Free speech or not, that is the question

[Kyriakos]

I think that <censored> is indeed to blame for unleasing the hordes of <censored> to spy and arrest citizens of the <censored>.

At least we can still say as much.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I do think the reaction was overkill, and I do think that our US goverment is over-reaching in many places, but the right to free speech is not absolute (yes, I am an attorney who works with Constitutional law). Moreover, the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". Strictly speaking, this was not the legislative branch, and not in violation. No different than the police investigating an individual advocating violence.

 

[Farm Boy]

Valka, if the man had stood up in public and called on people to assassinate the president, that would be different. Instead, he said he thinks that the president should be arrested(presumably by the law), tried(presumably under the law), and executed(presumably by the law, we still do that in this country(sadly)).

JR - given Obama's parentage, are you sure many conservatives aren't actually fantasizing about him already being hung?

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Guys, making polarizing comments like that does not help. Insinuating that Conservatives (or Liberals, or Libertarians, or whatever) are any less rational than any other group as a whole is not only insulting, but dampens your own credibility.

 

[Farm Boy]

What's polarizing(if that was to me) about a relatively inane, and common if the internet is to be believed, fantasy? I mean sometimes you dial up that video stream and "Wowza, I didn't know God made 'em like that!"

 

[Bulldog Bats]

1. That was to you and all others on the string who made similar comments.
2. "If the internet is to be believed" - If that is a basis for political (or other) thoughts, we are in trouble.
3. Insinuating that any group of people condones murder is hardly inane.
4. I can find conservative nuts, liberal nuts, and cashew nuts all on the internet. I can find intelligent conservatives and intelligent liberals.
5. I thought the purpose of these strings was somewhat intelligent discourse.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think we're confusing a particular adjective that describes the result of a verb with an adjective that describes a present state of being and the resulting, erm, carnal?- entertainment possibilities.

Either way, do you have any thoughts on the first paragraph rather than the last sentence?

 

[Formaldehyde]

but the guy aint a nut from what I can see, just guilty of hyperbole

Jonathan Turley

How exactly was the Secret Service supposed to know that is indeed the case without investigating it?

he didn't say he would assassinate the Prez, he said the Prez should be arrested and hanged for his crimes

What crime is Obama supposedly guilty which leads to him being "hanged", despite being ruled unconstitutional long ago?

Sorry, but that kind of comment certainly warrant attention. Because that *is* the mindset that may result in a genuine assassination attempt, and the US has a history of those.

It can also provoke others into committing murder.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Valka, if the man had stood up in public and called on people to assassinate the president, that would be different. Instead, he said he thinks that the president should be arrested(presumably by the law), tried(presumably under the law), and executed(presumably by the law, we still do that in this country(sadly)).

Advocating for his death - by any means - is still standing up in public and saying he should be killed.

It's putting the idea out there that making your President dead would be a good idea. That, as far as I understand it, is illegal.

And in a modern, supposedly enlightened society, this is a very uncivilized way to deal with a politician who some might not like.

 

[Farm Boy]

If our state itself did not kill people through the enforcement of its laws, sure, I might go with that. I rather wish it didn't. But it does. This country puts people on trial and subsequently executes them. Nobody comes after the family of murder victims when they demand, quite openly and with absolutely no hyperbole, that those they believe guilty of murder be arrested, tried, and killed.

I won't argue that advocating the idea that the president should be dead is a pretty damned stupid idea. It is a damned stupid idea. But in this format it's a very different idea than that somebody should go out and kill him without the due process of law enforcement and the courts. Which means this, even if he was totally lacking in dumb hyperbole, is very much most likely not illegal.

I would contest that modern, supposedly enlightened societies, have the burden of treating the stupid in a civilized manner befitting their stupidity so long as the condition of being dumb as a bag of hammers is not coupled with active incitement and danger.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I can see we're not going to agree on this, then. I have a profound hatred for some of our current and former politicians, but that doesn't mean I would advocate that they be killed - whether murdered or executed. It's been more than 40 years since the last political assassination in Canada and a much longer time previously to that one - Louis Riel comes to mind, in 1885. Some consider him a traitor, while others consider that he was basically assassinated.

Canada no longer has the death penalty, and considering the number of people who have been found to have been falsely imprisoned and finally released - sometimes after over 20 years of incarceration - it's a damn good thing for them that we don't execute people.

On the flip side, there are useless wastes of oxygen like Paul Bernardo and Robert Pickton and the Shafia family all taking up space and resources in prison when they are unquestionably guilty, unquestionably unremorseful, and will never be fit to be released into society. Some think it's too bad we can't just execute them. For me, I'm content to let them rot. I'd be a hypocrite to say capital punishment is bad, yet advocate for the execution of some prisoners.

 

[Farm Boy]

I can see we're not going to agree on this, then. I have a profound hatred for some of our current and former politicians, but that doesn't mean I would advocate that they be killed - whether murdered or executed.

That's because it's entirely likely you are a better person than this man.

 

[illram]

So the guy was interviewed? Did anything else happen?

It's unfortunate that in this day and age it comes to this, but to be honest I do not begrudge the Secret Service for at least *interviewing* someone who publicly says the President should be executed.

 

[Dralix]

This country puts people on trial and subsequently executes them. Nobody comes after the family of murder victims when they demand, quite openly and with absolutely no hyperbole, that those they believe guilty of murder be arrested, tried, and killed.

It's a crime to threaten to take the life of the President. The language does not distinguish between an otherwise legal taking of life.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871


Now I don't think anyone would ever be convicted for saying that the President should be lawfully charged, found guilty and executed. But I do expect the Secret Service to investigate it, and find out if there's any more to it. That's kind of their job.

 

[gay_Aleks]

It seems absurd to believe that free speech must be protected in all cases, just like we should have absolute and full freedom. Even the Founding Fathers knew that, and they initiated their Revolution some 20 years before everyone realised that too much freedom is quite bad, during the French Revolution.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

That is why we have written Constitution, and a clear set of guidelines for ways to change it.

 

[JollyRoger]

Did they even bother to waterboard him?

 

[Farm Boy]

It seems absurd to believe that free speech must be protected in all cases

You're right, and it's not! Incitement can very well be criminal. Is anyone arguing that incitement should be legal, or are we futzing about whether or not the speech in question actually was incitement?

 

[Evie]

The problem here, again, is not incitement.

The problem here is that this kind of statement is precisely the sort of reasoning you'd see from someone who intend to kill the president. Because, again, you're not going to kill the president if you don't believe he should be killed.

If it was incitement he had done, then they would have legitimate reasons to arrest him. But he wasn't arrested; he was simply interviewed to make sure he wasn't one of those people who actually might try and kill the president. Which is a whole lot of not the same.

 

[Farm Boy]

Right, but the fact would remain that even though the SS may be obliged to investigate, it appears as if the speech, so far as we know, is indeed protected speech. So then you need to ask if the specific investigation methods used by the SS were themselves reasonable, or if they are heavy handed enough to serve as intimidation/silencing of legally protected speech.