So we have a vitriolic student and a professor running for state senate. Professor is a lefty; student is a righty.
Student sends professor a bunch of e-mail under his own name. It says things like, “Democrats are anti-American and want to see the country turned into a cesspool of filth,” and “It just pains me to see liberals want to destroy everything that millions of brave souls gave their lives to achieve.”
Professor ultimately responds, “Since you are so pure, so pro-American, so absolutely correct, and so wonderfully patriotic, I suggest you sign up for duty on Iraq right away and put your claims to the test. But of course, you will not do that. You, Michael Savage, and the “Chicken Hawks” in the Bush administration don’t have the guts!” He then asks that the student no longer contact him.
Four months goes by, during whihc tim ehe wins his election (but is not yet sworn in).
Student sends two more e-mails under an assumed name; the first begins “Traitor:” It goes on to wonder if the professor/state senator elect is upset by recent Al-Queada reversals.
The professor complains to the police, and the student is arrested and charged with disturbing the prof/state sen’s peace. He is convicted, and the conviction upheld by the state court of appeals.
I always thought “disturbing the peace” was a public nuisance kind of deal. I wasn’t aware that I could get in trouble for just disturbing one guy’s peace.
Sounds like a bullshit conviction just going by what’s in the OP. Are you sure there weren’t any threats in the student’s emails?
In some circumstances, e-mails might disturb the peace. But in the present case, where the recipient is a politician, the e-mails are political, and there have only been two e-mails in a four month period, I don’t see how the conviction is justified, even without bringing in the First Amendment.
I agree with harassment/stalking being a more appropriate charge.
I think the prof has a bit of a burden to avoid the guys messages (i.e. by blocking his e-mails), but if the student is taking steps to circumvent that, and it sounds like he is (using a fake name), then the prof should have some recourse.
At the common law, the “king’s peace” was the tranquil everyday state of affairs where one might sell one’s wares. go one’s way, etc., without fear of brigands, thieves, cutthroats, or outlaws. It was the king’s peace because it was a peace enforced by the king and his troops, knights, etc. If someone caused a disruptive or riotous situation, he was charged with disturbing the king’s peace – not that the king, drinking stout with his liegemen 100 miles off, was at all disturbed, but the peace imposed by the king for the benefit of ll had been. That carries over to modern ‘disturbing hte peace’ statutes; while America has no king, We the People value the peace which we guarantee each other and criminalize the disturbing of it.
The “assumed name” was averylovesalqueda@ yahoo.com
At best, it might be on the harrassing side, but I don’t see how it would be “disturbing the peace” which I thought was more viewed as a community thing.
Is this student trying to “destroy everything that millions of brave souls gave their lives to achieve?” The government has decided to charge him with a crime and he should shuffle off to Gitmo quietly - anything else would imply that the government has made a mistake, which only helps the terrorists.
In general I would say you shouldn’t be arrested for the things you say but there may be special circumstances here. Student and professor - Could there be some sort of college campus rules involved? Could the emails have been threatening (maybe not if they only disturbed the peace?)
Is this going on in Virginia? I may have to read a newspaper.
Methinks Bricker may be trying to induce a few of our more…intense liberal brethren and sistren to support the jail time, so he can call them on hypocrisy.
*This is not an accusation of trolling by any means! Entrapment…maybe.
Incorrectly calling some a traitor is slander, just like calling incorrectly calling them a murderer. It is not “disturbing the peace”, as far as I can tell.
That said, we shouldn’t judge until we know the actual content of the e-mails. If they were threatening, then the situation would be different.
Well, considering the change in content between the thread title and OP it hasn’t really gotten of to an amazingly consistent start, so I don’t see high hopes for it.
