Nazis call for the gassing of blacks and Jews in St. Louis

[Morphine Prince 109,664]

 

[Shangela 443]

Instead of trying to know if a men is gay by his face, people should be trying to find a way to make nazis brains function correctly 

[Juvi 1,639]

WTF? can they like..... not bs around anymore?!

[Modern Ecstacy 3,888]

and yet Trump still won't denounce them but gets triggered when a black woman calls him a white supremacist. 

[GagaStefi 1,231]

Do people not get in trouble for saying things like this?

[PMKKARDASHiAN 8,570]

3 minutes ago, GagaStefi said:

Do people not get in trouble for saying things like this?

Freedom of speech  

[Qualle1 1,385]

[TimisaMonster 31,073]

Go back to Germany then...or better yet North Korea...i hear they too throw tantrums when they don't like a certain group of people and make childish threats to scare others 

That's all... 

[Ziggy 14,040]

24 minutes ago, GagaStefi said:

Do people not get in trouble for saying things like this?

It's tricky. They *could* were someone to bring charges, but it's also a wider statement and not targeted at an individual so it's complicated. It's very hard to land someone or some group on hate speech or language that may instigate violence because usually you have to wait until after the fact to show that it did. Even then it's still hard because it's hard to prove causation between their words and violence caused especially now when there's already rioting going on. So yes, people do get in trouble, but only if someone does something about it and since there's a strong likelihood of failure it oftentimes isn't worth the effort.

[LaLuna 12,732]

Jesus, this is 2017, this racist rhetoric has no place in this world anymore. Now please Nazis, go back to 1940 Germany where you belong. 

[Cuchulainn 3,040]

1 hour ago, PMKKARDASHiAN said:

Freedom of speech  

Isn't this a direct threat though? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can threaten and call to kill / gas people of a certain group without repercussion.

[PMKKARDASHiAN 8,570]

4 minutes ago, Creativek said:

Isn't this a direct threat though? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can threaten and call to kill / gas people of a certain group without repercussion.

Honestly I'm not versed well enough to know fully. 

I would imagine "I'm going to kill/gas a certain group" is a direct threat while saying "a certain group should be killed/gassed" is merely an opinion, however disgusting. 

[PeterPan 0]

1 hour ago, Modern Ecstacy said:

and yet Trump still won't denounce them but gets triggered when a black woman calls him a white supremacist. 

He wont denounce them he wants there votes in 2020

[PeterPan 0]

9 minutes ago, PMKKARDASHiAN said:

Honestly I'm not versed well enough to know fully. 

I would imagine "I'm going to kill/gas a certain group" is a direct threat while saying "a certain group should be killed/gassed" is merely an opinion, however disgusting. 

I think ur right i mean Madonna didnt get arrested for saying she wanted to blow up the White House

[Ziggy 14,040]

17 minutes ago, Creativek said:

Isn't this a direct threat though? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can threaten and call to kill / gas people of a certain group without repercussion.

It's a direct threat, but unless someone brings charges nothing is going to happen. Additionally, the threat has to also be something that a police force would take as plausibly serious. Where would some small-time nazi group get the capability to gas two enormous groups of citizens (even more enormous in St. Louis btw)? If I am correct, the idea behind a threat is that they are dangerous when there is the capacity for them to actually be carried out. In this case, it's just words and if someone else were inspired to do it it would be hard to trace the cause back to this nazi group unless explicitly stated by the killer. The thing about the legal system is that things typically need to be airtight before anything is done; that's not to say it always is as is evidenced by mistrials or wrongful convictions, but that's usually the goal.

So my thought would be that in this situation, it is just freedom of speech because they don't really have the means for mass extermination and thus it is not a very plausible threat. I imagine that St. Louis police are working on containing riots right now and not responding to incredibly unlikely Twitter threats. It should be taken seriously, but I think the priority is establishing some calm first so they don't get their own personal LA riots.