The Maryland legislator was panned, not because it was a violation of the First Amendment, but because it was stupid and bigoted.
More grist:
A letter from 22 State Attorneys General and, for good measure, one Territory Attorney General, about this gag product.
The verb “invite” is disingenuous by half. Granted, no discrete legal threat nor mention of discrete statutory violation. But it sounds close to the “we wouldn’t want anything to catch fire, would we?” method.
I could see if the mannequins were someone specific and recognizable. If the mannequin specifically sold for target practice, it’s the plastic equivalent of saying “everyone go out and shoot XXXX”; then why should it not be illegal, free speech notwithstanding. You can’t post “Hey everyone, go out and shoot XXXX” - it’s an incitement to violence. You will earn a visit from the police (or the secret service).
However, if you sold them as decorations, and the person is a public figure - free speech. If the person is generic, it’s not a specific incitement to violence against a specific person, should be protected by the first amendment.
Is this recent twit legal?
[Twitter ID redacted by moderator] Rodney King Riot pop off on anyone who looks like Zimmerman
Obviously that includes the Zimmerman of the current Zimmerman trial, a specific person.
[moderating]
First, don’t include twitter handles in a post like this. It just gives people an incentive to harass someone off-board.
Second, can we please have a GQ thread that we don’t drag Zimmerman into?
[/moderating]
I would be very careful in your assumption-making. As it happens, I am pro-gay marriage and pro-gun control, so “my team” is very similar to “your team” save that I prefer less hypocrisy.
From the article, Chris Murphy signs his letter as a United States Senator, presumably on official letterhead–that is clearly not just Mr Murphy, who just happens to be a Senator, expressing a private opinion, that is Senator Murphy using the weight of his office to try and get things changed. This is not something that public officials should be doing.
Wait, what? Members of Congress are not permitted to use their office to ascertain what seems to be in the public interest and use both legislation and the “bully pulpit” to attempt to bring about changes that serve the public good? What do you understand the role of lawmaker and politician to be?
Now, you may feel that he has misapprehended what genuinely is in the public interest, and, as it happens, every two, four, or six years, these politicians have to defend these uses of their lawmaking and bully pulpit powers or risk losing their jobs. If you and enough of his other constituents feel this bit of advocacy was improper, there will be electoral consequences. On the other hand, if enough of his constituents approve—even if you yourself do not—well, that’s life in the big city.
Now, I get that some people aren’t able to abide being on the losing side of an issue, and it is then that they start to have misgivings about the bully pulpit. But, these compunctions need not be paid any heed.
Well, what would have happened if the shooting range had just sent a letter back saying “Nope, not going to do it, our customers like shooting zombies, and we’re going to keep on providing them”? So long as they have the option of doing that, it doesn’t matter how fancy the stationery is.
Using the weight of his office to get things changed is what they are elected to do. I think moral outrage is the right response to the dickheads who made those dummies. Come back when he tries to pass a law banning them.
Of course if the police chased and prosecuted everyone who posted threats of questionable legality online, only the SD message board would have any contributors left.
But yes, encouraging people to attack, or kill, any specific person(s) is not much different than uttering a threat. Of course, if the person in question is under Secret Service protection, then the USA’s own SS will give you a lot more attention.
Zombies, as long as they don’t look like specific public figures, are probably fair to be sold as target fodder. The senator is free to object, even using senate letterhead if he wants. (As long as he is not using it to solicit bribes or otherwise extort people). The zombie-makers are free to do as he asks for good will purposes, or keep selling and use the attention for extra free publicity.