4 ms·

What were the threats against the agent and the agent's children? I'm asking because I read some of them ("ruin his life", "look into" his kids), but I'm not su

by jbapple 12y ago

What were the threats against the agent and the agent's children? I'm asking because I read some of them ("ruin his life", "look into" his kids), but I'm not sure which of those are protected under the First Amendment. Broad categories of rude speech are protected under the First Amendment, including things like, IIRC: 1. Saying if President Johnson makes you pick up a gun, he'll be the first in your rifle sight. (Watts v. United States) 2. Telling a cop "I'll kill you, you white devil" while you are in handcuffs and unable to kill him. (? v. ?) 3. Swearing "revengeance" upon the Jews. (Brandenburg v. Ohio)

jbapple 12y ago
It was "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you", and it was Gooding v. Wilson.
- eurleif 12y ago
  And as far as I can tell, it wasn't that what he said was constitutionally protected. It's that the statute he was charged under was unconstitutionally broad, because it prohibited "abusive language" in general. A more specific statute, prohibiting only threats, would have likely been ruled constitutional.
  - jbapple 12y ago
    I'm not sure about "likely", but upon a closer reading, I agree that the Gooding decision looks like it was mainly about the broadness of the statute. Thanks for noting that.
    - eurleif 12y ago
      >I'm not sure about "likely" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Threats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
      - jbapple 12y ago
        "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole". Obviously, I don't know what the court would have held in this case, but it seems possible it would have held that this was "obvious hyperbole".
        vpeters25 12y ago
        Could someone with legal background please explain the concept of "protected speech"? I thought the Constitution is "where the buck stops", the Supreme Law. It takes precedent over any law, legal theory, precedent, tradition, etc. The first amendment, as written, outright "enjoins" Congress from creating any "exceptions" or define what kinds of speech are actually protected. I also think the Constitution provides one, and only one way for Congress to modify the 1st amendment so there can be categories of speech that can be "abridged": a constitutional amendment. So, which kind of legal maneuvering, or reasoning as been used to somehow justify the amending of the 1st amendment without actually amending it?
        kentonv 12y ago
        "Freedom of speech" is understood to mean freedom to express any opinion or idea. It doesn't literally mean freedom to speak arbitrary words. There are many, many illegal acts which you can commit by merely speaking words, like fraud, blackmail, harassment, etc.
        harywilke 12y ago
        The buck stops where the Supreme Court says it does. They are the ones who get to decide the meaning of the words in laws and the Constitution. As a side note, the first amendment does not bind the states from creating laws that limit speech as it is written that 'Congress shall make no law...'. This comes from the Doctrine of Incorporation[1] based off of precedents set by interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Now there's an amendment with an interesting history. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri...
        12y ago

by jbapple 12y ago

jbapple 12y ago

It was "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you", and it was Gooding v. Wilson.

eurleif 12y ago
And as far as I can tell, it wasn't that what he said was constitutionally protected. It's that the statute he was charged under was unconstitutionally broad, because it prohibited "abusive language" in general. A more specific statute, prohibiting only threats, would have likely been ruled constitutional.
- jbapple 12y ago
  I'm not sure about "likely", but upon a closer reading, I agree that the Gooding decision looks like it was mainly about the broadness of the statute. Thanks for noting that.
  - eurleif 12y ago
    >I'm not sure about "likely" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Threats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
    - jbapple 12y ago
      "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole". Obviously, I don't know what the court would have held in this case, but it seems possible it would have held that this was "obvious hyperbole".
      - vpeters25 12y ago
        Could someone with legal background please explain the concept of "protected speech"? I thought the Constitution is "where the buck stops", the Supreme Law. It takes precedent over any law, legal theory, precedent, tradition, etc. The first amendment, as written, outright "enjoins" Congress from creating any "exceptions" or define what kinds of speech are actually protected. I also think the Constitution provides one, and only one way for Congress to modify the 1st amendment so there can be categories of speech that can be "abridged": a constitutional amendment. So, which kind of legal maneuvering, or reasoning as been used to somehow justify the amending of the 1st amendment without actually amending it?
        kentonv 12y ago
        "Freedom of speech" is understood to mean freedom to express any opinion or idea. It doesn't literally mean freedom to speak arbitrary words. There are many, many illegal acts which you can commit by merely speaking words, like fraud, blackmail, harassment, etc.
        harywilke 12y ago
        The buck stops where the Supreme Court says it does. They are the ones who get to decide the meaning of the words in laws and the Constitution. As a side note, the first amendment does not bind the states from creating laws that limit speech as it is written that 'Congress shall make no law...'. This comes from the Doctrine of Incorporation[1] based off of precedents set by interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Now there's an amendment with an interesting history. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri...
        12y ago