Court reverses Obama threat conviction

[PoliticAverse]

Source: Associated Press

A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a San Diego man who authorities say threatened Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign.

A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that Walter Bagdasarian's violent and racist screed against Obama was "repugnant" but not criminal.

...

But the judges said Tuesday that no "reasonable person" could have taken seriously Bagdasarian's posts to a Yahoo Finance message board in October 2008. The court also said his free speech rights protected him from prosecution.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/07/19/state/n123503D53.DTL

[beac]

1. I'm betting the man who went to jail for referring to a "burning bush" will

find this ruling interesting.

[PoliticAverse]

3. Here's background on that case...

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.com/news.aspx?id=12391

[ixion]

2. Because IOKIYAR

:puke:

[Ian David]

4. Court: Appeal to assassinate Obama is protected speech

Source: RawStory

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that calling for someone to kill the President of the United States cannot be classified as a threat because standing law does not prohibit "predictions or exhortations" to violence.

In a 2-1 decision, judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California resident Walter E. Bagdasarian was engaging in free speech when he wrote that Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head soon," then called on someone to "shoot the nig."

Bagdasarian published his comments on a Yahoo finance website in the weeks leading up to the 2008 presidential election. He was arrested weeks later, after one of the other commenters reported a potential threat to the Secret Service. During a search of his residence, authorities discovered that he did indeed possess a .50 caliber rifle.

"These statements are particularly repugnant because they directly encourage violence," the judges wrote. "We nevertheless hold that neither of them constitutes an offense within the meaning of the threat statute under which Bagdasarian was convicted."



Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/20/court-appeal-to-assassinate-obama-is-protected-speech/

[abq e streeter]

5. WHAAAT????

[Politicub]

6. WTF!?!?

This is unreal.

[freshwest]

22. +100,000

[indurancevile]

7. huh? if i said something similar to my neighbor i would be arrested & jailed.

[SharonRB]

8. Are you kidding me?

This is an out-and-out threat and should not be protected speech.

[dipsydoodle]

9. This was LBN yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4927354

[The Wielding Truth]

14. Thanks. This is the real story. "Burning Bush"

[Drale]

10. Just another ruling by the terrorist court system

If this is true then I think I'm going to walk up to Boner and tell him I'm going to shoot him in the face, its not a threat it free speech.

[Angry Dragon]

11. It would seem that the wording is the key

If you say you are going to shoot him in the face, that would be a threat
if on the other hand you said 'I wish someone would shot you in the face
because you are a pig' is okay

[No Elephants]

34. "Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head soon," is one of the things he said.

That is something you cannot know for sure unless you intend to be the shooter, and soon.

If, on the the other hand, you call it merely a prophesy or a prediction, you bring it even closer to the Burning Bush case and that guy is in prison.

I guess the 8th circuit was simply less tolerant about threats of harm to Bush than the 9th cir is about Obama.

I'm not entirely certain that urging someone else to kill the President wouldn't be covered by the law that prohibits threats against the President.

Bottom line, if the court thinks threats are protected speech, it should have outright declared the law unconstitutional, rather than try to pick and choose among threats and prophesies.

ETA "and soon"

[Walk away]

12. Last week a client of mine was shouting for someone to murder the President.

He was picking up his dog and he started ranting about how disgusting Obama was. My whole neighborhood must have heard. I was mostly in shock and just talked about it for the first time today. This is a white businessman who is married to a beautiful black woman. He grew up in my liberal home town and he was bursting with hate and rage against our president.

I think he must be a teabagger. They are really scary!

[NICO9000]

13. Oh fer crissakes!

Notice it's OK to threaten a Dem prez? The courts are fucking terrorists - Obama better get a food taster if these pricks keep it up.

[Poll_Blind]

15. Dude...how fucked up can you get?

PB

[mzmolly]

16. "Reload!"

:puke:

[ProfessionalLeftist]

17. Since when is an open threat on the President's life LEGAL?!

:wtf:

[Blasphemer]

19. I love your username ;-) nt

[Blasphemer]

18. How is "will have a 50 cal in the head soon" not a threat?

I could MAYBE see an argument with regards to calling on others to engage in violent acts (though even in this case, especially when concerning the POTUS, I would say that incitement to violence IS a threat) but stating that the POTUS will have a bullet in his head soon sounds like a threat to me.

[Frisbee]

20. Simply mind-boggeling.

Had someone said the same about Bush or Cheney during their reign, they would have likely ended up being declared a terrorist or an enemy combatant, and treated as such.

I find it especially amazing since this lunatic owns a .50 caliber rifle, which is precisely the slug he said Obama would end up with in his head. There are some truly scary people out there.

[kestrel91316]

21. If that's ok, then so is this:

Somebody needs to shoot GWB.

[Ian David]

35. You can only say that if you live in the jurisdiction of the 9th district court. n/t

[meegbear]

23. Court: Appeal to assassinate Obama is protected speech

Source: RawStory.com

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that calling for someone to kill the President of the United States cannot be classified as a threat because standing law does not prohibit "predictions or exhortations" to violence.

In a 2-1 decision, judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California resident Walter E. Bagdasarian was engaging in free speech when he wrote that Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head soon," then called on someone to "shoot the nig."

Bagdasarian published his comments on a Yahoo finance website in the weeks leading up to the 2008 presidential election. He was arrested weeks later, after one of the other commenters reported a potential threat to the Secret Service. During a search of his residence, authorities discovered that he did indeed possess a .50 caliber rifle.

"These statements are particularly repugnant because they directly encourage violence," the judges wrote. "We nevertheless hold that neither of them constitutes an offense within the meaning of the threat statute under which Bagdasarian was convicted."

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/20/court-appeal-to-assassinate-obama-is-protected-speech/

---

"There are many unstable individuals in this nation to whom assault weapons and other firearms are readily available, some of whom might believe that they were doing the nation a service were they to follow Bagdasarian’s commandment," they continued. "There is nevertheless insufficient evidence that either statement constituted a threat or would be construed by a reasonable person as a genuine threat by Bagdasarian against Obama."

Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw cast the dissenting vote. In her opinion, she cites the conviction of former white supremacist radio host Hal Turner, who was sentenced after he published comments on his website calling for the assassination of three judges. She also cites cases dealing with threats against abortion providers, where the defendants made statements of similar nature to Bagdasarian's comments.

"Therefore, independently reviewing the entire record, I conclude that at the time Mr. Bagdasarian made the charged threats, he acted with the specific intent to threaten candidate Obama," she wrote.

[Ghost Dog]

24. A reasonable person would agree

with Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, surely.

Will this go to a higher court on appeal?

[kiranon]

29. Hope so. This is more than free speech IMHO and expect Supreme

Court will overturn it if it goes up on appeal and the court decides to hear it.

[RobinA]

25. I'm About

as liberal as they come when it comes to speech. I even believe campaign contributions are speech. But when it comes to killing people I draw the line. Naming a specific person, particularly the President, is out of bounds. And I pick the President as somewhat unique, because beyond the obvious effect on him and his family, assassination of a President has nationwide repercussions.

While I agree that an offhanded remark should be looked at less seriously than a threat or an exhortation, I have to laugh at the language "There is nevertheless insufficient evidence that either statement constituted a threat or would be construed by a reasonable person as a genuine threat..". I mean, "reasonable person"? Aren't we talking about how this speech could influence an UNreasonable person?

[Marthe48]

26. There is always someone who will listen

and always someone willing to be led. Bagdasarian is a coward for saying it, then asking someone to act. And too bad the judges don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

[MilesColtrane]

27. What if his exhortation hadn't been posted on an internet message board, but broadcast...

through 500 affiliate radio stations across the country?

Would that rise to the level of a credible threat with these two judges?

Limbaugh, Beck, and Savage are just dying to know the answer to that.

[scribble]

30. Limbaugh and Beck

... have both ALMOST threatened Obama on the air. Both should have been visited by the Secret Service, but apparently weren't.

Limbaugh just barely missed being visited, when he exhorted Republicans to riot in the streets during the Democratic Convention. He didn't define a reason, or name a time and place, and that's why he is still on the air.

The Law distinguishes between a "true threat" and hyperbole (see Wikipedia). Limbaugh and Beck almost always make hyperbolic statements; not threats. They would LOVE to be arrested.

The way to handle both men, is to have well-known surrogates (friends) speak out against what they said in ways that make them sound foolish. Another way, is to boycott their advertisers -- which is in fact, the main reason Beck is no longer on Fox News.

A third way: Challenge the Broadcast License of every radio station that broadcasts either man. The challenges would be free, but it would force all those stations to hire expensive lawyers to defend themselves before the FCC.

I have no F*cking idea why so-called progressives here, haven't been doing that since at least 2004. But you haven't. You apparently prefer to just bitch.

sc

[scribble]

28. I am appalled ...

with most of the comments in this thread. Don't you know what a threat is?


Really. Look up "true threat" on Wikipedia. You can't just fuck over someone because they said something you don't like. That's what Michelle Bachmann wants to do.

You can't just interpret someone else's offensive speech to be a threat: That's what Dick Cheney did for eight years, and why we STILL have a "War" on terrorism.

For your speech to be threatening, you also have to be specific, credible and your target needs to understand that he/she is in imminent danger. To be credible, your plan has to be apparent from your speech and actions, and the context in which the speech is uttered. It can't be a joke or a fantasy or an expression of anger. It especially doesn't help if it's posted one or two times in a message thread full of idiot gold-bug investors.

This man wasn't credible or serious. He was delusional.


Here is the most basic principle of our Criminal Law System: The punishment must fit the crime.

Think about that Principle.

Do you REALLY want to start locking up everybody in the country who says something you don't like?

Are you willing to let those people lock you up because they don't like what you are saying?


I am ashamed of most of you.


sc

[buckrogers1965]

31. At the very least it is assault.

And that would apply to those threats being communicated to anybody.

From wikipedia:

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Because assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary.

As distinguished from battery, assault need not to involve actual contact—it only needs intent and the resulting apprehension. However, assault requires more than words alone. For example, wielding a knife while shouting threats could be construed as assault if an apprehension was created.

< Someone saying that I am going to get a .50 cal bullet to my head when they own a .50 cal rifle would make me apprehensive. >

[Rex]

32. Er uh...WHAT?

[No Elephants]

33. Aren't all threats "speech" of one kind or another? So, this panel nullified the

law saying you may not threaten harm to the POTUS, without even bothering to declare the law unconstitutional?

Hell, if it's only protected speech, we probably shouldn't even investigate it, as that would be quite a burden on First Amendment rights. People knocking on my door, warrant in hand, every time I refer to the Bush crime family, for example, would tend to "chill" my political speech, that's for sure.

Let me guess how the Secret Service and the family of the POTUS, among others, feel about this ruling.