Online Call To Shoot President Ruled Free Speech 395
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."
And if the president was Republican? (Score:2, Insightful)
Fox News would be going on 24/7 about liberal violence. But when it's directed at a black Democrat, then both sides need to tone it down.
How long before civil war breaks out in America? (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything seems to empower the Tea Party. Every court ruling, every law passed, even after the US government defaults this would also benefit the Tea Party.
When are we going to accept that the Tea Party is a domestic terrorist group that fantasizes about having another civil war?
Their policies are straight from the old south. The for profit prisons, which mean prisons are now the new plantations where corporations can have the cheapest possible labor force. These corporations also write our laws. Check out ALEC exposed [alecexposed.org] to see the whole plan.
After the US defaults the Tea Party is planning to blame Obama. Now they have the legal justification to threaten Obama's life in their attempts to overthrow him. It seems like a disaster waiting to happen with the looming default, and coming economic crisis as the trigger point.
Charles Manson (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't kill anybody, but he's in prison for life because people believe he gave the command.
When someone says a sentence like that how do we know it isn't a command coming from a militia leader? Remember Hal Turner?
Re:One small step for man (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that that the '50 cal' prediction should not be illegal, although it was badly worded and left the guy open to prosecution. But the "call to 'shoot the [racist slur]'" was clearly unacceptable and should have been illegal. In the UK this would be incitement to violence and incitement of racial hatred.
This is the problem with constitutionally guaranteed free speech - not only that this kind of speech is deemed okay, but the fact that the guy didn't feel the need to stop and think before (metaphorically) opening his mouth.
Re:Charles Manson (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what the judges said - if you want a conviction, present evidence there was a reasonable expectation that it was a command, and would be carried out as such.
Re:How long before civil war breaks out in America (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't say that. What the Tea Party is: a successful re-branding of the Republican Party. There is no "Tea Party." It's the Republican Party.We've allowed the Republican party to effectively change its name after being poisoned by the Bush years, without asking any questions of any kind about its democratic legitimacy (such as whether or not it is actually grassroots and not a magnificent example of astroturfing). It allows Fox News to continue to create the illusion that the Republican Party is a sufficient vehicle to channel the democratic impulses of the right-wing working class, and to keep people with actual libertarian or conservative impulses inside the Republican tent. In fact, the Republican Party is just as corporate as ever, and has no intent on working to shore up its relationship with the working-class in actual policy measures.
Re:What a lame racist (Score:2, Insightful)
The obvious explanation is the reporter is passively supporting the guy's beliefs, by covering up his more inflammatory comments. In other words an agreement in principle, but disagreement in practice. /. videogame analogy: If you want to show grannie GTA3, you show her the start where you ride a bicycle thru the streets and alleys; its cool and peaceful, mostly. Don't show grannie the "hot coffee" mod, just casually mention there's also some "adult content" besides the bicycle thing.
Re:One small step for man (Score:5, Insightful)
It's deemed legal, meaning it's not the state's role to add a consequence to it. Often, that's all this means.
That isn't the same thing as "okay". I am sorry if you really believe that legal and okay are the exact same thing. There are higher modes of moral/ethical reasoning [wikipedia.org] than that.
Though it has been deemed legal, there definitely are consequences. This man is now famous for wishing violence and making racist statements. Though we often glorify violence, "racist" is one of the worst stains on your reputation available these days. It is a great way to make sure that decent people don't want to have anything to do with you. Since he did not actually victimize anyone, this is sufficient.
People will judge him accordingly and he will have to live with that for some time to come. It's not something easily forgotten. This is what free speech is all about. You say what you like and then accept the way it will change how you are perceived and treated. A law regulating speech is not only a wrong-headed desire to control disguised in "save the children" type packaging, it's also unnecessary. It appeals only to those who recognize no authority and no consequence other than that enforced by government.
Re:One small step for man (Score:3, Insightful)
Take it further. If I said those words, and someone (not me) hit you, would I be in trouble? Unlikely.
Re:One small step for man (Score:2, Insightful)
You and the GGP forget the lightly populated country of India when claiming China will have the largest English-speaking population - if China with 10 million current English speakers will pass the US with 251 million then surely India with the head start of 125 million will pass the US first and stay ahead of China for the foreseeable future.
Re:One small step for man (Score:4, Insightful)
This is precisely the type of speech that the
Constitution protects.
It's not a matter of whether you think that the statement is rude, crude, or socially unacceptable.
In my opinion freedom of speech is the most basic right written into the Bill of Rights
Take a look at Hitchens trying to explain it. ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU [youtube.com]
How beautifully absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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 [...]
That sentence alone implies that in the U.S. death threats are protected free speech, but you can't use the word "nigger". I love it.
Re:One small step for man (Score:4, Insightful)
Not quite what you're looking for, but better than nothing - go to google maps, and use streetview to do a virtual drive down the streets and paths of various places.
Zoom out and drag the "streetview figure" to wherever that's blue.
You could do a tour of various famous bridges, or landmarks (like the Cristo Redentor, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil). Or Akihabara Japan.
Not the same as being there, but it's cheap way to get an overview ;). You might even learn some things that the geography books don't tell you...
Re:How long before civil war breaks out in America (Score:4, Insightful)
This is completely wrong. The Republican Party is terrified of the Tea Party, which has repudiated Republicans such as John Boehner and Lindsey Graham. In fact, the Tea Party has threatened Republicans who have tried to make a deal with President Obama over raising the debt limit [cbsnews.com]. Furthermore, the extreme positions of the Tea Party has undermined Republican efforts to reach out to the mainstream and independent voters. TP Michelle Bauchmann claiming that slavery was good for black families is not what the Republican Party needs at this juncture. There is probably nothing more the Republicans want at this point than to be separated from the Tea Party.
Re:How long before civil war breaks out in America (Score:4, Insightful)
even after the US government defaults this would also benefit the Tea Party.
Actually, it wouldn't. The problem with the Tea Party is that they're all morons. It's a party of angry, stupid, middle-age white people who don't know anything about running a country. Defaulting on our national debt would be a disaster that hurts the poor and middle class the most, and hence will hurt the Tea Party the most. They just don't realize it.
Re:One small step for man (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One small step for man (Score:5, Insightful)
It's deemed legal, meaning it's not the state's role to add a consequence to it. Often, that's all this means.
I feel like you didn't RTFS, much less the full FA.
The asshat's words were deemed legal because the law used to prosecute him did not cover that type of speech.
If the prosecutors had used the regular laws covering threatening language, it would have been illegal.
You fundamentally misunderstand what's being discussed if you think "it's not the state's role to add a consequence" to the man's words.
Congress can amend the law in a heartbeat and the next guy to say those exact words will go to jail.
A law regulating speech is not only a wrong-headed desire to control disguised in "save the children" type packaging, it's also unnecessary. It appeals only to those who recognize no authority and no consequence other than that enforced by government.
I don't think you appreciate just how much laws regulating speech do for you on a daily basis.
Have you ever read the label on a food item? It's accurate because of laws regulating speech.
Have you ever read/seen/listened to an advertisement? They can't lie to you because of laws regulating speech.
Have you ever made an oral contract? It's enforceable because of laws regulating speech.
Have you ever been stampeded after someone shouted fire in a crowded theater? Probably not... because of laws regulating speech.
Lying to the police is a crime. Perjury is a crime. Our legal system works because of laws regulating speech.
I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.
It's one of those What have they ever done for us? [youtube.com] questions.
Re:One small step for man (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a myriad of problems with this contention of yours. Let me go through them:
1) What is "racist" speech? If I say someone is "ghetto fabulous" is that racist? If I say someone is a "redneck" is that racist? Or let's say I call someone a nigger - is that racist? If any of these are racist, what, exactly, is the cut-off point? At what point do we decide a term is worthy of prosecution vs. something that's offensive but not illegal?
1a) What would be the value in criminalizing speech from point 1? I agree that racism is incredibly offensive, but so what? I find a ton of things incredibly offensive - some, actually, much more so than racism - but I don't think that things that are *merely* offensive should be criminalized. In fact, I think that criminalizing these things actually winds up harming society because it drives the people who think and feel that way underground where they can be vastly more harmful because they can play into all kinds of persecution complexes outside of the light of day.
2) You are insane if you think it isn't necessary to constitutionally protect free speech in a society that values it and is democratic. Since 9/11, the US (which isn't actually democratic) has gleefully given up all manner of things that, previously, had been held as important and valuable, all because of fear.
Even worse, it is extremely easy for groups with money to shape public opinion and modify values over time so that what was previously taken as one of the fundamental rights is ... not. Without constitutional protection fundamental rights would be stripped away in a heartbeat with NOTHING to stop them. With constitutional protection we at least can *try* to appeal to that document, though there is erosion - erosion that is at least slowed by the constitution.
You want to talk about Americans seeing things in black and white - that just isn't the case. It's more that we know ourselves and the world we live in, and I absolutely know that without the fundamental protections of our constitution, we would be even more in the thrall of moneyed interests than we already are. I have absolutely zero doubt that, if we didn't have such protections you would see things like Newscorp spending billions to make it a crime to denigrate Fox "news," service providers making it a crime to complain, publicly about services, etc.
3) What's the value in trying to scare people into thinking about what they say before they say it? As I said above, I would *much* rather have some racist asshole feel perfectly free to mouth off about how much he hates everyone who isn't just like him than I would have a culture where people are more circumspect and go underground and get much, much worse.
Speech - ANY speech - is fine as long as it is just speech. When it becomes a call to action, or turns into action, that's when it crosses a line.
The moron that this article about has basically wrecked his life by showing for ALL the world to see what a racist asshole he is. Oh, I suppose he'll find some "support" amongst people who think like him, but they, too, are marginalized because of their beliefs. They imagine they're martyrs now because people don't like their views - don't suggest that they be made martyrs in fact when the law prevents them from showing all the world how asinine they are.
Shadows of Auschwitz (Score:3, Insightful)