It’s free speech. There’s no target. It’s not like we’re saying “deny defend despose [person]”.

And to turn the table, actually denying and delaying (supposedly another word on the bullets) healthcare kills people, but it’s ok when the rich kill the poor. Two justice systems, one for them and one for us.

Fuck the elites.

Corporations sentencing the poor to death in a regular and normalized fashion advocates violence. It's a pretty wild standard.

It is legal to say, in plain English, "I hope that fucker dies." Hope is not an actionable threat.

Internet forums need to chill the fuck out about users being angry at bastards in power. Have you looked outside lately? A sigh of relief is completely reasonable, when they are no longer a problem. I didn't do it. You didn't do it. We're both free to be glad it happened. However it happened. Not much seems to be stopping these bastards - and their gleeful abuse is already life-and-death for people who can only cling to hope.

You can still forbid rando-on-rando vitriol. You can still boot Nazis demanding violence toward innocent strangers. There's no hypocrisy in having a moral opinion. Certainly not when it amounts to 'bigotry is bad, actually' or 'DickButkis123 can only harm you emotionally.' It is simply not the same situation as being the face of watching your wife die slowly from lack of paperwork.

Hypocrisy is when you tolerate grand defenses of Israel, when they kill thousands indiscriminately (or very discriminately), but censor mere apathy over one guy.

Yes, in the same way saying you wish someone had to get healthcare in America is, or saying you hope justice exists is.

The problem you're having is the instance you're posting on that is removing your comments thinks all violence done by poor people is bad, so it's against their tos. They have no problem with violence done by the rich, that's not against their tos.

Is “Delay, Deny, Defend”?

It’s a call to cause mass death for those who rely on health insurance to survive.

It's a rallying cry.

A slogan.

Nothing more.

People are free to extrapolate from it what they wish.

Nobody got mad about advocating violence when the entire US was demanding war after 9/11.

People are saying it’s related to a book by a similar or same title (depending on the reporting of the 3rd word). The book is about health care being a scam, so seems to be a rallying cry to read the book and unseat traditional “health care” in America.

Watts v. United States suggests no.

In the current context? Yeah, it kind of does mean that.

I'm not sure what a judge or jury would infer from that in the US, as it could be fucking anything. Probably has a lot to do with why you're in court and what, exactly, it is you did that landed you in front of a judge but I wouldn't really expect you'd be arrested or whatever for JUST saying that.

The word depose, in and of itself, simply means to remove from power, dethrone, or acquire information (such as a witness is deposed).

It does not inherently contain within its meaning an act of violence.

The word is completely neutral and cannot be assumed to be a call for violence.

To depose a witness does not mean to violently force them to provide information.

To depose a CEO is done frequently by the boards they head.

Though, like many things, the methodology of action cannot be assumed by the word alone.

It's the playbook that health insurance companies use to save money. How is that advocating violence?

Deny the claim.

Defend the decision.

...and technically I think the third one should be Delay. As in delay for as long as possible.

It's not a direct threat, but it is definitely advocating violence in the same way that "wouldn't it be a shame if" does.

It's not a direct call to action, but you're definitely saying it should happen.