What does the law say about "threatening" elected officials?

[IdaBriggs]

For example, I know it is illegal to call for the assassination of foreign leaders because Pat Robertson "educated" me about that.

I know it is illegal to threaten to kill the President of the United States. But is it illegal to threaten to punch him like Senator Mary Landrieu did on national television? And if not, would a fevered wish that someone kick him in the balls be considered "inappropriate?" Or is that illegal, too?

Is it illegal to publicly state you want him "tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail?"

Is it illegal to publicly "burn him in effigy?" Or is that considered to be free speech?

Is it illegal to publicly state that "New Orleans is being punished by God for their gay loving ways" like some Scumball organization did earlier this week? And is it illegal to wish the folks who said that get to meet their creator as soon as possible?

Is it illegal to publicly pray for the deaths of Supreme Court Justices? Or is that just a Pat Robertson thing? And, as a follow up, is it illegal to publicly pray for the deaths of all Republican Congress people -- or at least those who don't support impeachment?

Is it illegal to suggest Bush supporters hie themselves off to Iraq? It seems to shut them up quickly, but is it technically a death threat?

What are the laws / rules for verbally / visually communicating the depth of anger that grips those of us who pay attention? How far is too far, and how far is not far enough?

Seriously, I would like to know -- I am not advocating these things; I'm trying to understand the law.

[whistle]

1. What does the law say about protecting helpless Americans?

[goclark]

2. We all need an education on that

He is so protected by the law and we are so unprotected from him.

[eleny]

3. Is the video available anywhere?

We were up till after 4 am and I didn't get up in time to see the mornng programs. :-( It's not at crooks and liars.

I mean the one of Mary Landrieu.

[IdaBriggs]

6. ON EDIT: Its at crooksandliars now! nt

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[liam_laddie]

5. ask the DHS starting with Chief Zombie Chertoff

The Patriot Act must have sections dealing with uprisings (but don't ask the SCOTUS...)

I'll bet DHS can come up with lots of interpretations which could stifle dissent and free speech. But they WON'T stop the rising tide, the boiling lava dome, of justified anger at this administration's total and absolute incompetence and corruption. And greed. And dishonesty. And cronyism. And extreme partisanship to the point of destroying the House and Senate's histories (at least those bodies' histories of bi-partisan - remember that term? - approaches to national problems.) And looting the Treasury. And on and on ad infinitum. Jaysus, where to stop!

Sadly, it's gonna take more than tragic deaths in NO. I predict it's gonna take real, true patriotic blood in the streets - everywhere we stand up to these thugs. And blood on the yacht decks of the wealthy. And on the barstools in the clubhouses. And on the smashed windows of SUV's. And on the expensive clothes in Orange County and similar red zones. And blood on the gates of those exclusive, "safe" communities. And the blood which our armed forces have already shed in Iraq, Afghanistan and who knows how many covert ops. And the blood-for-oil foreign policy of this hubristic oligarchy is the last card in the house-of-cards that Norquist, Rove, Cheney and all the usual suspects have assembed.

It's over, freepers; face it, accept it...or jump overboard!

[annabanana]

7. - snort -

:spray:

[IdaBriggs]

8. Still waiting for an answer ... ? nt

[Contrary1]

9. If one were to do that to say, Smirk...

they would have ample time to escape, while the WARped Prez runs
back to Washington to get briefed on what his reaction should be.
I would say you have, at the very least; a good 24-36 hour head start.

[aion]

10. Offering to Coffee Bush isn't bad, but punch is?

Aren't dual entendres wonderful!? It really sends those fundies into a tail spin.

[StellaBlue]

11. Beautifully put

Amen

[Contrary1]

12. Here's something I found:

It TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 871

§ 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html

And here:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 84 > § 1751

§ 1751. Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties

"(e) Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(1) shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(2) shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001751----000-.html

[aion]

13. He should be tried for war crimes, and IF found guilty

...he and his neo-con conclave should be hanged by the same rope. That rope should then be given to the Iraqis as an act of Contrition.

[IdaBriggs]

14. So, burning in effigy and asking God to do stuff is okay then? nt

[Contrary1]

15. Looks like "burning the bush" would be just fine...

as long as you don't mail the ashes to him, which would no doubt be construed as a threat.

[IdaBriggs]

17. You are SO the best -- THANK YOU!!! nt

[yardwork]

16. Hmmm. Sounds like we can say it but not send it in the mail, right?

[tomg]

18. Actually, regarding verbal threats, it depends

on how the grammatical construction is construed. After it says all that shit about the mail and mail carriers and you can't send him a postcard telling him you would like to drop kick him from here to Halifax, it says
"or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect," yaddah yaddah -

It's that damn "or" - a coordinate conjunction ( conjunction junction, what's your function)

So it covers the mail first, and then gets the rest of reality. However, as one who helped burn effigies of Richard Nixon back in 69-70 and never got busted, I think burning/ hanging/ boiling in oil of symbolic figures is okay. On the other hand, with the New Improved Patriot Act, who knows what the deal is.