I don’t anything about this radio guy, but he’s clearly a douche. But as far as the above, I think there is a stark difference between the two. If someone yells fire in a theater, people can die in trying to exist en masses because it is reasonable for people—everyone—to act by trying to leave the theater as quickly as possible. Even faster.
If some yells “kill those guys” outside of a military command, it is NOT reasonable for someone—anyone—to follow through on that. And if it is not reasonable, does the person doing the yelling bare the responsibility for someone else’s unreasonable act?
Maybe there’s something akin to “inciting a riot” than can be applied?
I think the difference between the cases is that this individual said that these particular judges deserve to be killed. The anit-abortion people, I beleive, don’t link the two of them together. They probably even including disclaimers like “don’t use this information to go shoot a doctor, that would be naughty.”
I’m a First Amendment absolutist, but this falls outside of protection as far as I can see. The direct and immediate threat of violence, and the provision of the means to succeed in violence make it unprotected, I think.
Also, on edit; there is something about threats to the judiciary that really get to me. It undermines the entire system of justice. I hate the idea of the Death Penalty, but if I was to accept it in any instance it would be for killing a judge/jury member etc in order to attempt to influence a trial or trials.
If the case revolves around the statement “These judges deserve to be killed” it might fail because it’s his opinion. He’s a douch who should be fired. Fred Phelps gets plenty of love from this site akin to that of Hitler and the rhetoric that ensues is often violent.
However, when he drew a map to their houses then he is suggesting (to an audience) that action be taken. Without specifying which of the actions he esposes he is encouraging one or all. Since impeachement (if even possible) does not require knowledge of residency it is logical that he is encouraging some form of confrontation at the homes of the judges. Unless his lawyer can show that he encouraged picketing or other non-violent protests then he is got a real problem.