Also, by the way, threatening speech is technically protected under the first amendment [1]. Dunno why you brought up the government/public opinion topic.
Here's a lawyer, something I am not, on the matter, although I think we're devolving from my initial point: [0] https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne... [1] https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...
To address my empathy comment, I think it's in very poor taste to declare someone "sociopathic" (i.e. shades of mentally ill) if you're not a doctor, close friend/family member, or otherwise licensed professional. Doubly so to make such a judgement based off a small sampling of online commentary. We should all strive to be empathetic and employ a principle of charity when making such judgements, especially before we know the facts.
>>> "Posturing language exists to make a claim to credibility. It serves a real purpose and is used in an instrumental way, for the purpose of conducting business on the terms of those who use it."
>>> "enabling their threats to be real to some degree."
>>> "There is no reason to deny him the possibility of simply being a bad human being who is in need of careful monitoring by society."
Do you realize what you're advocating here? Also, referencing "fire in a crowded theater" is usually looked upon as a canary for those who don't know what they're talking about in regards to free speech