28-311.01. Terroristic threats; penalty.(1) A person commits terroristic threats if he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence:I'd have to see where you get this. Making terroristic threats or inciting riots are the only two "speech crimes" of which I am aware.One of these two things is not protected under the 1st Amendment and is not allowed in our country as 'free speech'.
I just looked up some Supreme Court cases before this post, but feel free to double check.
"It requires specificity, it requires intent, and it requires a sense of imminence." is how one law professor makes the distinction.
Again, can't we just get football with our football? If not, then I guess the floodgates are opened.![]()
(a) With the intent to terrorize another;
(b) With the intent of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation; or
© In reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or evacuation.
(2) Terroristic threats is a Class IIIA felony.
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-311.01
In State v. Schmailzl, supra, we stated that § 28-311.01(1)(a) prohibits a threat to commit a violent crime when the threat is made with the intention of causing "a state of intense fear in another." State v. Schmailzl, 243 Neb. at 741, 502 N.W.2d at 467. In the same opinion, we also equated the intent to terrorize another with the "production of anxiety in another." Id. at 742, 502 N.W.2d at 468. Thus, the intent to terrorize another is an intent to produce intense fear or anxiety in another. However, a critical feature of the statute for purposes of our analysis here is that it merely requires the intent to terrorize another. It does not require that the recipient of the threat be actually terrorized, and it does not require an intent to execute the threats made. See State v. Saltzman, 235 Neb. 964, 458 N.W.2d 239 (1990).
State v. Smith, 267 Neb. 917, 678 N.W.2d 733 (2004).
One party is making a peaceful protest for an injustice they sense, hurting no one. The other is trying to chill the speech of the former through threats of violence. Whether you agree or disagree with MRI's actions, it's clear that the acts of those making threats should be thoroughly deplored.