Court says it’s OK to call for Obama’s assassination
Read Time:2 Minute, 11 Second
Man’s call for Obama assassination is free speech, not crime, court rules
In America the court says it’s your right to threaten Obama. Is there such a thing as too much freedom? I think so, just like I think that tax cuts are bad for the country. We need to be careful about how much freedom is allowed and we need to raise taxes so that we can stabilize our economy and start rebuilding the nation. Then again, that’s for another article. At the moment, it seems that you can just about say anything you want even if it inspires people to commit murder, at least according to a federal court.
Read the story here:
A La Mesa man who posted racial epithets and a call to “shoot” Barack Obama on an Internet chat site was engaging in constitutionally protected free speech, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in overturning his criminal conviction.
Walter Bagdasarian was found guilty two years ago of making threats against a major presidential candidate in comments he posted on a Yahoo.com financial website after 1 a.m. 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.
A divided panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that conviction Tuesday, saying Bagdasarian’s comments were “particularly repugnant” because they endorsed violence but that a reasonable person wouldn’t have taken them as a genuine threat.
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.
“When our law punishes words, we must examine the surrounding circumstances to discern the significance of those words’ utterance, but must not distort or embellish their plain meaning so that the law may reach them,” said the 2-1 ruling in which Chief Judge Alex Kozinski joined but Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw dissented.
Many thanks to the LA TIMES for this story update.
I am most curious to know what you think about this. Is there too much “free speech?” Will we soon be able to yell fire in a crowded theater? When will a conspiracy to commit mass murder or an act of terrorism become little more than free speech? Let me know if you think it’s OK for someone to call for the assassination of President Obama.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
It’s a mockery of free speech. The judge is obviously racist!
I don’t think there is too much free speech I think there is too little restraint. Just because you can speak freely doesn’t mean you should.
Well said Bob!!
The right to free speech is NOT absolute. For me, threatening violence is akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. It should not be protected speech.
I agree Kathleen and yet I also agree with bsranch. Unfortunately, it is not in our nature to “restrain” ourselves when we should.
Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is only a crime if it ruins the lives of innocent people. But, what if one needed a theater vacated due to a chlorine or natural gas leak? What if there were other circumstances under which it needed to be rapidly vacated, and “fire” was the only word to which its occupants responded? If those in the theater benefit from it, especially to the degree of having their lives saved, the person warning them all of danger – even if the danger warned about is not exactly what existed – should still have his speech be protected. And that’s what we’re talking about here, ignorance and racism aside. If someone recognizes danger, he should be allowed to call for it to be neutralized, even if you don’t personally feel threatened.
Speaking of danger, who do you think is in control of our armed forces and their occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc and is therefore responsible for (or at least complicit in) the murder of millions of its citizens? Who is complicit in the increase in prosecution (and ruination) of responsible, respectable citizens in our country who have blown the whistle on illegal, immoral, and dangerous activity on the part of both our government and its corporate bed-partners? Who is sitting idly by while our attorney general authorizes and encourages the justice department to imprison law-abiding marijuana growers in their own states (where it has been made legal) at a rate higher than that under Bush? Who is encouraging the ruin of millions of lives for something as simple as possessing or selling marijuana because he still thinks it should be considered as dangerous a drug as heroin? The answer, if it’s not obvious yet, is the same man Mr. Bagdasarian thinks should be removed from power. Should he not be allowed to have such an opinion of someone who could legitimately be labelled a war criminal or at the very least be called a contributor to the ruin of millions of lives?? You need to examine yourselves and make certain you understand the meaning of “freedom of speech”. Thank heavens the USSC understands the First Amendment better than you people.
P.S. Yes, I have references for every statement I have made. I’m not blowing smoke where there is no fire.