Was just looking and didn't see a federal law regarding "terroristic threats". The threat was made in NYC against a target in NYC, so I would hope a case is being worked up.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

right? why would a company that doesn't care about spreading hate and blatant lies, care about anything anyone has to say that isn't handing them stacks of cash.. that's all they care about is money.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

All corpos are fascist orgs

They should be treated as such.

Deny them profit and engagement

[–] justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io 20 points 1 week ago

call their advertisers

[–] Nuerion@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

fox entertainment*

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If anyone of us publicly called for the UN to be bombed, we'd be in an interrogation room this very minute.

I forget the charge but something along the lines of "making a terroristic threat", and I don't believe the law considers one's actual ability to execute said threat. This isn't a 1st Amendment issue. Working for a news org does not give you free reign to say whatever the hell you like.

Consider this; If an FBI agent wanted to arrest this man, the request would get kicked all the way to the top because no one wants to risk their ass, especially on a case that would instantly be dropped once it hits Patel's desk. Still, I would think someone with authority in NYC would take this seriously.

One more thought, bet money the UN Building is on high alert for stochastic terrorism.

EDIT:

Must not be a federal law, all I'm seeing are state laws. Here's the criteria from NY State:

INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination, or kidnapping, when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. 4 In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following two elements:

That on or about (date), in the county of (county), the defendant (defendant’s name), threatened to commit, or to cause to be committed, the offense of (specify offense), thereby causing a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of that offense; and
That the defendant did so with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.

Sounds like he'd slide. :(

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

And Brian Kilmeade