Question for DUers who are Legally Minded: When does Tea bagger/Palin conduct shift from free speech

Free Speech to Incitement to violence?

I cherish the right to free speech, and believe me, the only reason my Repuke senators have probably not had me killed is because of that right, but is it legal to do the following:

Publish on line the private home addresses of politicians or public figures, while;

Insinuating that they ought to be harmed, even bumped off, for their support of health care reform?

I know what my answer is, and my next question, which I hope is permissible to post here, is: Why in the living hell isn't Sarah Palin cuffed and behind bars? You can make all the apologies and excuses you want for her Face book post, but the bottom line is she is telling her pathetic, moronic, pinhead fans to remove these Dems from office by any means available.

What else would the cross hairs insignia mean?

What else does "Reload" mean?

And I want to see the faces and know the identities of those sad, pathetic Tea baggers who dared to hurl epithets and spit on civil rights icons.

I was slightly dismayed that our honorable Dems don't wish to press charges, but on the other hand I understand; nevertheless, the people who did this still committed a crime, and I want to see their faces, see the background checks conducted on them by the Congressional police.

It is insanity that we are not treating this disgraceful behavior toward our representatives more seriously. It is almost like it is some half-hearted joke.

spat too.

They should be called out publicly for their actions. I think if people were held accountable in ways like this they might think twice.

:hi:

Mere advocacy of law breaking is not criminal, unless it is likely to incite an imminent lawless action.

should help. If I remember correctly, one involved "fighting words" and one involved "clear and present danger", but I am rusty.


ETA: both Gitlow and Schenck were "clear and present danger" cases. The "fighting words" case was Chaplinsky.

it is no longer the law of the land.

IMHO, since his posts were followed with acts of vandalism.

that alone does not meet the brandenburg standard

read it again

for content

Eventually they'll drop kick her like they did Katherine Harris. Various law enforcement agencies won't touch her as long as the power elite want her spewing. The moment she's not needed anymore and she continues to spew and incite, only then will she do the frog march in an orange jumpsuit.

:puke: sarah bin palin

when it quacks like a duck...

run, caribou bin barbie, run! :rofl:

long overdue

Sounds like yer "palling around with TERRRRRRists", sarah dear!

Them having free speech might stir the pot, but it also points out what they are, where they side, and what they believe.

Note that it also depends on intent, do they think they will forment violence? or are there words taken out of context. They should have an oppurtunity to clarify and state their belief to cool down those thoughts.


This brings me to the bigger thoughts on the battles against violence and hate.

For a while I was saddened by the thought that there were many uncaring violent people, it was sad for me to see that many years ago, then I started looking for people fighting back, what I found was people not willing to strike with violence, but I found 1000s of people fighting with love in song and story.

Not for violence, nor using the method of violence, but with trying to be entertaining while getting out what they believe the better ways of kindness and love are.

At that moment I realized there was a big army of people fighting the bad side, and not with anger. And their music has given me much joy in life, so in the same way they can speak of love in song and story, I think pointing out the bad choice of words, and giving them chance to speak against violence like Senator Boehner did, is the better way. If they do not speak against violence, then their comments goes to point out where they side.

Till then, just love them, it is very peacefull and rewarding feeling to stay in love.

It is not always a bed of roses in this life, but in my belief their are plenty of flowers waiting for those that live in that better way. And it is not about winning, but to all those that care, I think they are the ones fighting for what is right, and doing it with love and the better ways seems to show that.

So for those that do not resort to violence, but show they care with love and courage, I like this song, it goes against the anger and hate, and with respect for those that love.

All those people that stood up for love, and with caring, wow, that is so powerful when people stand for love, weather in speech or song, so I don't worry about the struggles that are caused by those that are violent, they are irrelevant. Because in our struggles we can still find love, as shown by the better actions of people all over the world.

Queen - We are the Champions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04854XqcfCY


And I want to post these two songs again so glory is given where glory belongs.

Queen - Who Wants To Live Forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE

Queen - Your My Best Friend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaZpZQG2z10

but there's a little known clause in the Patriot Act that apparently says that if something is done by a Republican, or aids a Republican, then it cannot be classified as terrorism ...

especially those making terroristic threats by phone. Don't those a-holes know they can be traced? Put a few in the can and a lot of the blowhards we're seeing now will slink back under their rocks.

you need a warrant to do that and an active tap.

(I should shut up now)

going on. How ironic if they used it to trace terroristic threats, nadin? It would almost be amusing.

without a warrant, ironic or not.

bricks into windows. That is not free speech, that's incitement.

Palin's is ugly but still legal

Publishing the address is a no-no since it came with some incitement... that said this person actually covered his \ her ass. After all it was about having a talk, not about cutting gas lines.

The problem they are having is that much of this is close to the line but has not crossed it. And as much as many of us are shaking heads... well you need them to cross that line and I hate to say it, somebody will have to get hurt or worst.

But the idiot who said, throw bricks... I would be shocked if AG at both state and federal level are not preparing a case as I type. That one crossed that line.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

dude.

at meetings instead of discussing matters.

:-)

facts. You're waste'n time here.

and the brandenburg standard.

hth

For this reason. She's a political figure and if you're going to lock her up you have to be damn sure you have her dead to rights before locking her up. As it stands, from what I've seen, she could claim everything she has said is all metaphors ( somebody might have to explain what that means to her). But the reason it has to be really blatant is if it isn't, then it can become a " partisan witch hunt " and she can claim to be a "political prisoner", which would be the msm buzzword within 5 minutes of the first time they heard it.

Jumping the gun on something like that could generate a lot of sympathy for the other side, and, even as putrid as her speech is, violate her first amendment rights. IMO, better safe than sorry.

For instance, "freedom" of speech doesn't cover threats made on someone's person or their family left on an answering machine.

Palin's cross hairs are OK, but directing violence toward and individual or a group that's at the scene of one of her rallies- or engaging in a conspiracy to do them harm elsewhere would be actionable.

As a practical matter, this crap's not going to stop until people get hurt- or some several are very publicly arrested and prosecuted.

that is the current standard, and it's quite expansive (thankfully) as to what speech is allowed

for example, the crosshairs thing does not come CLOSE to being illegal.

in all sorts of cases to prove elements of a crime.

but it takes a HECK of a lot more

btw, i suggest you read the case files on the nuremberg files (a free speech case involving threats out of the 9th circuit). it's quite enlightening