this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
3 points (100.0% liked)

AskHistorians

1319 readers
15 users here now

QUESTIONS

  1. Be civil.
  2. Be specific.
  3. Historical topic must be from at least 20 years ago.
  4. Post questions in the title. Elaboration is for the text box.

RESPONSES

  1. Be civil.
  2. Provide comprehensive answers.
  3. Please provide primary and secondary sources upon good faith request. Tertiary sources, like Wikipedia, are not accepted.

askhistorians is a community for academic answers to questions about history. Polls, opinions, bigotry, grammar pedantry, and personal insults will be removed.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Patnou@lemmy.world
WHARRGARBL@lemmy.world
3
When did terroristic threatening become a thing? What was the equivalent throughout history like in Roman days and so forth? Could you actually get arrested for something like that back then? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 day ago by Patnou@lemmy.world to c/askhistorians@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I am sure it was different back then but how did it evolve from just hurtful speech to something you can get arrested for? Is there like a time line of cases or incidents or something????

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] msokiovt@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My opinion on it, from what I understand of terrorism, is that it's lasted for the past 5,800+ years (ever since the creation of our planet), which started with Cain taking down Abel, for Abel had a better gift to Yah than Cain.

The evolution from hurtful speech to something being a crime is because of the evolution of pre-crime (KYC was the start of it), which started to accelerate back in the 00's with the PATRIOT Act in the United States (the District of Columbia, the city-state it is), though it was some time earlier. However, hurtful speech was supposed to be protected since America had its start, though I later found out that 1A protected practicing Catholics, and completely ignored Protestants (making the latter slaves to the former). As long as it's "lawful, but awful", then I think you should be alright.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

However, hurtful speech was supposed to be protected since America had its start, though I later found out that 1A protected practicing Catholics, and completely ignored Protestants (making the latter slaves to the former).

That's... not even close to true.

[–] msokiovt@lemmy.today 0 points 12 hours ago

Again, it's my opinion from what I've studied the past year or so. Maybe I wasn't so clear on that.