You know what? Everyone deserves freedom of speech, and threatening healthcare CEOs is not, in my opinion, a breach of it. There is a huge difference between threatening vulnerable minorities and threatening invulnerable minorities.
Doesn’t a threat have to be credible? As in you can make a threat if you’d like to but it has to actually be a legitimate threat. This isn’t that.
Realistically unless someone says this phrase and has google searches of the CEOs home address, this isn’t a credible threat at all.
You have to make sure you make threats so outlandish that you couldn’t possibly execute them, like “I’m going to grab Trump by the ankle and spin around really fast, and then let go, launching him directly into the sun”
“Freedom of speech” in US Law means that the government cannot suppress ideas, expressions, or beliefs so long as those ideas or beliefs do not harm specific peoples, nor negatively impact public health and morals, nor negatively impact national security. In some cases, it isn’t allowed to promote harm of protected classes including race, religion, skin color, gender, or disability, but in the USA that often becomes a civil matter.
If I had my way we’d be even more strict about it: hate speech would be an actual crime and sexual orientations would also be protected classes.
So a woman quoting a murderer who assassinated an insurance company CEO, directly sending that quote to the insurance company that denied her claim, is not and will never be covered by freedom of speech.
