Does freedom of speech shield menacing threats? Or does the law have the right to step in when verbal threats instill fear and potential harm? We found ourselves in a labyrinth of these questions in our latest episode, guided by the landmark Supreme Court decision on Counterman versus Colorado. We unwind the intricate layers of defining a threat, especially in this digital age, where threats can be disguised behind the veil of anonymity. We weigh the subjective intent of the speaker against the objective perspective of a reasonable person and question which should hold more weight in legally certifying a threat.
Episode Summary: Welcome back to The Guardian Mindset Podcast with Attorney Eric Daigle. Kicking off 2025, this episode tackles the timely and controversial topic...
In this episode, Attorney Eric Daigle dives into Barnes v. Felix, a crucial Supreme Court case with significant implications for law enforcement professionals. The...
In this episode, Eric tackles the hot topic of election law as we approach the November 2024 elections. Eric took the time to address...