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

[LibocalypseNow]

The 9th Circuit is notorious for being extreme Left-Leaning. So the Left/Progressive nutters should be applauding their ruling. Also,the Left/Progressive nutters routinely wished death on their BOOOOOSH Boogeyman. So we better not see any Left/Progressive nutters on here bitchin about this one. They shouldn't be dishonest & hypocritical on this.

 

[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.

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.

As to the first point: of those who run their mouths in that ignorant fashion, few happen to be simultaneously in possession of 50 cal rifles. Such "minor" differences make a big difference in the analysis.

The fact that Candidate Obama (a fact I already noted) was not yet President Obama makes no difference to the "rule." The law being applied addresses a threat against the President OR against a candidate for very good, sound, legitimate reasons.

 

[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.

As to the first point: of those who run their mouths in that ignorant fashion, few happen to be simultaneously in possession of 50 cal rifles. Such "minor" differences make a big difference in the analysis.

The fact that Candidate Obama (a fact I already noted) was not yet President Obama makes no difference to the "rule." The law being applied addresses a threat against the President OR against a candidate for very good, sound, legitimate reasons.

I didn't know that second part.

Your first point I still disagree with. People say vile and stupid things all the time without meaning them seriously.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

You should tell that to the graduate student from Purdue that's likely cooling his heals in Gitmo.

You don't post stuff like that publicly on the net and expect to escape consequences. Heck, Hannity's forums had to take a VERY hardline approach on this after they garnered some very unwelcome attention over some threads there. Threatening a public official is almost always going to draw an investigation. Specific threats will likely draw you some jail time. And they should.

 

[The T]

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."

And you can bet your ass the guy is under surveilence.

 

[Liability]

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.

As to the first point: of those who run their mouths in that ignorant fashion, few happen to be simultaneously in possession of 50 cal rifles. Such "minor" differences make a big difference in the analysis.

The fact that Candidate Obama (a fact I already noted) was not yet President Obama makes no difference to the "rule." The law being applied addresses a threat against the President OR against a candidate for very good, sound, legitimate reasons.

I didn't know that second part.

Your first point I still disagree with. People say vile and stupid things all the time without meaning them seriously.

As to the "law" in question, I quote from the decision itself:

The federal statute under which Bagdasarian was indicted, 18 U.S.C. § 879(a)(3), makes it a crime to "knowingly and willfully threaten[ ] to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon . . . a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate."

People say vile and stupid shit all the time and often DO mean them. But when it comes to talking smack about violence, those who talk specifically about 50 cal ammo to the head are NOT always in possession of a 50 cal rifle.

Again, the Court's decision spells out the facts (as determined by the trial record):

A month after the two statements for which Bagdasarian was indicted were posted on the AIG message board, two agents visited and interviewed him and he admitted to posting the statements from his home computer. When asked, he also told the agents that he had weapons in his home. The agents found one weapon on a nearby shelf; Bagdasarian said he had other weapons in addition. Four days later, agents executed a federal search warrant at Bagdasarian's home and found six firearms, including a Remington model 700ML .50 caliber muzzle-loading rifle, as well as .50 caliber ammunition. The agents also searched the hard drive of Bagdasarian's home computer and recovered an email sent on Election Day with the subject, "Re: And so it begins." The email's text stated, "Pistol??? Dude, Josh needs to get us one of these, just shoot the nigga's car and POOF!" The email provided a link to a webpage advertising a large caliber rifle. Another email that Bagdasarian sent the same day with the same subject

9805

heading stated, "Pistol . . . plink plink plink Now when you use a 50 cal on a nigga car you get this." It included a link to a video of a propane tank, a pile of debris, and two junked cars being blown up. These email messages would appear to confirm the malevolent nature of the previous statements as well as Bagdasarian's own malignant nature. Unlike in the case of his first two message board statements two weeks earlier, this time he did not attempt to excuse his inexcusable conduct on the ground that he was intoxicated. After the Secret Service filed a criminal complaint against Bagdasarian for the posting the "shoot the nig" and "Obama fk the niggar" statements, the Government filed the superseding indictment at issue here, charging Bagdasarian in two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 879(a)(3) with threatening to kill and inflict bodily harm upon a major candidate for the office of president of the United States. Bagdasarian waived his right to a jury trial. His case was tried before a district judge upon the foregoing stipulated facts. The district court found Bagdasarian guilty on both counts. He appeals. * * * *

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

 

[random3434]

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.

You should tell that to the graduate student from Purdue that's likely cooling his heals in Gitmo.

You don't post stuff like that publicly on the net and expect to escape consequences. Heck, Hannity's forums had to take a VERY hardline approach on this after they garnered some very unwelcome attention over some threads there. Threatening a public official is almost always going to draw an investigation. Specific threats will likely draw you some jail time. And they should.

I guess I missed this, what did the grad student from Purdue do?

 

[Moonglow]

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.

thank you for that cold reading.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Typical Left/Progressive nuttery: Threatening to kill DA BOOOOOOSH = "Just fine & acceptable" but threatening to kill their Hopey Changey One = "Wrong & Criminal." I think it's hilarious their fellow Left/Progressive nutters on the 9th Circuit ruled this way.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I guess I missed this, what did the grad student from Purdue do?

Vikram Buddhi.

I'd actually met this guy once, and when this story came out it was about zero surprise.

 

[The T]

Typical Left/Progressive nuttery: Threatening to kill DA BOOOOOOSH = "Just fine & acceptable" but threatening to kill their Hopey Changey One = "Wrong & Criminal." I think it's hilarious their fellow Left/Progressive nutters on the 9th Circuit ruled this way.

It's a one way street for some. Sad.

 

[Two Thumbs]

As to the first point: of those who run their mouths in that ignorant fashion, few happen to be simultaneously in possession of 50 cal rifles. Such "minor" differences make a big difference in the analysis.

The fact that Candidate Obama (a fact I already noted) was not yet President Obama makes no difference to the "rule." The law being applied addresses a threat against the President OR against a candidate for very good, sound, legitimate reasons.

I didn't know that second part.

Your first point I still disagree with. People say vile and stupid things all the time without meaning them seriously.

As to the "law" in question, I quote from the decision itself:

The federal statute under which Bagdasarian was indicted, 18 U.S.C. § 879(a)(3), makes it a crime to "knowingly and willfully threaten[ ] to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon . . . a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate."

People say vile and stupid shit all the time and often DO mean them. But when it comes to talking smack about violence, those who talk specifically about 50 cal ammo to the head are NOT always in possession of a 50 cal rifle.

Again, the Court's decision spells out the facts (as determined by the trial record):

A month after the two statements for which Bagdasarian was indicted were posted on the AIG message board, two agents visited and interviewed him and he admitted to posting the statements from his home computer. When asked, he also told the agents that he had weapons in his home. The agents found one weapon on a nearby shelf; Bagdasarian said he had other weapons in addition. Four days later, agents executed a federal search warrant at Bagdasarian's home and found six firearms, including a Remington model 700ML .50 caliber muzzle-loading rifle, as well as .50 caliber ammunition. The agents also searched the hard drive of Bagdasarian's home computer and recovered an email sent on Election Day with the subject, "Re: And so it begins." The email's text stated, "Pistol??? Dude, Josh needs to get us one of these, just shoot the nigga's car and POOF!" The email provided a link to a webpage advertising a large caliber rifle. Another email that Bagdasarian sent the same day with the same subject

9805

heading stated, "Pistol . . . plink plink plink Now when you use a 50 cal on a nigga car you get this." It included a link to a video of a propane tank, a pile of debris, and two junked cars being blown up. These email messages would appear to confirm the malevolent nature of the previous statements as well as Bagdasarian's own malignant nature. Unlike in the case of his first two message board statements two weeks earlier, this time he did not attempt to excuse his inexcusable conduct on the ground that he was intoxicated. After the Secret Service filed a criminal complaint against Bagdasarian for the posting the "shoot the nig" and "Obama fk the niggar" statements, the Government filed the superseding indictment at issue here, charging Bagdasarian in two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 879(a)(3) with threatening to kill and inflict bodily harm upon a major candidate for the office of president of the United States. Bagdasarian waived his right to a jury trial. His case was tried before a district judge upon the foregoing stipulated facts. The district court found Bagdasarian guilty on both counts. He appeals. * * * *

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

I think you are giving "threaten" too large a meaning.

Trash talk on the net has even less meaning than in real life. It's nothing short of tyranny to say I can't say what I want when there is no chance of harm. [fire in a theater]

 

[The T]

I didn't know that second part.

Your first point I still disagree with. People say vile and stupid things all the time without meaning them seriously.

As to the "law" in question, I quote from the decision itself:



People say vile and stupid shit all the time and often DO mean them. But when it comes to talking smack about violence, those who talk specifically about 50 cal ammo to the head are NOT always in possession of a 50 cal rifle.

Again, the Court's decision spells out the facts (as determined by the trial record):

A month after the two statements for which Bagdasarian was indicted were posted on the AIG message board, two agents visited and interviewed him and he admitted to posting the statements from his home computer. When asked, he also told the agents that he had weapons in his home. The agents found one weapon on a nearby shelf; Bagdasarian said he had other weapons in addition. Four days later, agents executed a federal search warrant at Bagdasarian's home and found six firearms, including a Remington model 700ML .50 caliber muzzle-loading rifle, as well as .50 caliber ammunition. The agents also searched the hard drive of Bagdasarian's home computer and recovered an email sent on Election Day with the subject, "Re: And so it begins." The email's text stated, "Pistol??? Dude, Josh needs to get us one of these, just shoot the nigga's car and POOF!" The email provided a link to a webpage advertising a large caliber rifle. Another email that Bagdasarian sent the same day with the same subject

9805

heading stated, "Pistol . . . plink plink plink Now when you use a 50 cal on a nigga car you get this." It included a link to a video of a propane tank, a pile of debris, and two junked cars being blown up. These email messages would appear to confirm the malevolent nature of the previous statements as well as Bagdasarian's own malignant nature. Unlike in the case of his first two message board statements two weeks earlier, this time he did not attempt to excuse his inexcusable conduct on the ground that he was intoxicated. After the Secret Service filed a criminal complaint against Bagdasarian for the posting the "shoot the nig" and "Obama fk the niggar" statements, the Government filed the superseding indictment at issue here, charging Bagdasarian in two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 879(a)(3) with threatening to kill and inflict bodily harm upon a major candidate for the office of president of the United States. Bagdasarian waived his right to a jury trial. His case was tried before a district judge upon the foregoing stipulated facts. The district court found Bagdasarian guilty on both counts. He appeals. * * * *

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

I think you are giving "threaten" too large a meaning.

Trash talk on the net has even less meaning than in real life. It's nothing short of tyranny to say I can't say what I want when there is no chance of harm. [fire in a theater]

As to shouting FIRE(!) in a crowded theatre when no such condition exists makes the perpetrator responsible for whatever follows. (People getting trampled, hurt, or even killed as a result of the ensuing melee).

But that goes into the responsibility column of posessing such liberty.

 

[random3434]

Typical Left/Progressive nuttery: Threatening to kill DA BOOOOOOSH = "Just fine & acceptable" but threatening to kill their Hopey Changey One = "Wrong & Criminal." I think it's hilarious their fellow Left/Progressive nutters on the 9th Circuit ruled this way.

Yeah, that's why this guy is in jail.

Vikram Buddhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And link to posters on here that have called for Bush's death. Can you? Can you link any that have called for Obama's death?

The fact that you think it's funny that someone calls for the assassination of anyone says a lot of how you think.

 

[shintao]

The double-standard. You can threaten to kill your neighbor and get away with it, but to do the same to anyone in a position of power and your headed for jail. In other words you can think it, but you cannot share your thoughts without persecution. That shoud make it harder for the authorities to ID the bad guys needing watching.

In the country's first contested presidential election of 1800, supporters of Thomas Jefferson claimed that incumbent John Adams wanted to marry off his son to the daughter of King George III to create an American dynasty under British rule; Adams supporters called Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."2 Abraham Lincoln was derided as an ape, ghoul, lunatic, and savage,3 while Andrew Jackson was accused of adultery and murder,4 and opponents of Grover Cleveland chanted slogans that he had fathered a child out-of-wedlock.5 Still, the 2008 presidential election was unique in the combination of racial, religious, and ethnic bias that contributed to the extreme enmity expressed at various points during the campaign.6

 

[The T]

Typical Left/Progressive nuttery: Threatening to kill DA BOOOOOOSH = "Just fine & acceptable" but threatening to kill their Hopey Changey One = "Wrong & Criminal." I think it's hilarious their fellow Left/Progressive nutters on the 9th Circuit ruled this way.

Yeah, that's why this guy is in jail.

Vikram Buddhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And link to posters on here that have called for Bush's death. Can you? Can you link any that have called for Obama's death?

The fact that you think it's funny that someone calls for the assassination of anyone says a lot of how you think.

i didn't see any humour in what he posted and nor do I think he wrote it with a grin on his face chuckling.

He was pointing out the disparity. Heck they made movies about getting RID of Bush...or did YOU forget that?

Sure it was British...but how many here applauded it? Good memory for you...but too short.

Your stance is indefensible.

 

[Ravi]

Typical Left/Progressive nuttery: Threatening to kill DA BOOOOOOSH = "Just fine & acceptable" but threatening to kill their Hopey Changey One = "Wrong & Criminal." I think it's hilarious their fellow Left/Progressive nutters on the 9th Circuit ruled this way.

Yeah, that's why this guy is in jail.

Vikram Buddhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And link to posters on here that have called for Bush's death. Can you? Can you link any that have called for Obama's death?

The fact that you think it's funny that someone calls for the assassination of anyone says a lot of how you think.

i didn't see any humour in what he posted and nor do I think he wrote it with a grin on his face chuckling.

He was pointing out the disparity. Heck they made movies about getting RID of Bush...or did YOU forget that?

Sure it was British...but how many here applauded it? Good memory for you...but too short.

Your stance is indefensible.

Are you this stupid in real life?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Typical Left/Progressive nuttery: Threatening to kill DA BOOOOOOSH = "Just fine & acceptable" but threatening to kill their Hopey Changey One = "Wrong & Criminal." I think it's hilarious their fellow Left/Progressive nutters on the 9th Circuit ruled this way.

Yeah, that's why this guy is in jail.

Vikram Buddhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And link to posters on here that have called for Bush's death. Can you? Can you link any that have called for Obama's death?

The fact that you think it's funny that someone calls for the assassination of anyone says a lot of how you think.

i didn't see any humour in what he posted and nor do I think he wrote it with a grin on his face chuckling.

He was pointing out the disparity. Heck they made movies about getting RID of Bush...or did YOU forget that?

Sure it was British...but how many here applauded it? Good memory for you...but too short.

Your stance is indefensible.

Oh killing DA BOOOOOSH was all the rage with the Left/Progressive wankers. They wont admit it but they know it's true. Now they're all feigning such outrage over this. I think it's ridiculous and hilarious. The 9th Circuit is made up of their own fellow Left/Progressive wankers. They should be applauding this ruling no?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

I disagree, and extend that to any elected official, but especially the President.
The President is such an important person that the secret service can't spend it's time chasing nuts and taking chances on missing a real threat.
Therefore - it must be a punishable crime for threatening the life of a sitting President - including on online forums.

 

[random3434]

Typical Left/Progressive nuttery: Threatening to kill DA BOOOOOOSH = "Just fine & acceptable" but threatening to kill their Hopey Changey One = "Wrong & Criminal." I think it's hilarious their fellow Left/Progressive nutters on the 9th Circuit ruled this way.

Yeah, that's why this guy is in jail.

Vikram Buddhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And link to posters on here that have called for Bush's death. Can you? Can you link any that have called for Obama's death?

The fact that you think it's funny that someone calls for the assassination of anyone says a lot of how you think.

i didn't see any humour in what he posted and nor do I think he wrote it with a grin on his face chuckling.

He was pointing out the disparity. Heck they made movies about getting RID of Bush...or did YOU forget that?

Sure it was British...but how many here applauded it? Good memory for you...but too short.

Your stance is indefensible.

MY Stance? That you partisan hacks are laughing over people who threaten to kill anyone...

And since I don't even know what movie you are talking about, how could I have a memory of it?


Fail again T.


Now, are you still running for POTUS like you promised? Let us know, ok?