you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The emphasis on "intimidate and coerce a civilian population" is interesting. Seems to imply billionaires are not considered part of the civilian population. As they shouldn't be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    Before we go giving the legal system a pat on the back for that, that's not really what's happening. The law is written with a high level of provable intent in mind, and that's the only way it could possibly pass 1st Amendment muster. It's really, really hard to prove anyone intended to intimidate anyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That is not how I read it. If he had shot and left a note saying "fuck billionaires" or "fuck CEOs" then it would be terrorism because he would be threatening them. But his problem was just this guy. It was plain murder / revenge.

    The internet made him a champion of "anti billionaires" against his will

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Yep. Maybe this is irelevant to US law, but I'm in Romania (European Union member) at the moment and here discriminating against someone based on wealth (wealthy/poor) is a hate crime (as is discriminating based on gender, age, orientation, etc). So at the most it'd be a hate crime. The terrorism charges were politically motivated.

  • source
  • parent