Be Careful What You Say ON THe Internet

[Mtn.man]

There is still No proof of unicorns farting.

[OgenRwot]

Someone once posted a link to a blog that is like 200 pages long of 100's of pictures of protesters with signs saying stuff like "I'm here to kill Bush." "I want Bush to die." and other very obvious things like that and no one ever did anything to any of those people. What is the difference?

People speed everyday, people smoke pot, people do crack, people J-Walk, people CCW without a permit etc etc etc...doesn't mean it's not illegal or make it right. As far as the signs go, yeah, not ok either. Nobody is saying that it was.

I'm sure the fact that the guy was a "respected" blogger (YMMV) and had people that listened to him and commented on the blog saying it was a good idea and what not had a lot to do with the prosecution. Obviously this one could have gone either way, twice there was a hung jury and they had to change venue. He wasn't so lucky, but what he said, online for all to see, was absolutely retarded.

[Irving]

Ahh, here we go. http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621 (you have to scroll down a ways for the pictures)

What is the difference between all these people and this blogger? I don't agree with, or take any of these people (blogger included) seriously.

[SA Friday]

Someone once posted a link to a blog that is like 200 pages long of 100's of pictures of protesters with signs saying stuff like "I'm here to kill Bush." "I want Bush to die." and other very obvious things like that and no one ever did anything to any of those people. What is the difference?

Ok...
This would fall under the Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions on the 1st Ammendment derived from the SC runing of US v O'Brien There's a 4 part litmus test from this ruling applied to the assembly to determine if it's the Govt is illegally violating their rights. This would also fall under the "Speech that lies beyond the Realm" of the 1st Ammendment: Defamation, Words that Incite Immanent Lawlessness, and Obscenity. This falls into the category of words that incide, otherwise known as 'Fighting words' and The relevant SC cases for this are Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).

The case Mountain Man is probably talking about with 'in my opinion' thing is The New York Times CO. v Sullivan (1964) and has to do with defamation, not incitement.

This thread is clearly about inciting immanent lawlessness. It's NOT a violation of his first ammendment rights, and relating that it is clearly shows just how people like to make laws say what they want, not what they mean. The 1st ammendment has picked up a LOT of clarification along the way since it's writing. It's damn important to understand the ammendment and the governing ruling about it.

References used above: Ferdico, John; Fradella, Henry; Totten, Christopher; Criminal Procedure: for the Criminal Justice Professional, Tenth Edition, 2008.

[Mtn.man]

Thanks FA was searching for it but now you found it.

[Irving]

We can always count on you to do your home work and make great posts. Thanks.

*When is your next technical thread coming out anyway?

[OneGuy67]

I can't say with authority what the law is in that particular state, but here in Colorado if you make a threat, law enforcement has to determine how credible the threat is before acting on it.

How credible are the threats on the poster boards? Probably zero. Would the words on the poster boards cause someone to act on them? Probably not.

Did the blogger advocate for the deaths of the three judges? Yes. Could his words prompt someone of like mind to act on them? Maybe.

That's were the courts have been putting the line between free speech and inciting.

[Irving]

So I guess that begs the question of the difference between words painted on a sign and words posted in a blog. Perhaps years of the homeless and/or crazy people holding 'End of the World' signs, has ruined the credibility of all sign holders as anything but a mentally handicapped person with no real motive or power to accomplish anything more than sign writing. Which might explain why I never pull over for car washes or lemonade stands.

[SA Friday]

So I guess that begs the question of the difference between words painted on a sign and words posted in a blog. Perhaps years of the homeless and/or crazy people holding 'End of the World' signs, has ruined the credibility of all sign holders as anything but a mentally handicapped person with no real motive or power to accomplish anything more than sign writing. Which might explain why I never pull over for car washes or lemonade stands.

There is no distinction between verbal, written, or acts of communication in the 1st ammendment. They are all considered speech per se. The difference is in the validity of the communication. Although offensive, the validity of the signs as acutal threats was probably not believable. Where as the blog postings in questions probably had more information to them. The SC ruling that applies to the potection of offensive material is Texas v Johnson (1989). I suspect this was the defense used in the threads original posting took in court. The problem is the President of the United States is considered a public figure (celebrities and politicians), and being famous results in a proving a 'higher standard' in court for both defamation and fighting words. In the case of the judges, they are not at a level of fame along the lines of most politicians and celebrities. So, the standard is lower. I would even take it a step further and surmise that since the POTUS has 24/7 highly trained bodyguards, the sign carriers were probably checked out and found to not be a credible threat. So, the signs were merely considered offensive.

The case Texas v. Johnson's key quote from the ruling states: "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the FA, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea because society finds the idea offensive. We can imagine no more appropriate repsonse to burning a flag than waving one's own."

[Hoosier]

Someone once posted a link to a blog that is like 200 pages long of 100's of pictures of protesters with signs saying stuff like "I'm here to kill Bush." "I want Bush to die." and other very obvious things like that and no one ever did anything to any of those people. What is the difference?

In the United States?

H.