A Virginia jury last week decided that a man who had encouraged violence against President Donald Trump and openly fantasized about his death was not guilty under the law, arguing that his free speech rights allowed him to do so.
Former Coast Guard Officer Peter Stinson wrote on social media that someone should "take the shot" at Trump and added, "Realistically the only solution is violence."
He also said he "would twist the knife after sliding it into [Trump’s] fatty flesh" and that he "would be willing to pitch in" to contract a hitman to kill him.
"He wants us dead. I can say the same thing about him," Stinson wrote during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Despite these comments, the jury said he was not guilty of soliciting a crime of violence, but the case has raised questions about how far it is permissible to go when making public statements about violence against someone.
Defense witness Professor Jen Golbeck of the University of Maryland said people "rooting for Trump to die online" is common.
"On one hand, I would not encourage anyone to post those thoughts on social media," Golbeck said, according to the Washington Post. "On the other hand, I can’t count the number of people who I saw post similar things. . . . It’s a very common sentiment. There’s social media accounts dedicated to tracking whether Trump has died."
Program counsel with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Brennen VanderVeen thought the acquittal might have had more to do with the fact that Stinson didn't actually solicit any one individual to carry out his wishes on Trump.
"Solicitation is when it’s directly tied to the crime. So, if he contacts an actual hit man and tries to arrange some sort of hit contract, that’s solicitation," VanderVeen told Fox News Digital. "Without more . . . that probably does not meet the elements of actual solicitation."
Stinson's attorneys characterized his comments as "political advocacy that the First Amendment was squarely designed to protect."
"They lack the ‘specificity, imminence, and likelihood of producing lawless action’ required to fall outside constitutional protection," the attorneys said.
Given Stinson's comments, there is some gray area about whether he was actually threatening Trump with violence.
The solicitation charge might have been a stretch, but surely a charge of making terroristic threats would have had a better chance.
The problem is, the left has dehumanized Trump, which makes it all too easy to engage in violence against him, whether real or in a fantasy. Until they realize this, nothing will change.
