Comments about killing the President = "free speech" to 9th Circus

[Liability]

Before I even read the decision (story was linked on Drudge), I knew it was the 9th Circus.

Call for Obama’s assassination ruled free speech - Los Angeles Times

The idiot defendant spoke of the then candidate Obama getting some 50 cal ammo in his head. When the Secret Service investigated the tip from another user of that same message board, they found not only that the idiot was "armed" but armed with -- you guessed it -- a 50 cal weapon. Of course, the idiot had said even more in other internet communications.

He got indicted, tried and convicted.

But the 9th Circus reversed the conviction on the ground that the "threat" wasn't a threat in context and that what the idiot said was protected "free speech."

Fucking 9th Circus.

 

[The T]

Yeah I read a story of this earlier. This from the most overturned Court in the land...

 

[Mad Scientist]

Threatening the President is Free Speech? Horse Hockey!

 

[manifold]

Threatening the President is Free Speech? Horse Hockey!

As I understand it, he wasn't president at the time.

 

[manifold]

I don't know enough about the context myself to have an opinion about the ruling. But I certainly take no issue with context being a crucial consideration in the decision. I would take serious issue if it wasn't.

 

[Sallow]

Liability..if I could rep ya I would.

Threatening any President of the United States does not constitute Free Speech.

 

[xsited1]

Hillary was counting on Obama being assassinated so she could get the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I would doubt that threatening any person with a 50 cal weapon constitutes free speech.

Were I to write on this board that my X is a such and such and so and so and intend to deal with her with a 50 cal weapon, I would expect a visit from some government agency within a few hours. Obama is entitled to the same protection.

 

[manifold]

I would doubt that threatening any person with a 50 cal weapon constitutes free speech.

I agree. But a determination about whether particular speech constitutes a threat is necessarily a subjective determination based, in significant part, on the overall context.

This decision isn't that threats are protected speech. This decision is a subjective determination by that court that in this particular instance, the speech did not constitute a threat, and is therefore protected speech.

A distinction that makes all the difference.

 

[Moving to USA]

Threatening the President is Free Speech? Horse Hockey!

It did when it was President Bush that was the center of attention, or when they hung a likeness of Sarah Palin, that was ok too.

Why should obama be different?

 

[boedicca]

I agree with the court. We have 1st Amendment protections. He posted on an internet forum without out any real activity to folllow up on his threats.

Good for the court for not making "thought" a crime.

 

[Liability]

I disagree with the Court and with manifold to that extent although I have to grudgingly acknowledge that neither are entirely misguided.

I reviewed the Court's decision which I had linked. The addressed the facts in a pretty detailed way. The argument could certainly be made that the idiot was talking in terms of what some OTHER idiot might do. I happen not to "buy" that, though, in light of the specific weapon he had and in light of some of the other stuff he had said in e-mails.

Having noted all of that, I don't disagree that he couched his language in a way that made it less than absolutely clear that it was a "threat."

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I would doubt that threatening any person with a 50 cal weapon constitutes free speech.

I agree. But a determination about whether particular speech constitutes a threat is necessarily a subjective determination based, in significant part, on the overall context.

This decision isn't that threats are protected speech. This decision is a subjective determination by that court that in this particular instance, the speech did not constitute a threat, and is therefore protected speech.

A distinction that makes all the difference.

Agreed. Such speech should probably warrant an investigation, but not necessarily criminalization.

 

[JimH52]

A Circus is deciding this? How strange...

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Once again, another politically partisan debate. G.W. Bush had his life threatened NUMEROUS times via the internet, via protest marches, via newspaper editorials, and via any other way possible, during his eight years as President, and I seem to recall that most of these "incidents" went unpunished.

Frankly, I'm VERY surprised that the very liberal 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the defendant. Any of you who disagree with the 9th Circuit decision are more than likely Obama supporters. Just for the record, Obama was NOT the POTUS when this "incident" happened. He was just a candidate.

 

[Liability]

I like the reasoning, better, in the dissenting opinion:

The First Amendment prohibits the criminalization of pure speech unless the government proves that the speaker specifically intended to threaten. Thus, in every threats case the Constitution requires that the subjective test is met. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). In this case, the statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 879(a)(3), also requires that a reasonable person would foresee that his statement would be

23

See supra at 9810-11 n.18.​

9819

perceived as a threat to harm a presidential candidate. Because there is sufficient evidence supporting a finding of objective intent, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), and because even under the heightened standard of review that we apply to constitutional facts, Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc), the subjective intent requirement is also met, I conclude there is sufficient evidence to find Mr. Bagdasarian guilty of threatening harm against then-presidential candidate Barack Obama.

* * * *

-- Call for Obama’s assassination ruled free speech - Los Angeles Times

 

[uscitizen]

in the cross hairs, don't retreat, reload!

 

[Two Thumbs]

Well I say

Hooray for free speech.

There's a vast difference between saying you want to shoot the Pres on the internet [the fucking internet guys] and standing in front of him, with a gun and saying the same.

ones an actual threat the other is just trash talk.

 

[Liability]

Once again, another politically partisan debate. G.W. Bush had his life threatened NUMEROUS times via the internet, via protest marches, via newspaper editorials, and via any other way possible, during his eight years as President, and I seem to recall that most of these "incidents" went unpunished.

Frankly, I'm VERY surprised that the very liberal 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the defendant. Any of you who disagree with the 9th Circuit decision are more than likely Obama supporters. Just for the record, Obama was NOT the POTUS when this "incident" happened. He was just a candidate.

I disagree with the 9th Circus. I am FAR from a supporter of President Obama.

And it doesn't matter one tiny bit that he was not yet President at the time. He was the CANDIDATE of one of the major political parties, and in our Constitutional Republic, any threat or attack against the President OR a candidate is an attack against all of us.

I suspect that the SCOTUS will review this Circuit Court determination. A reversal of the 9th Circus (not an unusual event) would not surprise me at all.

This is not, actually, a "free speech" issue.

 

[Ravi]

Before I even read the decision (story was linked on Drudge), I knew it was the 9th Circus.

Call for Obama’s assassination ruled free speech - Los Angeles Times

The idiot defendant spoke of the then candidate Obama getting some 50 cal ammo in his head. When the Secret Service investigated the tip from another user of that same message board, they found not only that the idiot was "armed" but armed with -- you guessed it -- a 50 cal weapon. Of course, the idiot had said even more in other internet communications.

He got indicted, tried and convicted.

But the 9th Circus reversed the conviction on the ground that the "threat" wasn't a threat in context and that what the idiot said was protected "free speech."

Fucking 9th Circus.

IIRC, a few posters on various messages posted similar things. Do you honestly think most of them meant it? I don't.

Also, Obama wasn't president at the time so I don't think the rule you are thinking about applies.