[John Valentine]

It appears to me that the guy didn't make a direct threat.

This is a matter of fact finding. Presumably that lower court determined that this was indeed a threat under the law.

It is my understanding that the findings of fact of lower courts are not subject to judicial review.

Therefore, without reading the appellate opinion, I have to believe that it was not based on finding that the language was NOT a threat, but on some other flimsy, legalistic grounds.

[cripplecreek]

You may be right but I'm just looking at the bare minimum of facts that are available.

[Arthalion]

This is a matter of fact finding. Presumably that lower court determined that this was indeed a threat under the law.

Legally, the only way a threat can be proven under the law, if it wasn't made directly (example: "I am going to kill you"), would be for the prosecution to prove that the accused had some ability to make the threat a reality. In this case, the guy stating his joy that Al Queda is going to kill Bush doesn't qualify as a direct threat (unless he's an Al Queda operative). Without that, the prosecution would have to show that he could somehow influence Al Queda's ability or willingness to kill the president.

The guy's a slimeball, but the judgement is probably correct.

[muawiyah]

These are the same guys who said the website showing abortionists still in practice, or who died, or who had retired was, in fact, a threat!