Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck & Michele Bachmann Should Be Arrested, Charged And Imprisoned Under Title 18

[Turborama]

This is a retread of an OP from last March which had all the details of which sections of Title 18 they should stand trial for and the evidence which could be used against them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=244130#245314

The recent murderous attack in Arizona gives more weight to the argument that Palin in particular should stand trial for incitement under Title 18.



(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4688914&mesg_id=4688957">Hat tip to Devil_Fish for the updated map)

Edit to fix typo.

[CountAllVotes]

1. Palin should be tried as a accessory

to premeditated MURDER!

[kestrel91316]

13. Accessory? Hell, she's the ringleader.

[CountAllVotes]

19. you are right!!

She instigated this violence. It was encouraged further by airing the B.S. "Palin's Alaska" where she is shooting a gun all over the place.

LOCK HER UP AND TOSS THE KEYS IN THE GARBAGE DISPOSAL!

:dem:

[kestrel91316]

24. Sarah MANSON is her real name.

[The Wielding Truth]

2. When you are in a high profile position and you target someone it is incitement!.

[onenote]

18. I'd be interested if you could find even a single legal precedent for that position

[The Wielding Truth]

21. This is my opinion, but I think there should be legal precedent. I am researching.

Do you have legal knowledge that you really think there are no cases or acts that could be called up. I was checking out the Matthew Shepard Act, but I don't have a good comprehension of the legalese.Are you privy to a legal team? I would love to find the answer to this out of control fatwa mode by right-wingers in the media.

[onenote]

31. legal precedent clearly runs against you

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).

[Rex]

3. I agree 100%

Time to put the enablers in jail, before their followers kill again.

[newtothegame]

4. Why aren't you bringing charges?

:shrug:

[Turborama]

7. Because I can't

I'm not in America. Maybe someone else who reads this can, though. :shrug:

[kestrel91316]

14. Only a DA or federal prosecutor can bring charges against someone.

But i suspect you knew that.

[newtothegame]

17. Enjoy your suspicions. And your desperate search for trolls. nt

[TheEuclideanOne]

30. Spoken like a true Troll. :)

[Peregrine Took]

5. And what about all the countless voices constantly blaring out on hate radio?

We have at least 2 stations here in Chicago that keep it up 24/7 HATE HATE HATE all day and all night.

[tblue37]

10. The Rwandan massacre was provoked by hate radio. People

on the right seem to forget that when they claim that such hateful rhetoric cannot be blamed for the violence that it provokes.

[Little Star]

15. Try Boston with Jay Severenson & Michael Graham day in & day out!

[bemildred]

6. And sued into bankruptcy. nt

[Turborama]

8. Yes, that too. And all the money given to the victims' families and charities of their choice. n/t

[cali]

9. I prefer sued into bankruptcy. n/t

[bemildred]

12. If I had to pick, yeah, but why not both? nt

[cali]

20. because on pretty the 1st amendment is too important to me.

[Turborama]

22. The 1st amendment has nothing to do with this.

We're talking about using existing laws, not making new ones.

[cali]

26. sure it does.

look, like it or not- and I don't- political speech akin to that employed by Palin, has been used in this country for a very long time.

[Turborama]

27. No, it really doesn't.

I think you need to go and remind yourself what the 1st amendment actually says.

There are already laws in existence that make incitement illegal, as detailed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=244130

[onenote]

32. it really does.

The Supreme Court has ruled what constitutionally can be criminalized as incitement and under the standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, no case could be made against Palin.

Just because a law is on the book doesn't make every application of it constitutional. Laws can be unconstitutional both "on their face" or "as applied"

[Turborama]

33. Time for a new precedent, if what you say is true

1969 is ancient history, with regards to how incitement is communicated.

[onenote]

34. Not sure why the means of communication matters

If anything, the more direct and personal the communication,the more immiment the threat. The underlying standard that separate protected from unprotected speech is the immimence of action. If a speech given in person at a rally (as was the case in the Brandenburg case, or more recently in the 1982 Claiborne Hardware case, where the fired up rhetoric of African American activists in promoting a boycott of white owned businesses, included a statement at one rally that those who didn't honor the boycott would get their necks broken) is protected speech, its hard to see how the over-the-top rhetoric of Palin and her ilk, while irresponsible and inappropriate (as was, one could argue, the speech in Brandenburg and Claiborne Hardware), is nonetheless Constitutionally protected.

To be clear, one doesn't have to condone the content of speech to defend it as being constitutionally protected.

[Turborama]

37. You think inciting violence is constitutionally protected

And so do too many lawmakers to stop it. That's the problem. The legal definition of incitement needs to be applied to Title 18, otherwise it's useless.

Do you need me to explain why the new form of communication known as the internet has greatly changed the way incitement can be propagated since 1969?

To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as in to incite a riot. Also, generally, in Criminal Law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with abet.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

Again, the 1st amendment concerns making new laws. This OP is about using these existing laws: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=244130

[onenote]

39. your lack of understanding of Constitutional law is quite apparent

The statement that the First Amendment concerns making new laws rather than using existing laws is completely wrong. Laws can be and are challenged not only immediately after they are enacted, but often years later. More importantly, they can and are challenged not only "on their face" (that is, there is no constitutional application of the law) but also "as applied." The law against incitement is constitutional, but only if applied within the Constitutional boundaries laid out by the Court in Brandenburg and adhered to consistently since then.

And, if anything, for the reasons stated, Internet communications are even less likely to be viewed as actionable incitement because they are less personalized and less "immiment" with respect to the actions they describe.

[Turborama]

40. I'm going by what the 1st amendment actually says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You want incitement to violence to be protected by that. I get it.

The internet makes it easier to incite (via websites such as http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x142607">Palin's now scrubbed one, Facebook, YouTube, podcasts of radio shows etc etc). You don't get that? You don't think there needs to be a modern precedent which will update precedents for the use of Title 18 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio">this 1969 case you keep going on about but never a provide a link to? OK, if that's the case I think we're done here.

[onenote]

41. Actually, it was William O Douglas that believed the First Amendment was absolute

and he was one of two justices that argued that the incitement law was invalid on its face.

I think incitement to violence is unprotected speech, but only where it meets the stringent standard set forth in decisions such as Brandenburg and Claiborne Hardware. Since you've read Brandenburg, I'm curious what about it you find to be wrong. And here's a link to Claiborne Hardware: http://supreme.justia.com/us/458/886/case.html

Attempts were made quite often during the 60s to suppress the speech of those opposed to the Vietnam War and those opposed to segregation and racial discrimination. Apparently you would have interpreted the law broadly so that Charles Evers and the NAACP could have been held liable for the inflammatory rhetoric that was used to promote the boycott of racist store owners (including the threat to break the necks of those who didn't adhere to the boycott).

As for you contention that the Internet makes it easier to "incite" you're right I disagree. Because "incitement" requires the creation of an imminent threat and the Internet creates more distance and abstracation between speech not less, certainly when compared to someone riling up a crowd of people in person in order to get them to take immediate action.

[Turborama]

42. Re your last paragraph

It explains the need to update the law with modern precedent. In 1969 the public had no ability to have someone in their own home inciting them on demand via the internet.

As you obviously know, laws need modernizing occasionally by precedent. IMHO this is one of them that is long overdue.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

44. What about this recent case?

Internet Radio Talk Show Host Hal Turner Arrested for Threatening Three Federal Appeals Court Judges in Chicago Over Recent Decision Upholding Handgun Bans

CHICAGO—Hal Turner, an intermittent internet radio talk show host and blogger, was arrested today by FBI agents at his home in North Bergen, N.J., on a federal complaint filed in Chicago alleging that he made internet postings threatening to assault and murder three federal appeals court judges in Chicago in retaliation for their recent ruling upholding handgun bans in Chicago and a suburb.

Internet postings on June 2 and 3 proclaimed “outrage” over the June 2, 2009, handgun decision by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, further stating, among other things: “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.” The postings included photographs, phone numbers, work address and room numbers of these judges, along with a photo of the building in which they work and a map of its location.

........

On June 8, 2009, law enforcement agents were directed to postings on a web site. The front page of the site contained an entry dated June 2, 2009, that was titled: “OUTRAGE: Chicago Gun Ban UPHELD; Court says ‘Heller’ ruling by Supreme Court not applicable to states or municipalities!” After describing the decision, a lengthy entry followed, which is contained in the complaint affidavit. In addition to proclaiming “These judges deserve to be killed,” the entry notes that it was the same 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that decided the case of Matt Hale, a white-supremacist who was imprisoned after being convicted of soliciting the murder of a U.S. District Court judge in Chicago. The entry further noted that the same judge’s mother and husband were murdered by a gunman in her home. The posting then stated:

“Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit court didn’t get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed.”

The complaint charges that the posting was updated the next morning on June 3, 2009, with the following content:

“Judges official public work addresses and a map of the area are below. Their home addresses and maps will follow soon. Behold these devils.”

Below this headline, the entry listed the names, photos, phone numbers, work addresses, and room numbers of the three judges involved in the handgun decision, as well as a photo of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in Chicago and a map. The photo of the building had been modified to include arrows and a label referencing “Anti-truck bomb barriers,” according to the affidavit.

I believe Turner was convicted recently ~

According to the prosecutors:

“We take threats to federal judges very seriously. Period,” said Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois

I would would think they would take threats against elected officials seriously also. And if that map had been put up by a Muslim, you can bet action would have been taken.

There were no actual attacks on the judges in that case, just violent, threatening rhetoric.

Rep. Giffords expressed concerns about Sarah Palin's crosshairs map, as did many others. People can say that the accused killer was not motivated by the map, but someone with the kind of problems the accused killer had, the rhetoric that permeated the atmosphere, including that map, created an atmosphere of acceptance of violence as a solution, going back years.

Regarding the judge who was killed this weekend, he too had been threatened but was advised NOT to file charges at that time. The fact that he was advised NOT to do so, means that he could have.

I would think that if Rep. Gifford or any of the others targeted by Palin's map chose to file charges, something might have been done. The fact that they did not, does not mean they could not. The victim decides if they feel threatened, and Giffords certainly expressed her concerns. Even if no one had been actually attacked, that map should have had consequences. Many of the people on it did in fact receive threats.

[onenote]

45. Turner was convicted not of inciting others but of threatening to assault or kill specific judges

Unlike the Palin chart, Turner's language was direct and unambiguous. These judges "deserve to be killed". It wasn't cloaked in language suggesting that they merely be removed from office or impeached. It was a plain threat of physical harm directed at specific federal judges in retaliation for decisions they had made, which is prohibited by 18 USC 115 (a)(1)(B). It was the correct decision imo.

For links to information about the case http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/united-states-v-turner

[sabrina 1]

46. Yes, his threats were more overt, but airc, he never said that HE

was going to kill them. He said 'they should be killed'. No one knows if he ever would have carried out such a threat. He claims he was just venting. However, someone listening, someone with mental problems eg, might have taken his words as an order to go out and do it. Like the guy who went out to kill people at the ACLU and the Tide Foundation. He claims that he was 'inspired' by Glenn Beck, who, he said, was not just talking, he was talking about doing something.

When Sharon Angel stated that if they could not solve the problem with the ballot box, they could solve it with the bullet box, she was clearly saying that if Democrats won, the problem could be solved with bullets. I do not see anything different about her statement and Hal Turner's. The danger of someone taking her words as a signal was just as great as it was with Hal Turner.

And when Ann Coulter stated that a SC justice should be poisoned, again, one of her unstable fans could very easily have decided to do it for her.

If that crosshairs chart had been posted by a Muslim with the crosshairs on Republicans, do you think it would have been treated the same way Palin's chart was treated?

Rep. Gifford was clearly disturbed by the chart. And from what I've read everyone in the crosshairs received death threats.

Her office door was smashed and she was threatened by phone.

The judge who was murdered this weekend also received threats after allowing a case filed by illegal workers to go forward. He was advised NOT to file charges. I believe it was thought that to do so would only create more danger for him. But there was no doubt that there was a case if he and the prosecutors had chosen to file one.

I know that if a well-known figure put a gun sight on my home or office, I would feel very threatened.

Palin is a stupid woman and a greedy one. I hope she reflects on what she is responsible for. Whoopi Goldberg did warn her that her chart might have consequences several months ago, and that if something happened because of it 'it will be on you', she said. No intelligent peson would take that kind of risk with other people's lives. And when it's done to elected officials it threatens our democracy. As Sheriff Dupnik said, with the current atmosphere of hate speech and threats against elected officials, it's going to be very hard to find good people who will run for office. And that affects ALL of us.

Thanks for the link, I will check it out ~

[sabrina 1]

11. Glad you posted this again, Turborama because it shows that

people were concerned about the violent rhetoric long before this happened. Even after the other incident a few months ago where the guy who was on his way to kill people at the ACLU and The Tide Foundation, with a car loaded with weapons, was stopped for speeding, thankfully, but got in a shootout with the police, injuring 8 of them, the rhetoric didn't stop. He was a Glenn Beck fan.

What I would like to know is what have the FBI been doing about all this? I know they raid the homes of Peace Activists but I never hear anything about them raiding the homes of these people who boast about the weapons the have and about the 'revolution' they can't wait to start.

Sharon Angel, eg, who stated that if the ballot box didn't work, bullets would. Why didn't she receive a visit from the FBI? A warning about toning down the call to arms against the U.S. government, which is what she was doing. She was calling for 'bullets' for elected officials.

[Turborama]

28. I too am amazed they are allowed to just get away with it when they are actually breaking the law

What's standing in the way of these scumbags being arrested for incitement, as you've probably seen already, the 1st amendment absolutists. What they don't seem to get is that the 1st amendment is about making new laws but there are laws already in place that cover this.

I realized earlier that the link in the OP takes you to the wrong place in the thread, this one takes you to the actual OP which contains the laws & evidence I mentioned: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=244130

Also, in case you missed it here's a long list of Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism in America: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9389907#9389970

Posted as a reminder by Ian David here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x153766

[sabrina 1]

29. That's quite a list. And there are other examples:

Here, eg, is a Republican Candidate, Catherine Crabill at a Tea Party rally again calling for a 2nd Amendment solution IF they don't get what they want 'at the ballot box':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paeuC-i8E1o

It's chilling, especially the last part of her speech which she starts with this:


"We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box, before we have to resort to the bullet box"


Almost the same words spoken by Republican candidate Sharon Angle. These are Republican candidates! The fringe has moved in to the mainstream of the Republican party. What they are proposing is the murder of elected officials. Because if THEY don't win, then a Democrat will and that elected Democrat is who they are talking about for the 'bullet box'.

Yet, not a thing is ever done about this kind of rhetoric.

Great list from Ian David. It should be sent to Sen. Kyl who thinks the words of AZ Sheriff, Dupnik, who blamed the rightwing rhetoric for the violence in this country, are 'inappropriate' http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x153887

As a matter of fact, these lists should be sent to the MSM who are working as hard as they can to cover up the fact that the Republican Party and their supporters are a dangerous threat to this country, and blame it on 'both sides'.

[Odin2005]

16. Send them to gitmo!

[Turborama]

23. Apologies, I just noticed the link in the OP takes you to halfway down. Direct link to the OP...

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=244130

[Kingofalldems]

25. K and R

[Xenotime]

35. This is just sick

[Johonny]

36. I think just a public shaming would do wonders

It would certainly destroy any political, financial future any of them had. Unfortunately half the country is in back spin today trying to defend their words. The us vs. them mentality the media has today makes it easy for them to hide and claim being against calls to violence in politics are just partisan attacks.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.