PN>When the statement provoked discussion on the Net, Saavedra posted another
PN>message, offering clarification since "the post has frightened some
PN>people."  He wrote that he would not "hunt down" the senator, or recommend
PN>or support such an action, but that he would be happy if "some nut 
ctually
PN>did such a thing ...  just like a German Jew would have celebrated the
PN>death of hitler."
PN>The follow-up posting rightly declared that the speech was entitled to
PN>constitutional protection, noting that "in America I have the right to 
ray
PN>for the death of anyone I want for any reason I want."  The posting was
PN>clearly within the bounds of protected speech under the First Amendment,
PN>especially given its context -- online political discussion.
PN>El Paso attorney Michael Gibson is representing Saavedra on a pro bono
PN>basis.  Margaret Crosby and Ann Brick, staff attorneys at the ACLU of
PN>Northern California, are co-counsel for the defense.
PN>"Americans have a long and proud tradition of criticizing their elected
PN>officials in colorful language," Crosby noted.  "The Constitution protects
PN>Saavedra's harsh, satirical commentary.  We will urge the court to dismiss
PN>this charge and to protect vivid political rhetoric in the newest public
PN>square, cyberspace."
PN>In a similar case, _Watts v. U.S.,_ 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969), the Supreme
PN>Court reversed charges of threatening the president based on a Vietnam War
PN>protestor's statement, "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I
PN>want to get in my sights is L.B.J."  The Court noted that such "political
PN>hyperbole" did not constitute a threat.  "[D]ebate on public issues should
PN>be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," and may include "vehement, 
austic,
PN>and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public
PN>officials."  Id.  (citing _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan_, 376 U.S. 254
PN>(1964).
PN>It is unclear whether Saavedra is actually the person responsible for the
PN>message.  He was released on bond and is currently facing extradition
PN>proceedings to California.  The ACLU of Northern California has offered 
ts
PN>assistance in the case.
I sense a very large double standard in this.  The left has been
denouncing so-called "hate speech" by the right for years now. If
someone on the right had said "Let's kill so-and-so" where
so-and-so was a left-wing politician, would the ACLU have come to
their defense?
In fact, the 1994 Crime Act makes it a federal felony against a
speaker if a listener actually commits a violent crime after
hearing the so-called "incitement."
After hearing the left whine and cry about Limbaugh and Liddy and
other rightist talkers, who do not advocate violence, this
coddling of a leftist who *did* encourage violence is very
offensive to me.
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ NAK NAK Who's there? Popeye ACK ACK ACK ACK ACK ACK ACK
(1:231/875)
---------------