling up to SCOTUS, as well as countless books, articles, law journals, etc., have done the job of defining what is and is not protected speech, especially regarding clear and present danger. The Framers were particularly aware of the perils of government overreach in abridging freedom of speech as demonstrated over the centuries in England. Penalties for which included horrific torture and death. [See the Eight Amendment.]

Defamation, liable, plagiarism, criminal conspiracy, and yes, credible death threats and inciting violence are examples of actionable criminal or civil offences, not free speech or debatable ideas. My original post is but a reminder of that. Unfortunately, ‘Social Media’ has become an anonymous environment for malign intent. Few people have had to face legal consequences for their threats; and so, media is replete with stories of politicians and personalities who are victims of these threats to life and family.

My statement, “Death threats and threats of violence are not the free and open exchange of ideas,” is a demonstrably true statement. Threats may in fact and in law be subject to criminal investigation and prosecution. Hiding behind false internet identities makes these threats gratuitous. A strangely ironic and perverted definition of the words, “free speech.”