This is a better joke about Griffin than the same "oh no, the secret service agents spent an hour with her" joke that has been repeated at least two dozen times in this comment section.

Since Nugent didn't commit a crime, all they could do was ask him to voluntarily* answer some questions, just like with griffin. I don't think it really matters whether it's formally called an interview or not.

As they should have, and as they should have ignored Griffin. Both incidents ("second amendment people" and the fake beheading) are protected speech.

I assume that, like me, you have access to Watts, so you don't have an excuse for pretending this isn't protected speech.

But there's nothing to investigate. There's no crime. There's nothing that resembles a crime. Surely scarce law enforcement resources are better spent than on investigating non-crimes.

Nugent was indeed interviewed by the secret service during the Obama administration. It was bullshit then too.

Only if it's a true threat. There's no plausible argument that this is a true threat. See Watts, where the Supreme Court said it's protected speech to say something like "if I'm drafted, the first person I shoot will be the president."

Incitement has to be incitement to commit an imminent lawless act. If it's not imminent, it's not incitement. "Hey, maybe you should commit [crime] at some point in the future" is not incitement, though it might be part of a conspiracy.

Kathy griffin isn't an actual griffin though.

So if it's not incitement, and it's not a true threat, how is it possibly a matter for law enforcement?

He wasn't attacked, it's protected speech, and the secret service wasn't doing their job, or indeed the job of any law enforcement agency by investigating non-crimes.

This is bullshit. It's protected speech. She didn't commit any crimes. She didn't plausibly commit any crimes. She wasn't even crime-adjacent.

Are they allies?

It couldn't happen to a more deserving couple. Trump started his political career with birtherism, and Morning Joe was still happy to keep bringing him on for phone interviews and giving him basically friendly coverage. They earned this.

If you don't want more Armond whites, don't bitch about good movies not getting negative reviews.

See, e.g., Millkovich v. Lorain Journal. The question is whether the statement could be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts about the person involved. The Times stated that Palin "incite[d]" loughner with the crosshairs mailing. The Times has a plausible argument that their use of "incitement" is the sort…

Whether it's a lie isn't relevant to whether it's a statement of fact.

If it's a statement of fact, it's definitely a false one.

It doesn't matter where it appeared. It matters whether it's a statement of fact.

Opinions are not defamatory. Only false statements of fact are defamatory. A false statement of fact in an opinion column is still a false statement of fact. An opinion expressed in a news column is still an opinion. It doesn't really matter what type of column the statement is in.