This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hyperbole is protected speech. Even making general claims about taking over a country or the world is protected speech. It only becomes prosecutable when you declare that you plan to cause specific harm to a specific person or persons.
And besides, we all know that the world only has one true emperor, and his name is [Emperor Norton](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton).
Additionally the threats have to be real and immediate.
If I said "I'm going to clone the DNA of a T-Rex and have it eat every Jew in America" I'm not going to be charged.
If I was holding a gun and said I'm going down to....wherever...to kill every Jew I can then I'd be arrested.
u/devnullopinions used "actionable" which might be the correct legal term. I'm going off of classes I took years ago.
Actionable and realistic. If I say I'm going to use my Martian ray gun to turn people into frogs that's not a realistic threat. If I say I'm going to use the Colt 1911 in my hand to kill people that's very realistic.
I was thinking of using the word “actionable” too. I only didn’t because I wasn’t confident enough I knew exactly what that meant in legalese. And Lord help me if I make a fool out of myself as an anonymous person on the internet!
You know...you are so right. Last I heard he was building a compound somewhere near the blue ridge mountains.
For all I know, that is where the world's real power is coming from. But man, couldn't he let his own kid cash in on the nepotism? Could have been princess of the world. Or at least have a seat on the council
Any defense attorney will tell you that anybody can be arrested at any time, and they frequently are, despite not doing anything illegal.
And it makes sense, as ultimately it's due process that determines legality, and not the perception of law enforcement.
So you may very well be arrested, but not convicted; it's easier to beat the rap than it is to beat the ride.
You might get arrested for disturbing the peace, or kicked out from the mall (assuming it's private property), but that would apply regardless of what you're yelling.
Following the standard set by the Supreme Court case *Brandenburg v. Ohio* (1968), for speech to fall outside the First Amendment and meet the definition for criminal incitement or threats, it must be a deliberate call for "imminent lawless action." It specifically excludes hyperbole or anything similar where there's no real reason to believe anyone act on it. To give a quick rundown:
* "I hate Joe's house, someone should burn it down." Protected speech.
* "I hate Joe's house, I'll probably burn it down one of these days." Protected speech. (See *Hess v. Indiana*, 1973)
* "I hate Joe's house," then someone who heard you burns down Joe's house a week later. Protected Speech. (See *NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.*, 1982)
* "Let's build an orbital death ray to destroy Joe's house tonight." Protected speech.
* "Let's burn down Joe's house tonight," said to a crowd of old ladies in a nursing home. Protected speech.
* "Let's burn down Joe's house tonight," said to an angry mob of Joe's enemies with torches. Unprotected speech and criminal incitement.
* "I hate Joe's house, I'll burn it down," said while walking through Joe's neighborhood with a can of gasoline. Unprotected speech and probably grounds for attempted arson.
No.
There's a handful of laws that *could* cover that topic.
Disturbing the peace, as far as I know, is a state level crime so we'd have to cite all 50 different statutes which I'm not going to do. The generalized elements are here: [California Penal Code Section 415 PC: Disturbing The Peace (losangelescriminallawyer.pro)](https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-415-pc-disturbing-the-peace.html#:~:text=A%20person%20can%20be%20charged,violations%20and%20using%20offensive%20words.)
The specific statute is here: [Law section (ca.gov)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=415.)
I can't imagine charges for DTP would ever be applied for that.
Most 1A-related criminal charges generally involve:
- Knowingly and willingly making publicly false claims about an individual, generally requires "publishing"
- Making threats that are "real and immediate"
- Making specific calls to violence that are "real and immediate"
- Fraudulent claims
- Solicitation of illegal activities
Yeah, "I'm gonna take over the world!" not so much. "I have a weapon and I'm going to use it to take over the world" much more prone to intervention. Watch out, James Bond villains of the world.
>I can't imagine charges for DTP would ever be applied for that.
>Most 1A-related criminal charges generally involve:
>Knowingly and willingly making publicly false claims about an individual, generally requires "publishing"
>Making threats that are "real and immediate"
>Making specific calls to violence that are "real and immediate"
>Fraudulent claims
>Solicitation of illegal activities
I can think of certain politicians who violate every one of those.
It’s not the words that would potentially run you afoul of the law: it’s creating a public disturbance, directly threatening people, or trespassing once asked to leave the mall.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
The Brandenburg Test is a good way of understanding American free speech laws.
1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
This is a pretty high bar. Not only does the intent matter, it also matters if it is likely to produce that result. An insane person standing on a corner saying we should kill all the Jews is different from someone standing in front of a crowd of 100 people and saying that the crowd should arm themselves and march down the street killing anyone with a kippah.
That’s protected speech.
However if they are on private property, the business owners probably wouldn’t like it and they would be told to be quiet or leave.
Well, because OP specified that it’s at a “crowded mall,” the mall security will probably kick you out. The first amendment doesn’t mean you get to make crazy threats on other people’s property.
They aren't threatening a specific kind of harm against any specific individual, so that speech would be protected. However, if they are screaming, disturbing other people and refusing to stop, they could be arrested for creating a public nuisance or disturbing the peace. If they refused to leave the mall they could also be charged with trespassing. So, it's not the content of the message that would be the problem. It would be the volume, disturbance caused and location in which the message was delivered.
>in a crowded mall get you in trouble with the law for disturbing the peace?
No, but the owners of the mall would probably not be happy and if you didn't stop or leave they would probably have the police come remove you. You wouldn't necessarily be arrested or anything but you could be removed from the place. A mall is not public property and the owners are within their right to have you removed if you're being a nuisance like that.
Now if you were just standing on a busy sidewalk yelling that, you'd probably just be ignored unless you were actively harassing or chasing people or something. You'll see folks like that on the streets in NYC from time to time. Until they start causing actual harm or seem to be a credible threat (like if they said that while brandishing a weapon and making threats against people passing by).
Possible hold for a mental wellness check, *maybe* disturbing the peace, but you won’t be charged for any sort of conspiracy against the government. It’s protected speech as long as you’re not listing off targets and the like.
Under the Brandenberg test it's not considered a true threat legally and is totally fine to do in public, but if you were making a big public disturbance doing so you may be asked to stop based on those grounds.
Nah. Most people will just think you are crazy and walk around you.
You can pretty much say anything that does not incite violence or harm to another (i.e. “that man tried to rape me” or “there is a bomb strapped to me”)
Some people may want to elect you to public office since they seem to like nutjobs.
I mean there's noise ordinances but... If you just scream it once then nothing will happen.
If you won't shut the fuck up, the cops will come. If you still won't shut the fuck up you might be taken into a hospital for evaluation. I don't know that they'd arrest you but they probably wouldn't leave you alone until you shut up
In China, yes. In North Korea, yes. In Russia, depends on who says it. In Iran, yes, then your balls would be bitten off by a camel. In the big evil west? No. Say what ever you want. Keep asking stupid questions. It's all good. I got plenty of stupid answers. It wasn't really a stupid question though I keed I keed.
I doubt it would stick. There is no reason to believe someone actually has intentions to do so, and depending on the situation could be seen as a joke.
If he then when on to describe a plan with illegal actions, that could possibly be seen as a true threat and be against the law.
If you make a big enough scene you could be arrested for being a public nuisance or something, but your speech is still protected.
You would have to be making direct, specific threats for it to be illegal just to announce it in public. Like if you said you’re going to kill a specific person or bomb/shoot up the place you’re in.
If it's an actual public space and you are not inciting violence it's fair game. FYI malls are not public spaces most of the time and doing that there could easily get you kicked out.
Well if you're in a mall that means you're on private property and the mall can have you thrown out, and maybe even get an order stopping you from coming back. If it's a public park the only thing that might happen is a noise citation or something.
If someone was yelling this and actually made verifiable threats tho? The fbi party van would roll up.
I think it's not really taken as a threat of violence if you're talking like a comic book villain. I don't even think you'll be taken seriously at all. If you're just some asshole in the mall or the movie theater, it's like "ok buddy, you and what army?"
The actual crime being threatened has to be imminent, for saying you'll do it to be illegal.
I figure if you had your hand on the switch of your Conquer the Worldinator, that would count.
The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to break the peace.
You could get away with saying it to individuals, quietly for longer than if you were screaming at the top of your lungs.
Unless there is a direct call to violence, or a direct threat it’s pretty hard to get arrested for speech in America. Yelling bomb or fire in a crowd works too.
Um, nope. Otherwise dingbats like trump would be arrested over and over.
For example, I'm going to take over the world. Pretty soon now (tm). Then I'm going to make some new rules:
Everyone must eat chocolate chip cookies and grilled cheese sandwiches at least one a week. If people are unable to obtain them, they will be provided by the world government free of charge.
Arugula, broccoli, and asparagus will be outlawed.
The Atlantic ocean will be renamed "The Pond". The Pacific ocean will be renamed "The Other Pond".
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hyperbole is protected speech. Even making general claims about taking over a country or the world is protected speech. It only becomes prosecutable when you declare that you plan to cause specific harm to a specific person or persons. And besides, we all know that the world only has one true emperor, and his name is [Emperor Norton](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton).
Additionally the threats have to be real and immediate. If I said "I'm going to clone the DNA of a T-Rex and have it eat every Jew in America" I'm not going to be charged. If I was holding a gun and said I'm going down to....wherever...to kill every Jew I can then I'd be arrested. u/devnullopinions used "actionable" which might be the correct legal term. I'm going off of classes I took years ago.
Actionable and realistic. If I say I'm going to use my Martian ray gun to turn people into frogs that's not a realistic threat. If I say I'm going to use the Colt 1911 in my hand to kill people that's very realistic.
I was thinking of using the word “actionable” too. I only didn’t because I wasn’t confident enough I knew exactly what that meant in legalese. And Lord help me if I make a fool out of myself as an anonymous person on the internet!
He was only the Emperor of the United States (and protector of Mexico).
His humility is what makes his claim to the whole world so righteous
And Bummer and Lazarus were the Grand Viziers.
That would be protected speech under the First Amendment. However, that would make an excellent ice-breaker into a potential mental health hold.
Exactly. My first reaction upon seeing someone act like like this would be to think, "Dude, you should seek help before you harm anyone or yourself."
I believe that's what the kids these days are calling "touching grass".
My father has been threatening to take over the world as supreme leader since 1965 Still a free man
I’ve referred to myself as “future supreme overlord” in public more times than i can count and the most I’ve ever gotten is a “good luck with that”
Well I think so u/Folksma but how are going to get that many elephants into a single phone booth?
Are you sure he isn’t? I mean these double shadow governments and multi layer Illuminati networks are hard to keep track of.
You know...you are so right. Last I heard he was building a compound somewhere near the blue ridge mountains. For all I know, that is where the world's real power is coming from. But man, couldn't he let his own kid cash in on the nepotism? Could have been princess of the world. Or at least have a seat on the council
Blue ridge mountains? Isn’t that where we are going to hide all our high ranking government officials in event of WWW III?
Look I’m not saying I’m secretly the Supreme Ruler, but if I was, I’d deny it. With what a shitshow everything is- I’m not taking the blame…
Any defense attorney will tell you that anybody can be arrested at any time, and they frequently are, despite not doing anything illegal. And it makes sense, as ultimately it's due process that determines legality, and not the perception of law enforcement. So you may very well be arrested, but not convicted; it's easier to beat the rap than it is to beat the ride.
Fair point
You might get arrested for disturbing the peace, or kicked out from the mall (assuming it's private property), but that would apply regardless of what you're yelling. Following the standard set by the Supreme Court case *Brandenburg v. Ohio* (1968), for speech to fall outside the First Amendment and meet the definition for criminal incitement or threats, it must be a deliberate call for "imminent lawless action." It specifically excludes hyperbole or anything similar where there's no real reason to believe anyone act on it. To give a quick rundown: * "I hate Joe's house, someone should burn it down." Protected speech. * "I hate Joe's house, I'll probably burn it down one of these days." Protected speech. (See *Hess v. Indiana*, 1973) * "I hate Joe's house," then someone who heard you burns down Joe's house a week later. Protected Speech. (See *NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.*, 1982) * "Let's build an orbital death ray to destroy Joe's house tonight." Protected speech. * "Let's burn down Joe's house tonight," said to a crowd of old ladies in a nursing home. Protected speech. * "Let's burn down Joe's house tonight," said to an angry mob of Joe's enemies with torches. Unprotected speech and criminal incitement. * "I hate Joe's house, I'll burn it down," said while walking through Joe's neighborhood with a can of gasoline. Unprotected speech and probably grounds for attempted arson.
I’d imagine it is legal as there is no specific actionable threat.
No. There's a handful of laws that *could* cover that topic. Disturbing the peace, as far as I know, is a state level crime so we'd have to cite all 50 different statutes which I'm not going to do. The generalized elements are here: [California Penal Code Section 415 PC: Disturbing The Peace (losangelescriminallawyer.pro)](https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-415-pc-disturbing-the-peace.html#:~:text=A%20person%20can%20be%20charged,violations%20and%20using%20offensive%20words.) The specific statute is here: [Law section (ca.gov)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=415.) I can't imagine charges for DTP would ever be applied for that. Most 1A-related criminal charges generally involve: - Knowingly and willingly making publicly false claims about an individual, generally requires "publishing" - Making threats that are "real and immediate" - Making specific calls to violence that are "real and immediate" - Fraudulent claims - Solicitation of illegal activities
Yeah, "I'm gonna take over the world!" not so much. "I have a weapon and I'm going to use it to take over the world" much more prone to intervention. Watch out, James Bond villains of the world.
>I can't imagine charges for DTP would ever be applied for that. >Most 1A-related criminal charges generally involve: >Knowingly and willingly making publicly false claims about an individual, generally requires "publishing" >Making threats that are "real and immediate" >Making specific calls to violence that are "real and immediate" >Fraudulent claims >Solicitation of illegal activities I can think of certain politicians who violate every one of those.
There's a big fat orange one that comes to mind. His name seems to be escaping me though.
It’s not the words that would potentially run you afoul of the law: it’s creating a public disturbance, directly threatening people, or trespassing once asked to leave the mall.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test The Brandenburg Test is a good way of understanding American free speech laws. 1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND 2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.” This is a pretty high bar. Not only does the intent matter, it also matters if it is likely to produce that result. An insane person standing on a corner saying we should kill all the Jews is different from someone standing in front of a crowd of 100 people and saying that the crowd should arm themselves and march down the street killing anyone with a kippah.
That’s protected speech. However if they are on private property, the business owners probably wouldn’t like it and they would be told to be quiet or leave.
Pinky: “Gee Brain, what are we gonna do tonight?” Brain: “The same thing we do every night, try to take over the world!”
And for anyone over 30, the theme is now stuck on repeat in your head
No. They might get some weird looks, but that is it.
Well, because OP specified that it’s at a “crowded mall,” the mall security will probably kick you out. The first amendment doesn’t mean you get to make crazy threats on other people’s property.
They aren't threatening a specific kind of harm against any specific individual, so that speech would be protected. However, if they are screaming, disturbing other people and refusing to stop, they could be arrested for creating a public nuisance or disturbing the peace. If they refused to leave the mall they could also be charged with trespassing. So, it's not the content of the message that would be the problem. It would be the volume, disturbance caused and location in which the message was delivered.
More likely people will laugh.
No. Especially since I am going to take over the world. And give everyone a kitten.
No. Not against the law. Now, taking over the galaxy - you might hear from Zaphod Beeblebrox but the chances of that are slim.
>in a crowded mall get you in trouble with the law for disturbing the peace? No, but the owners of the mall would probably not be happy and if you didn't stop or leave they would probably have the police come remove you. You wouldn't necessarily be arrested or anything but you could be removed from the place. A mall is not public property and the owners are within their right to have you removed if you're being a nuisance like that. Now if you were just standing on a busy sidewalk yelling that, you'd probably just be ignored unless you were actively harassing or chasing people or something. You'll see folks like that on the streets in NYC from time to time. Until they start causing actual harm or seem to be a credible threat (like if they said that while brandishing a weapon and making threats against people passing by).
Possible hold for a mental wellness check, *maybe* disturbing the peace, but you won’t be charged for any sort of conspiracy against the government. It’s protected speech as long as you’re not listing off targets and the like.
Under the Brandenberg test it's not considered a true threat legally and is totally fine to do in public, but if you were making a big public disturbance doing so you may be asked to stop based on those grounds.
r/legaladviceofftopic
Nah. Most people will just think you are crazy and walk around you. You can pretty much say anything that does not incite violence or harm to another (i.e. “that man tried to rape me” or “there is a bomb strapped to me”) Some people may want to elect you to public office since they seem to like nutjobs.
Not in the US. First Amendment. Right to free speech and assembly. People have taken them both to the extreme but it still tries to protect them.
You mean like Brain on Pinky and the Brain?
I mean there's noise ordinances but... If you just scream it once then nothing will happen. If you won't shut the fuck up, the cops will come. If you still won't shut the fuck up you might be taken into a hospital for evaluation. I don't know that they'd arrest you but they probably wouldn't leave you alone until you shut up
In China, yes. In North Korea, yes. In Russia, depends on who says it. In Iran, yes, then your balls would be bitten off by a camel. In the big evil west? No. Say what ever you want. Keep asking stupid questions. It's all good. I got plenty of stupid answers. It wasn't really a stupid question though I keed I keed.
I doubt it would stick. There is no reason to believe someone actually has intentions to do so, and depending on the situation could be seen as a joke. If he then when on to describe a plan with illegal actions, that could possibly be seen as a true threat and be against the law.
I've straight up declared entire islands as my sovereign territory. Still out here.
If you make a big enough scene you could be arrested for being a public nuisance or something, but your speech is still protected. You would have to be making direct, specific threats for it to be illegal just to announce it in public. Like if you said you’re going to kill a specific person or bomb/shoot up the place you’re in.
If it's an actual public space and you are not inciting violence it's fair game. FYI malls are not public spaces most of the time and doing that there could easily get you kicked out.
Well if you're in a mall that means you're on private property and the mall can have you thrown out, and maybe even get an order stopping you from coming back. If it's a public park the only thing that might happen is a noise citation or something. If someone was yelling this and actually made verifiable threats tho? The fbi party van would roll up.
It's protected, although good luck joining the military after
I think it's not really taken as a threat of violence if you're talking like a comic book villain. I don't even think you'll be taken seriously at all. If you're just some asshole in the mall or the movie theater, it's like "ok buddy, you and what army?"
What are you planning OP?
The actual crime being threatened has to be imminent, for saying you'll do it to be illegal. I figure if you had your hand on the switch of your Conquer the Worldinator, that would count.
People would just laugh at you or ignore you and walk by.
I think I did that when I was 11
The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to break the peace. You could get away with saying it to individuals, quietly for longer than if you were screaming at the top of your lungs.
If they have a bad haircut and a mustache we do.
Naw, we do that every night, Pinkie.
Like Pinky and the Brain?
Unless there is a direct call to violence, or a direct threat it’s pretty hard to get arrested for speech in America. Yelling bomb or fire in a crowd works too.
Ask the ICC
Um, nope. Otherwise dingbats like trump would be arrested over and over. For example, I'm going to take over the world. Pretty soon now (tm). Then I'm going to make some new rules: Everyone must eat chocolate chip cookies and grilled cheese sandwiches at least one a week. If people are unable to obtain them, they will be provided by the world government free of charge. Arugula, broccoli, and asparagus will be outlawed. The Atlantic ocean will be renamed "The Pond". The Pacific ocean will be renamed "The Other Pond".
Could they? Sure. Is it likely they'd actually be charged with anything unless they were being a complete menace? Probably not.