Agree or disagree????

TOLOMB

Red Man
The DOJ was investigating the reasoning behind the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to "overturn the conviction" and decided to drop it.

A Southern California man who posted an online racist rant that suggested Barack Obama should be shot during the 2008 presidential campaign was engaged in constitutionally protected free speech and should not have faced criminal charges, a divided federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The decision overturns the conviction of Walter Bagdasarian of La Mesa, northeast of San Diego, who was found guilty two years ago by a federal judge in San Diego of violating a statute prohibiting threats to kill, kidnap or do bodily harm to a major presidential candidate.
 

Steupz

Registered User
A good decision. There is nothing that prevents investigation of a threat, so to make the online threat in itself, a custodial offence, always strikes me as rubbish law.

*Ah doh know de answer to yuh question.
 

TOLOMB

Red Man
They said its free speech but the law is you cannot threaten the life of a sitting or running president. The court ruling is bullshit and he gets away with it because of what???

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=1545838803001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>
 

bhalistix

It is I
A good decision. There is nothing that prevents investigation of a threat, so to make the online threat in itself, a custodial offence, always strikes me as rubbish law.

*Ah doh know de answer to yuh question.
i disagree..

though freedom of speech is one of the greatest constitutional freedoms enjoyed by American, it should not be use to protect anyone who threatens a sitting us president. That is not the one exception, it is also illegal to make threat of bombing while on a plan or at an airport.
 

Steupz

Registered User
i disagree..

though freedom of speech is one of the greatest constitutional freedoms enjoyed by American, it should not be use to protect anyone who threatens a sitting us president. That is not the one exception, it is also illegal to make threat of bombing while on a plan or at an airport.
So the law only holds for the President? If so, you're detaining a man for threatening one of the world's best protected citizens who receives 1000 threats a year. What's the sense in that? Yuh actually have a law there to lock up dotish people. Being dotish cannot be a crime.
 

Redlocks

Mr. BALTIMORE
Everyone likes to talk about all of their rights without considering the
responsibilities that come with the rights. The threat was stupid and
selfish given the resources that would be wasted investigating the threat.
I hope the cost of defending himself leaves him broke.
 

bhalistix

It is I
So the law only holds for the President? If so, you're detaining a man for threatening one of the world's best protected citizens who receives 1000 threats a year. What's the sense in that? Yuh actually have a law there to lock up dotish people. Being dotish cannot be a crime.
Being dotish is not a viable defense if so the prisons with be empty. lol

there are hundreds of laws who have such exemptions, where by you get a worse sentence for the same crime depending on whou the crime is committed against.
 

TOLOMB

Red Man
The man appealed his conviction and won... Now I understand that he's not the first or last to threaten a sitting President... But the President is still in office, so what message is the court really sending out???
 

Alpha Unit

Insurgent
The wording here is interesting. He "posted a rant that suggested" doesn't sound like a threat. Daz like me sayin some ah deze politicians tryin to be president should really be shot! Is not a threat depending on delivery. And goinf off the little that was posted it doesn't seem credible that he should have been charged. Is there a link to see the rant?
 
Top