Palin and McCain have BLOOD on their hands for inciting violence!

[jenmito]

With the threads that I see about people wearing Obama t-shirts getting shot (ETA I guess I should've read more than the thread title as pointed out here since the "shot three times" thread apparently wasn't about a guy being shot due to McCain-incited speech) and people shouting "TERRORIST" and "KILL HIM" at rallies, I hold Palin and McCain completely responsible for stoking the flames and for ENCOURAGING such behavior. Afterall, if YOU saw Osama bin Laden somewhere YOU might want to kill him, right? Well, the McCain campaign is now painting OBAMA as a terrorist by implication, association, whatever. They should be FORCED to stop the hate they're inciting. Isn't there some legal way this can be stopped?

[Frustratedlady]

1. I agree. Add Rush, Michael Reagan and their ilk to the list.

Freedom of speech brings with it responsibility for their actions. They are crossing over the line.

[jenmito]

5. Yup-and many others...

It's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

[jberryhill]

2. Under the first amendment, McCain and Palin can call anyone they like a terrorist

So can you.

[fascisthunter]

7. Yes.... and if people die because of it...oh well

try screaming fire in a full theatre and just see how Freedom of Speech is regulated for some things and not others.

Charles Manson could have used you as a lawyer...

[jberryhill]

17. I'm sorry that you don't understand

Karl Marx's the Communist Manifesto is blamed for the death of millions, as is Hitler's Mein Kampf.

You may buy them, or not, at the bookstore of your choice.

Screaming fire in a crowded theater presents a clear, immediate, direct and present risk of physical harm.

Calling Obama a terrorist does not.

There is a wealth of case law on the subject of what incitement is, and is not, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

Because it has been used more often than not against those on the left and progressives much more often than it has been used against those on the right.

Yours is the same bullshit line I was given by a local police chief when he deprived me of a sign protesting the war in Nicaragua back in the 1980's. He was wrong then, and you are wrong now.

[musicblind]

32. Whether you are right or not you just sound bitter because a police officer took your sign

there are nicer ways to get your point across than berating the poster.

[jenmito]

10. They're inciting violence. Is it ok to say you want to kill a presidential candidate

like someone in Palin's audience did?

[onenote]

22. The fact a idiot in the audience yelled "kill him" doesn't mean Palin has committted a criminal act

Politically, she should be called out for her rhetoric and for not condemning the hate spewed by some in her audience. But legally, she is not liable for the speech of another person.
In the US, the crime of "incitement" to the extent it exists, is very narrow, thanks to some very smart and progressive justices of the Supreme Court, including William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Hugo Black etc, all of whom participated in the unanimous decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, where the conviction of a KKK leader for "advocacy" of violence was overturned. The court made it clear that in order constitute a criminal act, speech must be directed to inciting or producing "imminent" lawless action and must be "likely" to incite or produce such action.

You'd have a better case that the idiot who yelled kill him was inciting violence than you ever would that palin was. But, again, she should be called out, not legally, but politically.

[jberryhill]

24. That's a great question

First, yes, it should be legal to say that, and it is legal to say that.

If I were to declare such a desire, I would be investigated to the extent of determining that I have no present ability, means or intent to do so. Absent those, I will not be imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned for my speech.

Second, the "kill him" comment came immediately after Palin mentioned Ayers, so it's not even clear to whom the speaker was referring.

However, the most important issue is that Palin did not say anything that specifically incited this person to even make that declaration - regardless of the fact that the person was (a) not armed and (b) hundreds of miles from Obama at the time, thus not rising to the standard of "clear and present danger".

Please learn what "clear and present" means in the context of restrictions on the First Amendment.

[Shakespeare]

27. No, actually, it isn't legal to make such threats.

And the First Amendment does NOT protect speech that incites (the old "can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" thing).

You're wrong on both counts.

Making threats against another person is a crime, and a felony (I sat on a jury in DC 10 years ago that convicted a gang member of making felony threats against another person).

And Palin (and McCain) are clearly using their rhetoric to whip up the crowds into a potentially violent frenzy. They're not stopping, either--today the crowd turned on the media (conveniently penned up by the campaign).

[jberryhill]

28. Well, I guess I'm kinda dumb, having had Joe Biden as my con law prof

However, you have to look at the question asked:

"Is it legal to say you want to kill the president?"

Yes, it is legal to say that you want to kill the president.

In your trial, was the person making the threat in the proximity of the person threatened? YES.

Did the person have the present means to do so? YES.

Did the person specifically state an intention to do so? YES (a desire is not an intention)

Was the person hundreds of miles away from the person threatened? NO.

Certain types of utterances can constitute a threat.

Someone shouting "KILL HIM" is not even someone saying "*I* WANT TO KILL HIM" or "I AM GOING TO KILL HIM".

Explain to me how "KILL HIM" constitutes any element of an actionable criminal threat, and please cite the relevant section of 18 USC if you are going to say it is illegal.

[Shakespeare]

29. The DC Superior Court disagrees.

Congrats on having Biden as your con law prof, but making a physical threat against someone IS a prosecutable crime.

Also, state law would apply here, not federal law.

[jberryhill]

30. Threatening the president is against federal law

...and there are specific penalties.

Yes, every jurisdiction has an assault or terroristic threatening statute. As you learned on your jury, there are specific elements to that offense.

You refuse to distinguish between the following utterances:

"Kill him!"

"I want to kill him!"

"I am going to kill him!"

or, speaking to the target and bearing a weapon, "I am going to kill you!"

Those are all very different factual circumstances, with different outcomes under most assault/terroristic threatening statutes.

Here is the Florida Assault Stattue:

784.011 Assault.--

(1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


If you think some other crime was committed, identify it:

http://leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=XLVI#TitleXLVI

Otherwise explain how this crime was committed by some guy shouting "Kill Him" at a rally.

[Shakespeare]

31. Obama's not the president....yet. So, no, federal law does not apply.

It would be up to law enforcement to decide whether to pursue it. Frankly, I don't think it matters if the threat were against Ayers or Obama, and whether it was an actual threat or not is just conjecture at this piont. I'm not "refusing to distinguish" anything--your rather blithe initial statemetns that those comments are harmless and unprosecutable is what I take issue with. I think it certainly could be construed as such, and at the very least, should have been checked out by the secret service or by local law enforcement. As far as anyone has been able to discern, nobody was even questioned about this.

Do you find lynch mobs, by their very nature, dangerous or not? Do their actions as a group constitute a threat (and potentially a prosecutable one) or not?

And you still haven't come back to my initial point with you--your claim that Palin's comments to incite fall under the protection of free speech. You offered that comment without any qualification whatsoever. If she keeps it up (and if the media bothers to notice), and--god forbid--should any violence come about as a direct result of her inciting the crowds at campaign events, then she may indeed bear some legal responsibility.

[fascisthunter]

3. I Agree... NAZIS used the same Tactics McCain and Palin have

that goes for every right wing radio show personality that uses this rhetoric to fool people into buying their political propaganda.

[codjh9]

16. I can't believe how fucked up this country has gotten. Makes me so sad and angry. It's like a bad

novel or movie. When are we going to WAKE UP, literally and figuratively?

[YOY]

19. The "shooting" was not in this country. It was in London.

See my post below.

[codjh9]

23. I'm not talking about the shooting - I'm talking about people here yelling 'terrorist' and '

'kill him' re: Obama!

[YOY]

26. Oh yeah. I agree with that.

A good number of folks here have jumped on the shooting thing though with false assumptions.

[frogcycle]

4. not to nitpick, but

there has to be some blood before you can say it is "on their hands"

There ARE laws limiting inciting to riot, and I suspect the Patriot Act has some broad-brush proscriptions against all sorts of things. But you won't see them being employed in a political campaign.

OTOH, if some nut DOES try something and it can be traced to their encouragement, well, they would be pretty much dogmeat, I expect.

[jenmito]

8. There was just a guy shot 3 times for wearing an Obama t-shirt...

that's blood. And I DO blame McCain and Palin for painting Obama to be "the enemy" who "pals around with terrorists who don't like America very much."

[YOY]

11. In London. By a what appeared to be a British skinhead.

n/t

[jenmito]

13. OK, then I sit corrected on that one...

but there's definitely hate being incited which can only LEAD to violence.

[YOY]

15. Oh Yes! It's a hate crime allright. No doubt in my mind. Truly a vile act. No doubt there.

It also looked like a zipgun or a bb-gun as the vic drove away quickly.

But not Republican incited. Not this time.

[jenmito]

18. Thanks for the correction. I edited my OP.

:hi:

[YOY]

21. No worries. The Brits are notorious for their "shocking" headlines.

We don't often get that over here.

We get Fox News spin though.

[writes3000]

12. He wasn't shot with bullets. The victim is alive. It was a violent act.

Just warning people that it sounds like an exaggeration when you say "he was shot three times".

[uponit7771]

35. Yeap, McFailin have to be real carfeful with their rhetoric right now.

[YOY]

6. That guy who got shot was in London. He was not killed.

They guy who shot him appeared to be a skinhead. A British skinhead. The victim was African.

Hate crime. Yes. Republican incited no (in this case.)

[LiberalAndProud]

9. Getting shot .. exaggerated headline.

The HATE that Rush Limbaugh has so carefully nurtured, without saying it (quite) out loud is real and frightening. Having said that, read the "Shot Three Times" article. The headline, while true, doesn't quite tell the whole story.

[krawhitham]

14. Like they care

[jenmito]

25. They DON'T care which is why I care. The hate speech needs to stop.

They need to stick to the issues.

[patrice]

20. Blood? Check into what American Exceptionalism has wrought in Central & South America

through the likes of U.S. Council for World Freedom (of which Crash was a member in the 1980s) and their relatives known as "The Chicago Boys". These are the networks of financiers who bankrolled those who disembowelled "trouble makers" who interfered with the privitization of OIL in the region and had them thrown from aircraft into lakes and into the ocean so that the Mothers of these Disappeared can't seek Justice for their Children. THIS IS BLOOD!!

[Hellataz]

33. I agree they are guilty

I'm not saying out right that McCain/Palin are racists, but i do agree that they are fostering an environment of hate, making it ok for people to compare Obama and Osama like on that realtors sign, or justifying comments like "Kill him!" They are being irresponsible and their INACTION to these supporters is leading to hate crimes.

[jenmito]

34. Yes...

I'M not accusing them of being racists, but they ARE playing the race CARD with their intertwining of "Chicago politicians" and terrorists and "doubts," etc.