Slashdot Mirror
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."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Buddhi
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.
Of course he's still going to be on every single government watch list for the rest of his life. And if he ever does anything you can bet they will throw the book at him.
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Who actually says "Shoot the racist slur"? What a lame racist. A real racist would have called him a nigger. Nigger. Its ok to write it, its just a word. It is especially ok to write it, when quoting someone else who said it.
I mean do we really need to edit what a racist said to make it more genetic and palatable? I mean seriously.... of all the things to PC up....
I am sure he isn't embarrassed to be known as the guy who called Obama a nigger.. if thats even what he said...since he obviously wasn't quoted correctly.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.
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 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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
> 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.
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? questions.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
TP Michelle Bauchmann claiming that slavery was good for black families is not what the Republican Party needs at this juncture.
What she said was tactless and foolish, but she didnt say what youre claiming she did.
In fact, she didnt actually say it at all, it was a pledge she signed, and the controversial language was
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President
Which is to say, it was lamenting the state of family values, and trying to emphasize its point with hyperbole.
It would be much the same as if someone had said
Even under Hitler, people had more speech rights
A rational interpretation of that statement will not read an endorsement of the Nazi regime into it, but rather a gross and insensitive use of hyperbole to emphasize how bad you think things are NOW.
Although I suppose if the goal is to demonize your political opposition, it sure is convenient to simply call it racist, and to make the claim that republicans are hankering for the days of slavery again; and a fig to any reasonable attempt to use context and language skills.
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.
"No matter where you go, there you probably are." -- Buckaroo Heisenberg