Threatening words or protected speech?
We read:
"When Walter Carl Abbott Jr. posted comments last year on a Maryland government Web site saying he would "strangle" Gov. Martin O'Malley, he learned there's a difference.
The 45-year-old Pikesville construction worker was found guilty of threatening a public official. He is serving two years' probation for his rant against the governor, whom Mr. Abbott blames for personal financial problems that stem from business competition from illegal immigrants.
Mr. Abbott's attorney, Arthur M. Frank, said the comment wasn't a threat but a constitutionally protected criticism of state government. But he said he never got to make that argument at trial, so he took the case to a higher court.
After a hearing earlier this month before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Mr. Abbott is awaiting a ruling on whether a Baltimore County judge should have instructed a 12-member jury to consider whether he was exercising his First Amendment rights.
Mr. Abbott maintains his innocence. He says he just has strong opinions.
Source
8 comments:
Threats of violence should never be used because there's no way for the recipient of such a threat to tell if the speaker is serious, or just "exercising his/her free speech."
The law must err on the side of caution - and take all "threats" seriously, lest we end up with cases like Fort Hood, where rantings and "strong opinions" were dismissed as "harmless."
How is it an opinion to say "I will strangle you"?
How is it an opinion to say "I will strangle you"?
It depends on the meaning of "strangle". See 2 and 3 below.
strangle |ˈstra ng gəl|
verb [ trans. ]
squeeze or constrict the neck of (a person or animal), esp. so as to cause death : the victim was strangled with a scarf.
1 [as adj. ] ( strangled) sounding as though the speaker's throat is constricted : a series of strangled gasps.
2 suppress (an impulse, action, or sound) : she strangled a sob.
3 hamper or hinder the development or activity of : overrestrictive policies that strangle growth.
So I wonder when those who made the "threat" err, movie, about killing President Bush will get their day in court?
Since Gov. O'Malley is a Democrat and Bush is a Republican I can guess the answer for myself!
It depends on the meaning of "strangle". See 2 and 3 below.
The guy wrote an email to the governor which said:
"If I ever get close enough to you I will [w]rap my hands around your throat and strangle the life from you."
(You can find the quote on the second page of the source article.)
I don't think that definition 2 or 3 applies to the use of "strangle" in his writing.
Although it's easy to understand his frustration with government, it was still a clear threat of violence. Had he told the judge he was a leftist, he would have walked away.
If he had said, "I could strangle you", then he would have been expressing his frustration. But by saying "will" or "would" instead of "could", the statement has to be interpreted as a threat.
Here's a similar case involving white race-baiter, Hal Turner
http://family-of-hal-turner.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment