See post #8, where I said exactly that. Both things.
I haven’t seen all the evidence, blah blah blah, etc., but starting a thread titled “CALL FOR ASSASSINATION OF GW BUSH” sounds pretty much like a tangible threat and/or incitement in and of itself. From what I’ve read it sounds like there were multiple similar instances. I don’t weep for this guy.
Your assumption is asinine at best. The evidence (which we are seeing a very small fraction of) was shown to be sufficient by a prosecutor. 12 people agreed. Let him rot. He violated our laws. He made repeated, credible threats against the President, among others. That goes way beyond stupid.
BTW, stupid is also a crime. It’s stupid to drive drunk. If you get caught, you can go to jail, even if you violated no other laws and caused zero damage to property or loss of life. This guy was stupid. Now he’s paying the price.
Why? Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have used the internet extensively to either communicate threats or take credit for attacks, particularly in Iraq. What does your criteria for a threat being “credible” include? Is this criteria based on relevant experience or just a gut feeling?
So, individuals lose their personhood when they become politicians or high-level civil servants? There have been numerous cases, especially during the Vietnam era, in which individuals said or wrote that if a certain condition happened, such as they were drafted, the first person in their sights would be LBJ. Ultimately, in cases such as that, the speech was declared legal and protected as political opinion because it was not threatening imminent violence but instead theoretical violence.
Some of the purpose behind laws such as these are 1) speech inciting or threatening imminent violence against political leaders is not acceptable and should not be encouraged or condoned, 2) if such speech were tolerated, the Secret Service would have even more difficulty in determining who was a legitimate potential assassin and, in a consequence-free environment for imminent threats, the number of violent threats against the president would likely increase, and 3) the president could potentially be cowed into changing policy by death threats particularly since nothing could be legally done about them.
So you didn’t look at the court proceedings? All you have are the same snippets we’ve seen here? How on earth did you draw your conclusions?
As others have stated, there has to be more than that if the guy was convicted. I haven’t seen a rational claim in this thread that those post by themselves are conclusive of guilt. But you’ve concluded the guy must be innocent. His statements are clearly evidence of a crime. The remainder of the case would be based on credibility of the threat, and other actions of the defendant. Why don’t you find the information we don’t have, post it, and we can all look at the whole picture.
Reading his text, I can see how it can be illegal, and I’m fine with that.
My major issue is with how illegal it turned out to be. The guy ranted on a message board. In poor taste? Yes. Worthy of 5 years imprisonment? Not a chance. A misdemeanor. A few days in jail and a few hundred dollar fine should be tops even if someone listens to you and carries it out.
Inciting someone to successfully assassinate the President should be a misdemeanor?
I am honestly confused about why you or anyone else would make such an assumption. The AP article linked to in post #9 says
and
(Bolding in both quotes is mine.)
This information in conjunction with what he posted could easily make a jury think he was serious in carrying out these threats or at least encouraging someone else too. If this was just joking around or the posting of some drunken knucklehead why go to the trouble to conceal your actions? Why would you try to hide your connection to something like this unless you know it is likely to get you in trouble with the authorities?
Furthermore, the AP article at least shows that this was also part of the evidence presented in the case so the claim that the posts were the only evidence is simply not accurate.
And for those who are interested in reading more than just snippets of what this guy posted here is a link to the actual criminal complaint. Pages 7-9 have more details of what he posted. Also, posts were made on at least four different dates over a one month period so that cancels out the idea it was a one time drunken rant.
Thank you for finding that. Even without trial proceedings this provides greater strength to the government’s case. I wonder how Acsenray came upon this incident and formed his initial opinion. The on-line references I saw about this weren’t sympathetic to the defendent.
We live in a fascist country where corporations have the right of unlimited free speech and people should “be careful what they say” to quote Dick Cheney and Ari Fleischer. Traditionally you could say things like “I, Bobba Ganush, believe that the government of our country, Elbonia, should be overthrown by force, when we get around to it.” That was perfectly safe because it did not call for an immediate riot, and the traditional method was to counteract this with better and more persuasive speech about why government is good.
Do not attempt this at home, or on a message board. The America of the Earl Warren Court has long gone and we now have the results of the Rhenquist Court and the Roberts Court in. If your last name isn’t “Inc.” you are fucked.
If you can look at some of the vile filth coming from the more extreme people in the Tea Party movement or on the fringe right comparing Obama to a monkey, Hitler*, Stalin, Mao, and Osama Bin Laden, and none of it has been declared illegal, then it is likely we are not yet living in a totalitarian police state just yet.
- As the fringe left did with GW Bush
We here at Silenus, Inc. thank you for your viewpoint. Our stormtroopers will be breaking your door down shortly.
On the other hand, something people often forget is that one of the reasons it was possible for the far right to seize power in Germany was that the courts and police went much easier on the right than on the left. So just because the Tea Partiers talk about revolution and don’t get in trouble doesn’t mean we are not headed toward a totalitarian police state – but doesn’t mean we are, either, of course.
I just gotta wonder, did anybody where he was posting warn him that not only were his posts a bit rude, crude, and over the top (not to mention probably out of place), but that they could actually be getting close to criminal territory if not actually there?
I guess there is at least one guy out there that probably regrets not getting a courtesy banning sooner.
Nice try, but not true. On both counts, btw-- about the fascism and the corporations.
I don’t know why people need to make such obviously over-the-top and factually incorrect statements in order to bolster their side of an argument.
I said it before but I will say it again - the fact that he tried to hide his identity by logging in on other user accounts and trying to hide his IP address strongly indicate he already knew his words were over the line.
Thank you for your disagreeance.
You do ‘sound’ way over the top. If we were a fascist country there wouldn’t be so much overt political controversy. And while I disagree with the concept of applying the Bill of Rights to corporations, recent court decisions have not given corporations ‘unlimited free speech’. No one has unlimited free speech. Freedom of speech protects ideas, not actions that affect the free speech rights of others, like murder.
I understand your feelings about this subject, but this case is not good support for that cause. There are numerous cases of rights infringement that you could cite to support the idea of problems regarding our rights.
“I said it before but I will say it again - the fact that he tried to hide his identity by logging in on other user accounts and trying to hide his IP address strongly indicate he already knew his words were over the line.”
Or shows he knew there was a possibility of social reprisals or being expelled from his course. In itself its not proof of knowing the speech was actually illegal, only a wish to avoid some kind of consequence.
Otara