Calling for a President to be assasinated is protected by Freedom of Speech

[MathiasOfAthens]

According to an Appeals court in - get this - San Francisco. The Last place you expect this to come from.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/20...s-free-speech/

An appeals court in California has overturned a man's two convictions for threatening to assassinate President Obama. The grounds? Freedom of speech.

In 2008, two weeks before Barack Obama was elected the first black president in this nation's history, a California man posted violent, racist messages about Obama on an online message board: One posting said, "Shoot the ____" using a racial slur to describe Obama. Another post said Obama would end up with a "50 cal in the head soon."

The Secret Service tracked down this individual as you might imagine - a guy named Walter Bagdasarian - within weeks. He had a .50-caliber rifle and five other guns and ammunition in his possession when they found him. He was arrested, and after waiving his right to a jury trial, Bagdasarian was convicted by a federal judge of two felonies for threatening to kill a presidential candidate.

But Wednesday, a court of appeals in - wait for it - San Francisco overturned that decision.

In a 2-to-1 ruling, the court said his actions were protected by the First Amendment and that while his words were "alarming and dangerous," they were not illegal. The court also said Bagdasarian expressed no intent to act on his words himself.

Prosecutors can now ask the appeals court for a rehearing or appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

After Bagdasarian was initially convicted in 2009, he apologized for his actions and said he had posted the messages while drunk. Apparently in his mind that made it OK. He was sentenced to two months in a halfway house in addition to the 24 days he had already served in jail.

One of the comments stated it brilliantly. No this should not be protected by freedom of speech because it impedes on another persons "right to life."

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Good, I'll now say death to Latvia's president in Public.

[Jom]

Good, I'll now say death to Latvia's president in Public.

Shame that decisions made in a Californian appeals court don't have any impact on what goes on in Latvia.

[charles the hammer]

Shame that decisions made in a Californian appeals court don't have any impact on what goes on in Latvia.

Yep, you have to wait for Minnesota's court ruling if you want that.

[Akar]

Good, I'll now say death to Latvia's president in Public.

Calling the Latvian police now.

[s.rwitt]

Definitely infringes on another person's rights...this is pretty ridiculous.

[Rome101]

Thought a US judge has to know at least the basic rules of democracy before being accepted to the job. Guess I was wrong.

[Basil II the B.S]

I'm not surprised it's San Francisco, where liberalism has been hijacked by hippy anarchism. And the stupidity continues..

[hellheaven1987]

I'm not surprised it's San Francisco, where liberalism has been hijacked by hippy anarchism. And the stupidity continues..

I hope police of San Francisco would not arrest you for spreading untrue rumor against San Francisco government.

[Basil II the B.S]

Arrest who? At this point, they could start awarding murderers , because they fight for basic human right of freedom of killing.

[craziii]

using this as precedence, yelling fire in a crowded theater should be protected too.

[Gaidin]

using this as precedence, yelling fire in a crowded theater should be protected too.

One causes immediate and present danger without cause, the other only works in hindsight. Can you figure out which is which and why you have a magnificently built strawman?

[Claudius Gothicus]

I agree with the ruling. A man threatening the POTUS on a context as meaningless as what might be something similar to TWC's D&D is not worth a punishment. Not only because of his actual incapability to carry out a serious threat but also because of the non-heated nature of an Internet forum.

But the storage of such a variety of weapons on a very short time does make it a case for the FBI's watch list.

[MathiasOfAthens]

This guy said he wishes "" dies from a 50. He was later ing found with a mother ing 50 cal rifle with ammo.... and the court said he had no intents on carry his threats out.

And I bet the guy is white.

[Claudius Gothicus]

This guy said he wishes "" dies from a 50. He was later ing found with a mother ing 50 cal rifle with ammo.... and the court said he had no intents on carry his threats out.

Again, he should be put on an FBI watchlist, but bashing and threatening Politicians on an Internet Forum is no big deal.

And judging by that surename the guy seems to be Armenian.

[Gaidin]

This guy said he wishes "" dies from a 50. He was later ing found with a mother ing 50 cal rifle with ammo.... and the court said he had no intents on carry his threats out.

And I bet the guy is white.

What you're forgetting is that intent is one of the classes of mens rhea, which requires a crime have been committed to be relevant.

[s.rwitt]

And I bet the guy is white.

What does that have to do with it?

[Basil II the B.S]

What does that have to do with it?

Only white are racists and want to kill Obama according to left wingers.
Ironically that's racist.

[Sphere]

I think this is the correct decision.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment protection of free speech very broadly when it comes to political speech, which this was. Advocating violence, hatred and crime is allowed as long as is the threat is not imminent. You can broadly say x or y politician should be murdered and still be protected by the first amendment.

But to speak on principle instead of precedent; I think it is very important that people should be allowed to advocate the murder of public officials. The government should not have to power to arrest people who advocate violence and assassination against the state, only those who act on it.

[Visna]

But to speak on principle instead of precedent; I think it is very important that people should be allowed to advocate the murder of public officials. The government should not have to power to arrest people who advocate violence and assassination against the state, only those who act on it.

Terrorists for example are regularly arrested before they actually do anything. I imagine these days, simply typing something like "bomb making manual" into Google will be enough for the Guv'ment to start monitoring your spending habits. And if you have a large garden and buy half a ton of fertilizer, my guess is that you would be arrested.
And even if you claim to simply have an academic interest in manufacturing explosives, the pictures of the White House on your basement wall are simply souvenirs from your honeymoon, and you're very much into gardening, the police and the news network will still talk about how a terrorist attack was prevented. And woe unto the judge who releases you.