But if he had told people to vote for or against the presdient, well, then THAT isn't protected political speech and can be banned under McCain-Feingold. Uh, yeah. Do we live in fucking Bizarroworld?

The Imperial Judiciary speaks! As they decree, so must we all genuflect.

Buncha jerks.

So are you going to lighten up on your "no murdering talk" policy here? Or are you just some kind of fascist who wants to repress our newly Constitutionalized right to free political speech?

Gee, I wonder if their decision would be any different if other circuit court justices were the target of Lincoln's letter.

Dave J - Excellent point!

Oh, the judges don't need to sweat this decision. They're covered.

http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/fed_cap_off/18_usc_115.htm

I guess they don't think the President deserves the same protection.

The Imperial Judiciary speaks! As they decree, so must we all genuflect.

Ninth Circuit are mere Barons. We don't break out the prayer rugs and prostrate ourselves until the SCOTUS issues its holy writ.

The 9th Circuit appears to only been following precedent in this decision. To be an illegal threat, not only must a threat of harm or wishing ill-will exist, but Mens Rea - the intent to facilitate it.

A "Sancity of Life" fanatic learned the difference - many have in demonizing Michael Schiavo, wished he would end up PVS for failing to support "curing" their icon, "Terri". But ill-wishes are not a crime. But this particular fruitloop went further and offered 250K to get rid of the Devil's Spawn Schiavo. Thus a threat was coupled with the intent to influence others or incite the crime.

And courts have to examine the grey area of intent, because naturally accused will deny Mens Rea...."Hey, I just said it would be cool if someone shot Mayor X at the rally! I never said I'd shoot him!" And the court may instruct the jury that they will decide on intent to harm based on other info - like in the email about Mayor X posted at an anti-tax site he also said: "All our children will suffer if Mayor X raises taxes. Isn't there a single brave person willing to take a shot from the Mall, slip into the crowd, and likely get away with it???" If he said that Mens Rea would be established.

Now the creep Lincoln, in jail, observed that Al Qaeda wanted to kill the President and indicated it would be a good thing....but communicated no intent to be involved. So, not a true threat.

Now, on the other hand, what the prisoner wrote is seditious....but America is reluctant to punish sedition these days....as concern over free speech rights allows some like Ward Churchill, hard core Zionists, the Chinese Friendship Society, CAIR...to openly sympathize, side with groups or nations opposed or even hostile to America's interests... without fear of being charged with sedition.

So prisoners can threaten the Prez but Delay can't say anything about judges without being accused of wanting to hurt / kill them? Right.

Question: If I wrote to Ted Kennedy and asked for a ride to Nantucket, could they lock me up for attempted suicide?

Cedarford: From what I've read on the "fruitloop" you mentioned, he had no way of paying the $250,000. Does that mean he never had real intent since he had no intention of paying?

Also, Lincoln made a real threat against Bush to a Secret Service agent 6 months back. If you combine that statement with the statement made in this case that would certainly appear to establish a real threat.

"Question: If I wrote to Ted Kennedy and asked for a ride to Nantucket, could they lock me up for attempted suicide?"

Apparently you would have to find out if he in fact had gas in his car and scotch in his bloodstream first. This would then establish that he has his menses and thus a true threat exists.

Michael Dennis -

Yes, because it's irrelevant if he could actually pay the reward he offered for killing Michael Sciavo and any judges -state or Federal -involved in the Schaivo case. Only that he posted a death threat and reward in the hopes of motivating others to do the killing counts. It satisfies Mens Rea. . He now claims his religious convictions got the better of himself, he was caught up in Jesus's work - but he is still in the deep darks.

I'm unaware of the real threat the prisoner made. The Secret Service has the option of prosecuting or, effectively, putting a threatener on lifetime probation - where they agree to lose much of their privacy rights to avoid a jail sentence.

Dan -

DeLay can be criticized. So can you for everything from who you rooted for in the NCAA Tournament to your taste in ties. There is a huge difference for criticizing DeLay - even punishing him for damaging the Party with his insincere pro-choice bootlicking to deflect his ethics troubles....and criminalizing his speech. Or yours.

If Michael Dennis is right, and Lincoln made a direct threat before his vague statements hoping Al Qaeda nails him sometime....then criminal prosecution is appropriate if the SS wanted to bother with him....

Cedarford: Check out the second link, the one that goes to the Fox article. It mentions that the previous threat to the SS agent was part of the reason that the lower court ruled against Lincoln. It appears that the 9th ignored that part during their review. His al Queda statement by itself seems flimsy until it's combined with the previous threat.

From a quick reading of 18 USC 115, it would appear that the 9th Circuit not only undercut the protection of the President, but their own protection as well. 18 USC 115 appears to cover both parties.

Cedarford,

This is nothing anyone can say about my choice in ties. I have excellent taste in ties. Are you just spoiling for a fight, here?

I think Dave J is onto something. Since buying commercial time or blogging about why someone should/shouldn't vote for a certain congressthing or presidential canidate is not free speech and threatens to corrupt our Republic, we can instead use our TV and blog time to discuss why we should or shouldn't KILL elected officials.

I nominate Sen. McCain, he started this whacked out mess.

Hey, while criticising McCain may be criminal, at least threating him is covered by free speech!

Cedarford provides some food for thought, but is dodging the big question posed by Dave J. - why go out on a limb to suport this speech but restrict other more clearly (and not criminal or seditious or whatver) political speech?

I wonder if it the letter threatened, say, the judge who presided over this guy's trial instead of the President the 9th Circuit would have concluded differently.

One can only wonder...

decent analysis cf, and to think, you only attacked the Jooos in a "restrained" way.

Seriously, good use of the "hard core" modifier to limit any offensiveness. I commend your restraint. "Hardcore" zionists like the Kahanists are opposed to the best interests of America. Or by "hard core," do you mean anyone who supports the Jewish State? Never mind, I'd rather think you're being reasonable.

Are you learning the value of temperence in you thinking?

And on topic, I would argue that the original conviction was hte trial judge's way of imposing a sedition conviction.

The 9th Circuit's decisions get flipped all the time. I suspect this one will be no different.
Especially since it directly affects lawmakers and other judges.

Cedarford, I STRONGLY encourage you to write an apparently hostile threatening letter to the prez then pitch this freedom of speech argument with the secret service guys who will be knocking on your door at oh-dark-hundred to have a neighborly chat about it.

I hear the tennis courts at Eglin are top notch, maybe you'll get sent there.

No tennis courts at Eglin anymore. They've moved the prisoners out.

Does this ruling apply to celebrities as well? I mean that Leonardo DiCaprio is just asking to be assassinated.