Online Call To Shoot President Ruled Free Speech

Hugh Pickens writes "USA Today reports that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of a man who threatened to shoot President Obama, saying his Internet message board comments amounted to free speech and ruled that prosecutors 'failed to present sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt' that the man 'had the subjective intent to threaten a presidential candidate.' Walter Bagdasarian was found guilty two years ago of making threats against the presidential candidate in comments he posted on a Yahoo.com financial website after 1 am on Oct. 22, 2008, as Obama's impending victory in the race for the White House was becoming apparent. Bagdasarian told investigators he was drunk at the time. The observation that Obama 'will have a 50 cal in the head soon' and a call to 'shoot the [racist slur]' weren't violations of the law under which Bagdasarian was convicted because the statute doesn't criminalize 'predictions or exhortations to others to injure or kill the president,' said the majority opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt."

Re:One small step for man

[brobins8]

From the article:

"Given any reasonable construction of the words in his postings, those statements do not constitute a 'true threat,' and they are therefore protected speech under the First Amendment," the majority wrote in a 2-1 decision.

So no, Congress cannot simply write a new law to get around that in the 9th Circuit (~20% of the population) or any Circuit that is likely to rule the same way. The observation that they didn't even charge him under a law that criminalized what he said (and if it did, it would be unconstitutional) was essentially just icing on the cake.

Re:Obligatory

[Hartree]

"Not if the majority is against you."

Then convince them otherwise.

No one ever said politics was easy. Unless you're cheerleading for something most people already believe.

I'd say it's still easier to keep using the ballot box rather than the bullet box. Take a look at Mr. Anders Breivik in Norway. Two days ago, he was very successful in using the bullet box option. A body count of more than 90 is better than most such do.

But, so far, he's an abject failure in terms of getting others to go along with him. Even Geert Wilders (noted anti-immigrant Dutch politician) is condemning him at this point.

Yes, violent acts can be converted into political influences that lead to major change in the direction the perpetrator wanted. Look at the start of many revolutions. But, it's rare compared to how many fizzle out and takes an existing political structure/organization even if ad hoc.

Normal politics is easier, IMHO.

Re:It's OK If You Are a Republican

[md65536]

Didn't they arrest people who criticized Bush, outside of free-speech zones?

Re:One small step for man

[uglyMood]

About "shouting fire in a crowded theater": back in the day people really would, and did, stampede to get out of a theater if someone yelled "fire!" The reason is that at the time movies were on nitrate stock, which burned fast and hot, and if a fire broke out in the projection booth and you were anywhere near it you were literally toast. One theater I worked at had automatic steel shutters designed to slam shut over the projection windows if a fire was detected, so that the audience had a chance of getting out in time. It was assumed that the projectionist was never going to make it out alive anyway. Theaters used to have all sorts of odd things you don't see anymore. Look up "crying booths" sometime.