Kathy Griffin should be prosecuted

There have been numerous articles about Kathy Griffin's photo of a facsimile bloody severed head of President Trump.  The general view of the Opposition Party, consisting of the MSM, Democrats, and NeverTrumps, is that the photo, while in poor taste, is protected speech by our First Amendment.

Congressional Republicans have been their usual silent cowardly selves by not defending Trump and agreeing that this is protected by the First Amendment, so there's nothing else to say.

I disagree that the photo is protected speech.  If you make a threat to kill or injure another person, you should be charged with a criminal offense.

The photo is speech, but what is the point or purpose?  It is, in fact, is a play on the photos and videos released by ISIS, where ISIS has beheaded Catholics, journalists, and other civilians.

The purpose of ISIS releasing videos and photos of beheadings is to terrorize.  ISIS beheads and releases the videos and photos.

What is the purpose of Griffin's imitation of the ISIS-inspired photo?  The obvious message is that President Trump should be beheaded in the same manner that ISIS beheads.  Is there any other message in holding a photo of a severed bloody head?  If so, what is the message?

This is not protected speech.  It is not a discussion to disagree with the policies of Trump.  It is a crime.  For example, Pennsylvania, like most states, has a criminal statute dealing with terroristic threats.

Section 2706 of Title 18, Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, reads:

Terroristic threats.

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:
(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;
(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or
(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

Clearly, Griffin's photo is a crime under section (1).

Holding a facsimile of a severed bloody head of another person and showing it to that person and his family is a threat to commit a crime of violence.  In this case, because it is President Trump, then the Opposition Party has a chuckle and talks about the First Amendment.

But I guarantee you that if you make a facsimile of a severed bloody head of your neighbor and walk to his house to show him the severed head, you will be charged criminally, and you should be.

Bottom line: What is the point of holding the facsimile of a severed bloody head, which is the trademark of ISIS, if not to say that the person should be beheaded?

But Griffin will not be prosecuted.  There is no outrage, because it is only "speech" by a member of the Hollywood left, part of the Opposition Party, directed against President Trump, who is fair game for every outrageous attack in the campaign to weaken and destroy his presidency.

There have been numerous articles about Kathy Griffin's photo of a facsimile bloody severed head of President Trump.  The general view of the Opposition Party, consisting of the MSM, Democrats, and NeverTrumps, is that the photo, while in poor taste, is protected speech by our First Amendment.

Congressional Republicans have been their usual silent cowardly selves by not defending Trump and agreeing that this is protected by the First Amendment, so there's nothing else to say.

I disagree that the photo is protected speech.  If you make a threat to kill or injure another person, you should be charged with a criminal offense.

The photo is speech, but what is the point or purpose?  It is, in fact, is a play on the photos and videos released by ISIS, where ISIS has beheaded Catholics, journalists, and other civilians.

The purpose of ISIS releasing videos and photos of beheadings is to terrorize.  ISIS beheads and releases the videos and photos.

What is the purpose of Griffin's imitation of the ISIS-inspired photo?  The obvious message is that President Trump should be beheaded in the same manner that ISIS beheads.  Is there any other message in holding a photo of a severed bloody head?  If so, what is the message?

This is not protected speech.  It is not a discussion to disagree with the policies of Trump.  It is a crime.  For example, Pennsylvania, like most states, has a criminal statute dealing with terroristic threats.

Section 2706 of Title 18, Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, reads:

Terroristic threats.

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:
(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;
(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or
(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

Clearly, Griffin's photo is a crime under section (1).

Holding a facsimile of a severed bloody head of another person and showing it to that person and his family is a threat to commit a crime of violence.  In this case, because it is President Trump, then the Opposition Party has a chuckle and talks about the First Amendment.

But I guarantee you that if you make a facsimile of a severed bloody head of your neighbor and walk to his house to show him the severed head, you will be charged criminally, and you should be.

Bottom line: What is the point of holding the facsimile of a severed bloody head, which is the trademark of ISIS, if not to say that the person should be beheaded?

But Griffin will not be prosecuted.  There is no outrage, because it is only "speech" by a member of the Hollywood left, part of the Opposition Party, directed against President Trump, who is fair game for every outrageous attack in the campaign to weaken and destroy his presidency.