News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
After you reference a killing, and then say “you are next”, that’s a threat.
The blatant implication is that the person they’re talking to is the next to get killed.
It really is quite clear.
It might be an empty threat, but the blue cross person can’t know that.
You're saying it's simple. It's really not as simple as you think. The legal requirement is a true threat. (Google it) Just threatening someone in anger or frustration has been ruled to not be a true threat. They need a reason to believe you'll follow through. This clearly is not that. It's bullshit. It is purely done as an act of terrorism by the state. They want people to fear even mentioning the killer's message.
you don't think they have a reason? I do. and they clearly did, or they'd never have reported it to cops.
Remember, we're talking about a phone rep for a fucking hated health insurance company. They're used to dealing with angry people. they deal with them every other phone call.
Like you said, they deal with angry customers all the time. Why would they suspect this person is any different? It's just about sending a message. They want us to be scared to ever bring it up, so they need to make an example out of some people.
or. just hear me out here. the lady really was scared because there's something there.
Even if it doesn't rise to the level of being criminality, it's still a threat, and that employee felt threatened enough to report it. do you really think anyone is actually scared to talk about it? I'm not. you're not. Nobody else here isn't either.
It's a threat, yeah. True threat is what's required by the law. You can't just arrest everyone who makes a threat and hold them on $100,000 bail. That'd be insane.
Yes. The judge just about admitted that was the purpose of setting the bail so high. You don't get a bail set at $100,000 for a non-violent offender with family and no flight risk generally. It's purely intimidation. They don't want people to threaten the ultra-wealthy's money, but the state is encouraged to threaten the people to make them stop.
Nope, even you say so:
Notice how its not that the person speaking will do it even in your own rewording? That's how it's not a threat
They implied the worker on the other end of the line would be the next one to suffer grevious bodily harm or death.
It doesn’t matter if she’s the one doing the killing, doesn’t matter if it was “serious”, they used the threat of violence.
It’s really that simple. You’re arguing a technicality that does not exist. Any reasonable person being on the other end of that line would have interpreted it as a threat. Period. Full stop.
Maybe the lady shouldn’t have been denied. That’s probably true. She still made a threat; and she did so on a line that we all know is being recorded.
I don’t know that it needs more than a “don’t do that”, but saying it wasn’t a threat is factually and legally incorrect.
It literally does matter legally, which is what's being discussed surrounding her arrest, by law enforcement, and her bail being set by a Justice in a court of law.
Please, before continuing further, do some reading on "true threat," which is the legal requirement.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/true-threats
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/true-threats/
Before you continue to bitch about "true threat"...
you should probably go back and read the article again. This isn't a 1A issue. She was not somehow prevented from her speech (that is the threat,) and was quite successful in delivering that speech.
Boston is being charged under Florida law. specifically statute 836.10.2b which makes it illegal to:
Again, her first amendment rights were never violated.
another statute that may be of significance here is 836.5, which makes it illegal to issue a threat for the purpose of extorting money (or other gains).
Edit to add: the threat doesn't need to be serious, and not having a firearm doesn't make it okay to threaten people. Is it dubious she had the physical ability to conduct the threat? absolutely. Was it stated in a moment of frustration and anger? certainly. Do I completely understand and sympathize with that anger? fucking absolutely.
however. She still issued a threat. which, if you don't want cops showing up at your door, don't issue a threat to someone whose just doing their job- even if their job is to railroad you and deny medical care; on a recorded phone call. and then don't admit to it to the cops, and then continue saying shit like "they're evil" and "They deserve karma"
of fucking course she got arrested.
To any one reading this, here's the best free legal advice anyone can give you: SHUT THE FUCK UP. When the cops knock on your door. they are INVESTIGATING YOU. shut the fuck up and get a lawyer. Don't admit to anything. don't continue blathering on about how "they deserve it". That's how you get arrested. Boston literally did their work for them.
edit 2: you might want to look at the MTSU article you dropped. It states it rather plainly:
(emphasis mine)
Not really.
The call center rep likely gets daily death threats working that hellish job, ones far more direct. Ones that didn't get the person arrested.
She implied someone at the top was going to be targeted. You know, someone the company actually cares about.
That's called a warning, threats only can come from people who intend to act
"You're going to be next if you keep acting like this" is t a threat. "I'm going to make you the next one" is
there's a big distinction between the two, in that warnings generally involve actions that are legal (like defending yourself, or cops arresting people, etc), vs threats that are actions which illegal ("give me your wallet or I"ll kill you".)
Also, generally speaking, warnings frequently include things that are natural or legal consequences for your actions. "If you continue to harass X, you'll be arrested", is a warning, "if you don't put down the gun, I will shoot" is a warning. "If you swim during a riptide, you'll be pulled out to sea" is a warning. "Approve my claim or i'll kill you" is not a warning. it's a threat.
Yep that would be a threat. That's not what she said though. She never said she'd do anything. She was just pointing out that someone was recently killed for the behavior they're exhibiting, so if they're going to keep doing that behavior, it stands to reason the same thing will happen to them.
Again. It’s not what she said. It’s what she communicated.
She communicated a threat.
Same as if, for example, somebody walks up on you and says “get in the car.” While patting a gun in their waistband.
The guy never said he’d shoot you, but you understand that he will.
Similarly she referenced a killing and said that they’re next. The implicit understanding is that she would do it. That’s what she communicated. A threat.
No, it's not, you're being very weird putting words in someone's mouth
Oh, she had a gun now?
After they denied her claim, referencing a recent cultural event
Only to a complete idiot. Like you, apparently
I understood it as "blue cross is next"
She did not say "I am going to kill you" She did not say "I'm going to execute your CEO"
She was warning them that if they continue their actions someone will do something.
What she said is fully protected by the first amendment. Anyone trying to say that it is a threat is licking on a boot like they found an ice cream bar on a deserted island.
The context you’re hearing it is vastly different. You’re removed from the comments, and weren’t-probably- already getting botched out by an angry Boston.
She said it to a specific person. In the context of a phone call with a specific person, “you people” included the person on the other end of the line.
Btw, I’ve been involved in dozens of similar cases here. Where people have made threats similar against my employees.
These laws are commonly enforced. And you’ll notice they’re not being overturned any time soon. You can say that all you want, but the first amendment doesn’t let you scare people into doing what you want by making threats of violence against them.
That’s not protected speech.
She'd have to be much more specific. It's completely ambiguous.