[diragon]

Are we really against preventing serious crimes against public figures? Is that what freedom and privacy is about?

I mean I get the possibility of slippery slope, and I get what protonmail is saying about their service, but come on. This is a death threat on a public figure and his family. Nobody should be protected to do that. Categorical imperative y'all?

[luckylion]

Does it really matter that it's a public figure, would you come to a different conclusion if they only threatened to murder a "normal person"?

[diragon]

Well, yes, sort of. Threatening to murder a public figure (or worse, murdering) is terrorism in the way that it discourages others to become public figures. Which in turn gnaws on a certain foundation of democracy, which is that everyone should be able to hold public office without fear of violence.

If we don't protect that foundation, only the people whose supporters are doing the threatening will eventually hold public office.

[janandonly]

Today you are not allowed to want to kill somebody. Tomorrow you are not allowed to be of Jewish decent.

How can we prevent the second Holocaust?

[jarnagin]

Refusing to reduce things to dualisms and binaries is a pretty well understood path to tolerance.

[diragon]

You're joking, of course. I suppose the downmods are because it's a slightly distasteful joke.

[bouncycastle]

In most cases, death threats are done by someone who the victim already knows and the detectives surely have many other trails to follow than snooping on private communications?