Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

AZJonnie

(2,475 posts)

3. The ambiguity stems from the word "abolished" which is not clearly calling for violence

Reply to exboyfil (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 3, 2025, 03:18 AM

10 hrs ago

Abolishing typically means "casting aside", "kicking out", etc, and is not typically applied to "people", but rather to "practices". Distasteful and hateful as the sentence is, I think the court's decision is at least defensible insofar as it seems like protected speech. MHO, fwiw.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge orders readmission of law student who posted 'Jews must be abolished' [View all] Behind the Aegis 10 hrs ago OP

there are lots of places where hate speech is not tolerated stopdiggin 10 hrs ago #1

Any means necessary is a threat exboyfil 10 hrs ago #2

The ambiguity stems from the word "abolished" which is not clearly calling for violence AZJonnie 10 hrs ago #3

Oh it's very clear to me. RandySF 9 hrs ago #4

I'm not saying what he actually meant is unclear, only that it's *just* ambiguous enough that it allows AZJonnie 9 hrs ago #5

There's a couple of things that give him some legal leeway EdmondDantes_ 5 hrs ago #6