Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Health Insurance Corp Gets BLASTED For Arresting Woman Over This (Video)" video.

  1. Wait. You don't know why she cannot maintain a suit against them? Really? Remember all those years when you thought our civil rights were "excessive?" Yeah, well . . . here we are. I predict she will get this dismissed on free speech grounds, but she'll have to do it on her own dime.
    17
  2. It is free speech. It is far too vague to be a true threat.
    3
  3. It's not a true threat. Inform yourself about your free speech rights, before they become nothing more than the plot of a cute period piece.
    1
  4. This isn't a true threat. Learn First Amendment rights, before we lose them. I appreciate why BCBS reported her, and why they wanted police to check it out. That's reasonable. But now that they KNOW she isn't a threat, why are they still pressing charges? It's a civil matter: maybe they can drop her from coverage, sue her for intentional infliction of emotional distress of their customer service rep, and leave the criminal justice aparratus out of it. Our taxes are paying for this. Not BCBS. We are paying. AS USUAL.
    1
  5. @litac5433  Because it's far too vague. She stated nothing that indicates that she intends to do anything. And what is coming "next?" Being denied health care just like she was, when they themselves need it most? That's not a threat, it's a solid prediction. Also, when she said something about "karma," what do you think that implied? First Amendment law on true threats is clear. If you had bothered to look up the law, you might have saved yourself the time wasted to post this.
    1
  6.  @litac5433  Not mad, lazy. You have a magnificent First Amendment, but you can't be bothered to look it up.
    1
  7.  @litac5433  Still don't care to read about the meaning of "true threats" under the First Amendment, huh? Then I guess you won't know. Give me a break. People have said and done far worse to me. I handled it just fine.
    1
  8.  @litac5433  Bad behavior isn't always a crime. Justice Jackson just explained that, when she agreed with the Supreme Court's conservatives that certain federal statutes could not be used against the January 6th protesters, even though much of what they did was wrong, obviously. More fun reading.
    1
  9. It's not a true threat. It's too vague, under First Amendment law.
    1
  10. ​ @Squee898  Correct. And asking for a lawyer is sufficient. You can refuse to talk to them. What you cannot do is lie. That's why it's always safer to decline to talk to them. You could get nervous and blurt something out that might be considered untrue. Never lie to LE, or risk telling them a partial truth.
    1
  11. Technically, it is not a true threat. Learn First Amendment law before it becomes quaint history.
    1
  12. That isn't a true threat. It's far too vague. She didn't indicate she had any intention of doing anything. She didn't even specify what was "next." The rep on the phone being denied health coverage when they themselves need it most? That's not a threat, it's a solid prediction. She also said something about karma at some point. That's like saying I'll pray for you that you don't . . .
    1
  13. ​ @Squee898 Judges have absolute immunity for their judicial acts.
    1