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."
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
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.