Would this fall under freedom of speech or a true threat?

[Justinthis62]

Jurisdiction

Louisiana

Got pretty upset after seeing a video of what Israel did to a Palestinian child and sent the following email to my congressman. I'm pretty sure it should fall under freedom of speech but wanna make sure it can't be misconstrued into a threat somehow :
Congressman [] this girl's face was burned with weapons my tax money paid for. You have children so hopefully you understand that burning a child's face is not okay. Imagine if this was your daughter. You are in support of this being done to other people's daughters. ... I don't know if you are a religious man, but I pray you get exactly what you deserve once we leave this world, and I pray God shows you no mercy, just as you showed this girl and many like her no mercy.

Shouldn't have sent it as it's not like it would make a difference if I sent it or not, but I was pretty upset after seeing that girl's face.

 

[adjusterjack]

Don't sweat it. Politicians get that kind of stuff all the time.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I don't see any legal problems coming from this. You did not make any direct threats of violence against the congressperson. You simply expressed what you you hope he gets in the afterlife. That's not illegal and within your free speech rights.

However, IMO your anger was misplaced. Neither the U.S. Congress nor President Biden sanctioned attacks on civilians, much less children. The weapons the U.S. sold to Israel occurred well before Hamas attacked Israel and itself kidnapped and killed Israeli civilians, including children. That the Israeli government pursued Hamas with extreme zeal with the result that it ended up committing some of the same sins that Hamas did falls on the Israeli government, not the U.S. The U.S. could not predict that the weapons it sold to Israel would be used as they were, control how Israel used the weapons it had, nor did the U.S. sell the weapons with the purpose of enabling attacks on civilians. If a store sells a knife to a buyer who says he wishes to use it for cutting meat and then goes on to stab and kill someone with it, the seller of the knife isn't responsible for that. He had no idea that the knife was going to be used that way. The suffering in Gaza falls on Hamas and Israel. I'm not going to opine here on which one bears the greater blame. There is plenty of debate online and elsewhere for opinions on that.

 

[welkin]

I don't see any legal problems coming from this. You did not make any direct threats of violence against the congressperson. You simply expressed what you you hope he gets in the afterlife. That's not illegal and within your free speech rights.

While I agree with your statement, it doesn't mean that there can't be repercussions from sending it, at a time in our history, where the legal system is increasingly being corrupted. At the very least, you can end up in some database as a person to watch.

 

[Tax Counsel]

While I agree with your statement, it doesn't mean that there can't be repercussions from sending it, at a time in our history, where the legal system is increasingly being corrupted. At the very least, you can end up in some database as a person to watch.

The government cannot punish the OP for the statement made. But there isn't anything in the Constitution that prohibits the federal government keeping a closer watch on people who may be dangerous to public officials. That's nothing new and doesn't have anything to do with your contention that the "legal system increasingly being corrupted".