By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Briana Boston, 42, was arrested and charged with threatening a mass shooting after using the phrase “delay, deny, depose” during a phone call with BlueCross BlueShield. This phrase mirrored words found at the scene of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thomas’s murder, prompting the FBI to refer the call to Lakeland Police. Boston claimed the phrase was related to news coverage of the CEO’s death, denying any intent to harm. Despite this, a judge set her bond at $100,000, citing current national climate, amidst rising copycat threats against other insurance executives.
Read the original article here
A Florida woman’s arrest for echoing the phrase “delay, deny, depose,” famously used by the UHC shooter, highlights the complexities of free speech in the digital age. The incident raises questions about the boundaries of protected speech and the potential for overreach in law enforcement.
The woman’s arrest, understandably, sparked outrage online. Many felt the $100,000 bond was excessive, especially considering the context of her statement. The sheer amount, significantly higher than bonds set for some convicted murderers, fueled accusations of selective prosecution and an attempt to send a chilling message.
The argument that the woman’s words constituted a threat is hotly contested. Her statement, a near-verbatim repetition of the phrase used by the shooter, was made during a phone call to an insurance company representative regarding a denied claim. It lacks the specific intent or credible means to carry out any violence. The lack of any direct threat or credible plan to inflict harm makes the accusation of threatening behavior questionable.
This raises fundamental questions about the limits of free speech. While threats of violence are clearly unprotected speech, echoing a phrase associated with a violent act, without any accompanying threat or intent, seems to fall into a grey area. The arrest raises concerns about thought crime; whether expressing an opinion, even if phrased in language used by a perpetrator, should carry such severe consequences.
The case highlights the inherent tension between protecting free speech and preventing violence. Balancing the need for freedom of expression with the prevention of potential harm is a delicate task, and this arrest illustrates the difficulties in determining where the line lies. Some argue that the arrest is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights, citing the fact that the woman was simply repeating a phrase that has entered the public consciousness.
The reaction to the arrest also reveals a deep-seated distrust of authority. Many commentators see the high bail as an attempt by the authorities to intimidate and silence dissent. The arrest is perceived as an overreaction, a heavy-handed response intended to curb public outrage against the healthcare system. This fuels existing anxieties about government overreach and the erosion of civil liberties.
Many argue the incident underscores the hypocrisy of the justice system. Double standards are perceived, particularly given that far more serious threats, such as those from known domestic abusers, are often treated with less urgency. This perception of bias further deepens the public’s dissatisfaction and fuels distrust in law enforcement and the judiciary.
The situation also reveals how easily inflammatory language can be misinterpreted and weaponized. The phrase “delay, deny, depose,” while initially used in a horrific context, now appears to have become a symbolic rallying cry for those frustrated with the healthcare system. The arrest demonstrates how easily symbols and language can be reinterpreted and manipulated, highlighting the need for careful consideration of context and intent.
This event’s consequences reach beyond the immediate impact on the arrested woman. It creates a chilling effect, discouraging others from voicing similar sentiments, even if their intent is not to incite violence. The potential for similar arrests based on the use of inflammatory language sets a dangerous precedent.
Ultimately, the case serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of free speech in a hyper-polarized society. It highlights the potential for misinterpretations, overreactions, and the dangerous intersection of free expression and public safety. The debate surrounding this arrest will likely continue, as the legal proceedings unfold and the broader implications for freedom of speech are debated. The woman’s case may ultimately decide the boundary between protest and prosecution in the digital age.