Posted on 10/15/2012 11:54:55 AM PDT by Theoria
Federal judge OKs prosecution of man accused of posting anti-police rants on Facebook, saying that dismissing criminal charges on free speech grounds would be "inappropriate."
Anti-government rants on Facebook can land you in a heap of trouble.
A federal judge has given the green light to the U.S. Justice Department's prosecution of an Indiana man who allegedly posted incendiary remarks about police.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William Lawrence in Indiana rejected requests by the defendant, Matthew Michael, to throw out the charges on the grounds that no specific Drug Enforcement Administration agent or other individual had actually been named in the posts.
Lawrence ruled that -- assuming the Facebook postings were illegal threats, which has yet to be proved -- they "were directed at natural persons, namely DEA agents, law enforcement officers, and government personnel."
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader on First Amendment grounds, ruling his vague promises of violence -- "there might have to be some revengeance taken" -- were not illegal.
Michael is accused of writing a series of posts in August 2011 (and creating a "statewide" Facebook event scheduled for November 2011) containing vague but angry and violent statements regarding DEA agents. One alleged post: "War is near..anarchy and justice will be sought...I'll kill whoever I deem to be in the way of harmony to the human race...BE WARNED IF U PULL ME OVER!!"
That's enough to allow the trial to proceed, Lawrence ruled in a written opinion saying:
The First Amendment does not insulate all speech from criminal consequence. Certain categories of speech having little or no social value are not protected, and threats are one such category.... It would be inappropriate for the court to enter a verdict of not guilty based solely on the face of the indictment unless the court could imagine no facts that would render Michael's posts unprotected. That is not the situation here.
Michael is facing three counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce.
In Iowa they say “Don’t b*tch about the farmer with your mouth full.”
Well the politicans start the ball rolling, by the time the avalance has started it is too late for the pebbles to vote...
Glad to get the response I have gotten though, I think 8 years ago a lot of people were still asleep.
Never gripe about the cops? Over the past couple decades they have gotten more and more out of hand. Not the same folks I remember as a child. As government has gotten more reckless, so has its armed enforcers. As our culture has gotten coarser and less civilized not sure how you think those who want to deal with the lowest levels of society have somehow remained genteel.
It’s-changed America.
When referring to the drug policies we shouldn’t put the cops more to blame than the polticians who promised safety in exchange for our personal liberty and we got exactly what we deserved in that faustian bargin. And blame ourselves who were asleep at the time who wanted the laws “for the children” that ended up being turned back on us like and angry snake we throught we could control.
“...I’ll kill whoever I deem ...” Until he typed this, the post was just a rant.
Threats to kill police are not only stupid, but arguably not
covered as protected speech (unless uttered by a protected minority).
He was white, i take it.
Close.
What is being presumed is that he is acting as a corporation and thus is liable to administrative law.
If he doesn't refute this presumption, it will be further presumed to be correct.
Then, as corporations have no rights, his cliam of having the "right" to free speech will be dismissed as frivolous.
The Court will then rule on what the allowable privileges of speech are for corporations, and hold his behavior against that standard.
This is the law as it really is. This is what judges, prosecutors, lawyers, bureaucrats and a hige percentage of cops know, that the public doesn't.
It is literally the same as saying - I am going to arrest you for violating boating laws in how you walked down the street. And if you dont say - hey, I'm not a boat!," I'm going to presume you ARE a boat. And further, I'm going to let cops arrest people on the presumption they are boats.
That's the problem with America.
That's the ONLY problem with America. EVERY OTHER PROBLEM comes from that one.
And do you know how this giant nefarious scheme is protected? By prsion camps, perhaps? Or the gestapo? Nope.
By television, potato chips, ipods, cellphones, and that biggest help of all - the giant American shrug, folled by the TRUE American slogan of our times: "whatever."
Even GOD despairs against such sloth, while Hillary daily laughs so hard she chokes herself, and has to take meds to keep from bursting into constant laughter.
U.S. District Judge William Lawrence can go to hell. Come get me. LOL
Forgive me if I gave the impressions that I though police were to blame in this particular matter. It was the never gripe about the cops. Cops are government employees and shoul not be exempt from scrutiny or criticism any more than the rest of that lot.
Best regards
Neah.
They don’t what you think.
Just don’t THREATEN them. They are not going to let you get the first shot.
Heck, if you threatened me is sufficiently credible fashion, I wouldn’t let you get the first shot...
so what about the threats against zimerman and the reward for him?anyone prosecuted? oh he’s not a protected person.
“Never gripe about cops...”, instead make copies and send everything to their boss and all their neighbors.
I’d want to know if I were their neighbor.
Nor should you.
I've said it many times on here and I'll say it again:
Your calender may read 2012, but we are living 1984!
US Federal Government motto: Interstate Commerce über alles!
I make constructive criticism comments on police, government, media, etc on Facebook, etc as my inherent freedom provides.
Any attempt to punish that freedom?
That’s what 17 loaded AK mags in bandoleers is ready for.
” we would all right now, all of us together, [starts to shout] all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families. [stands up screaming]”
Alec Baldwin during Clinton impeachment.
How many years did he get for this? (not a day)
All free speech is not created equal.
MRC has an old RealMedia clip of that. 1998 Conan O’Brian’s show.
Liberal derangement on display.
And yet, they get a free pass while folks like this guy go to jail.
Nov 7th can’t come quickly enough.
Citizens of the Unites States are positive law, or 'corporate' persons. Citizens of these united States are natural law persons.
-----
If he doesn't refute this presumption, it will be further presumed to be correct.
Correct. His appearance must be in in propria persona.
This is the law as it really is. This is what judges, prosecutors, lawyers, bureaucrats and a huge percentage of cops know, that the public doesn't.
This I know. It's just so difficult to even get someone to look at the subject, much less try to understand it. the majority of the time, folks are told it's the LAW....and they say 'okay'.
-----
It is literally the same as saying - I am going to arrest you for violating boating laws in how you walked down the street. And if you dont say - hey, I'm not a boat!," I'm going to presume you ARE a boat.
Silence implies consent.
-----
By television, potato chips, ipods, cellphones, and that biggest help of all - the giant American shrug, folled by the TRUE American slogan of our times: "whatever."
Caused a great deal by a sense of helplessness. IMHO. A lot of people know something is desperately wrong, but as they have no idea how to fix it, they do the only thing they can.
They ignore it.
I wonder if anything would happen if they knew the federal government (or any of its subsidiaries) attempting to pass laws that affect the People in the States IS the Constitutional definition of treason?
Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors;
Preliminary Remarks, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution
Yep, not soon enough.
“gripe about the politicians instead they are the true enemies of freedom.”
They’re just the paid help.
In other words, another Thought Crime.
I have more and more respect for George Orwell as the years go by.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.