You either cherry-picked or didn't fully read the article. The Jasick citation is used once, in this section, talking about the history of the law in WW1:
The link itself refers to Watts v. United States, which was decided in 1969. If you actually read the Watts decision, you would know that the law decided by United States v. Jasick was the one Watts was arrested under. The Supreme Court in 1969, under Watts v. United States, ruled that the law was misapplied in United States v. Jasick and clarified that only True Threats were not constitutionally protected. They added a test known as the Watt Factors to separate free speech from non-protected and criminal threats. There are three factors in consideration:
- the context of the statement or statements in question;
- the reaction of the recipient or listeners; and
- whether the threat was conditional.
On it's face, threatening to kill the President is not a crime. "I'm gonna kill that motherfucker" is a standard part of American vernacular and has been for longer than I've been alive. It is hyperbole that means "I am going to hold X accountable". There has to be a legitimate threat at the President and the ability to carry out a serious attempt at said threat before there is a crime. It's why Kathy Griffin and Eminem get interviewed by Secret Service but not arrested or charged.
Nothing you said contradicts anything I stated. I specifically brought up all three of the Watts factors, and I specifically pointed to the extenuating facts that led to the Supreme Court's decision. I also brought up how this case actually stands up to the Watts factors and the original Watts case.
Threatening to kill the President IS A CRIME. The only thing that will save you from being
convicted is extenuating circumstances and facts that will help defeat a conviction. Note, that these things will help you possibly defeat a conviction but they won't stop you from being
arrested and charged. In fact, its illegal to threaten federal officials, judges, politicians, etc. and people get charged with that all the time.
According to this article, there were
23 prosecutions for people making threats against President Donald Trump or those in the presidential line of succession in 2018 alone, and that article details multiple convictions for people threatening to kill Trump, Obama, Bush, Jr., etc. There has been a
recent rise in people being arrested against making threats against federal officials, including Biden. To say that threatening to kill the President isn't a crime isn't just wrong. Its DANGEROUSLY wrong. Do not threaten the President. Period. Not even jokingly. Its just not worth it.
No there doesn't have to be a legitimate threat against the president or the ability to carry out a serious attempt, that's just wrong. That's not what the law says, nor is that what the Supreme Court has said. That isn't even what the Supreme Court decided
in Watts, which is the only case you cite. The Watts factors don't even mention there needing to be an ability to carry out the threat or the threat being legitimate. Kathy Griffin and Eminem were not charged because they could hide behind calling their actions/statements parody. The man in the case that was originally brought up has no such defense. A man was convicted of
making phone calls threatening to kill Obama and Maxine Waters. It doesn't matter whether or not he could carry out an attempt. It doesn't matter whether or not it was legitimate threat or just a guy blowing off steam, he called Senator's office and threatened to kill the president, and then call Waters' office directly to threaten her. All he did was make the threat. The law says that anyone who “knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm” upon the president, vice president, ex-presidents and ex-vice presidents, members of their families, and presidential and vice presidential candidates or members of their families (within 120 days of the general election) faces up to five years in prison on each count and a $250,000 fine.
Interestingly enough, the first article I cited also explains the actual methodology the Secret Service has when looking into these threats:
Jonathan Wackrow, a former Secret Service agent who was part of Obama’s protective team, says that “a slight variation in language” can mean the difference between agents showing up at your front door or not.
“There is an investigative process that takes a very deep dive into everything I can possibly know about this individual,” Wackrow tells Quartz. “You go backwards and look at past incidents—problems at work, behavioral problems, does this person have access to firearms?”
Agents then assign a risk rating to each person who make a threat that is discovered. The higher the rating, the more attention they can expect to get from agents. Check-ins can include a periodic email, a phone call, or an in-person interview. The ones who seem most prone to violence might find a Secret Service vehicle parked outside their home when the president is in their town.
“What we’re looking for are changes in behavioral patterns,” says Wackrow. “Everybody who makes a threat against the president doesn’t get arrested, but we keep track of them and many times that’s what keeps them from transcending into physical action.”
So no, not everybody who makes threats gets the knock at their door. Most probably just get put on a list. The Secret Service do do a threat assessment. What almost certainly got the guy in the original case we are talking about flagged was the shear volume of threats he made, the fact that he did in fact own firearms and a ghillie suit, and directly alluded to killing Biden the next time he was in Utah. Add on the fact that the guy kept up the threats
after the FBI had visited him and let him know they were watching him only pushed him to the top of the list.
It's a picture of a bloody severed head of the sitting president, how does it count as a parody? What is it parodying? Isn't that "extremism" and "terroristic threats"?
It just boils down to friend/enemy distinction. Threatening the president while friends of the establishment is fine since it is considered parody. Threatening the president while being enemies of the establishment is not.
It wasn't a
direct threat upon the President's life. Kathy didn't say she was going to cut off Trump's head. She didn't allude to wanting to behead him the next time she saw him. She didn't threaten to personally do him bodily harm. Her little stunt is probably no worse than some the vile shit that gets shown as political rallies. Poor taste? You bet your ass. And she did get a visit from the Feds for it. But what saved her is that she didn't make a direct threat towards Trump.
