Comments on: Jewish Paper’s Column Catches Secret Service Eye After Column Mulls Assassination Of President

By: PbP

PbP — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:32:28 +0000

There are things that should not be done irrespective of whether it is allowed under the constitution or any other set of laws in the USA.

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:40:26 +0000

Let me be perfectly clear. A threat means that someone says he will actually do something, in a way that would cause a reasonable person to believe that he will actually do it. If I tell someone on the street “I will punch you in the face”, that is a threat. But if I tell him “I will reach inside you and pull out your intestines”, that is not a threat, because no reasonable person would believe that I mean to actually do it. Everyone understands that it’s an exaggeration.

But if I don’t say I WILL do it, but rather I express my OPINION that somebody ought to do it, then it’s not a threat at all. If I tell someone on the street “you are so obnoxious that somebody ought to punch you in the face”, that is not a threat, and it is perfectly legal. And the same applies to an opinion that the president ought to be killed. It is 100% legal to say “I believe that the president should be killed”. The first amendment protects our right to say this.

The only exception is that if we say it in an emotional way to a person or crowd that has been whipped up to an emotional state, in a manner that is calculated to cause someone to go immediately and act on this opinion, AND someone actually does so, then it’s incitement, which is a crime and is not protected. But incitement is very limited. The speech must be calculated to cause someone to act IMMEDIATELY, WITHOUT THINKING. If a college professor gives a calm lecture on why he believes the Jews ought to be wiped out, that is protected speech, and he can’t even be fired from his job, let alone arrested; but if an antisemitic demagogue addresses a mob and shouts to them “kill the Jews”, and they go ahead and kill a Jew, that is incitement and he can go to prison for it.

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:24:54 +0000

#5, What threat? The article contained no threat; therefore it was protected beyond any doubt, and for the Secret Service to nevertheless investigate it is a clear breach of the first amendment, because of the chilling effect such an investigation will have.

By: My Two Cents

My Two Cents — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:34:58 +0000

Hasn’t the editor heard of the commandment not to murder – or did he skip that line when he read the Chumash? If Iran is a threat then find a way to take care of Iran. If Obama is putting pressure on Israel not to do that then ignore the pressure.

In terms of free speech – that is balanced by the fact that it is against the law to threaten the life of the president (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States).

By: 147

147 — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:59:55 +0000

I shall hit the president in the most painful way:- i.e. By voting for Republican on November 6th, irrespective of who ends up running; & in 2nd most painful way:- At the primaries voting for republican candidate I believe has highest chance of tossing Obama out of White House irrespective of anything else this Republican candidate may stand for.

By: dmmd

dmmd — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:56:21 +0000

It is time for the Atlanta Jewish community to get a new newspaper. The error must be corrected with the newspaper calling it quits.

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:50:49 +0000

The Secret Service should not be “looking into it”; however regrettable the article may be, it’s clearly protected by the first amendment, and having the Secret Service “look into it” would have a chilling effect on free speech.

By: Give Me a Break

Give Me a Break — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:26:53 +0000

What the [insert word of choice]?!

They ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms.