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.
Except that Citizens United held that corporations do have such right to free speech.
What we have here is a "when it's convenient" law: that is it applies, or doesn't, according to how convenient it is to those in authority.
I suspect that he is being targeted precisely because the DEA is operating on the assumption of authority, but that any delving into those assumptions would prove them to be false.
So if someone were to say “Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants...BE WARNED IF U PULL ME OVER!!” on a website, what would happen?
Buttshil !!! The pigs are practicing law by whim and getting worse. There's no check on this abuse of power. Having been on calls with them over the years the nicest thing I can say about them is that about 75% should be behind bars with Bubba. There actually are a small minority who are decent human beings. Real stand up guys. Not many though.
This guy said that he intended to go out and kill cops. The idea that you have to mention a specific person for it to be considered a threat is ridiculous. No terrorist could ever be arrested for plotting to kill non-specific Americans then. There certainly should be investigation to make sure he won’t be the next mass shooter. There’s not enough from this alone to know if he is guilty or not guilty but a trial is warranted. Warning signs like this should be taken seriously.
...BE WARNED IF U PULL ME OVER!!”
I believe this falls into the same category as shouting fire in a theater when there is no fire.
Rocky top, you'll always be
Home sweet home to me.
Good ole rocky top,
Rocky top tennessee, rocky top tennessee.
Naw. Obama is working for Sharia Law. Communism is just to get radicals like Hillary and Bill Clinton excited. Even those two idiots are starting to see the light. How about you? Are you finally seeing that Egypt and Libya were about setting radical governments in place to join Iran? Probably not, but think about it. Obama = Muslim explains everything.
That example is one of the most horrid examples of legal thought that there is. The case wherein it is referenced was about a guy publishing in protest to WWI, that he was a socialist is irrelevant, his claim was that the war was immoral and that people should refuse the draft as well as petition congress to repeal the draft. (Now, given the predicate that the war was immoral that would make a law pressing people into actual direct service thereof also immoral; and one of the tenants of law, now lost thanks to modernity's rejection of law's moral basis, is that an immoral law is evil, and therefore not legitimate as law is to be just. -- Also, given that the incident where-which Congress garnered support [the sinking of an English ship carrying about 130 Americans, as well as war supplies] was possibly that generation's Fast & Furious given 1: the German embassy/consulate paid for newspaper ads [in dozens of papers] advising the Americans of the dangers of traveling abroad due the state of war, 2: due the State-Department's policies only 3 of those ads were ever run, and 3: the warships escorting the ship were ordered to fall back a half-day before the attack... [assumption] that the entry into WWI was immoral may well have been right.)
So then, this case was the direct result of political speech, unambiguously the sort of speech that the First Amendment protects.
The Supreme Court then, in order to legitimize the unconstitutional sedition laws whereby this man was being prosecuted came up with that theater argument as an example. IOW, it was nothing but the justification for an unwritten exception into the restrictions on the government by the Constitution; much like the Affordable Care Act's decision recently.
(PS - The correct answer to the theater scenario is this: the man should be held criminally responsible for any deaths, and civilly accountable for injuries [taken to court].)
Should not Roger Baldwin and his myrmidons be held accountable for weakening the constitution and the law. He took soviet money clear into the seventies to continue his efforts through the ACLU. That he was socialist was relevant, he was also advocating the violent overthrow of the government and was a card carrying member of CPUSA. Where you trying to run a fast one past us? I am still upset he spent so little time in prison.
No, I was referring to the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
Should not Roger Baldwin and his myrmidons be held accountable for weakening the constitution and the law. He took soviet money clear into the seventies to continue his efforts through the ACLU. That he was socialist was relevant, he was also advocating the violent overthrow of the government and was a card carrying member of CPUSA.
I'm unfamiliar w/ Roger Baldwin; there is however at least one thing different between the case I cited and this: there was no advocacy to overthrow the government in the 1919 case.
I'm all about his cause...but that's just not smart football.
No, it is not.
Shouting fire when there is none still causes panic. The panic results in harm, thus the end result of the 'speech' is harm.
Making the general statement 'don't screw with me' results in nothing more than some administrative officers getting their panties in a wad.
There is no harm.
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.