PN> DA> In fact, the 1994 Crime Act makes it a federal felony against a
 PN> DA> speaker if a listener actually commits a violent crime after
 PN> DA> hearing the so-called "incitement."
 
 PN> ...and now it's a bad law that is coming around to bite him on his ass.
 DA> That law/provision would not apply unless someone who read his
 DA> message went and actually tried to harm the legislator.
 It seems, if I'm understanding what you are saying, that you'd hold the
 original person who made the "incitement" liable for an act committed
 by another person.  I think this is an area we're gonna be in some
 disagreement: I don't believe that what anybody _says_ is responsible
 for an act by another person.  It is the act that I'd be inclined to
 look to the law to remedy or punish, as the person commiting the act is
 the one responsible for it.
 I'll take responsibility for my actions, nothing anybody says is going
 to make me commit an act I don't choose to.  And I believe we should
 hold others to that standard.
 I don't believe the devil can make a person do something he doesn't
 choose to.  I don't believe twinkies can make a person do something he
 doesn't choose to.  And I don't believe that as hard as Vern tries to
 convince me to I'll _still_ not come over to your house and throw rocks
 at you .
 DA> The laws he is being charged under are most likely intimidation, or
 DA> incitement to commit a felony, or incitement to commit murder, or just
 DA> plain "making death threats." I don't know about most other states,
 DA> but Indiana *does* have a law against making public death threats.  As
 I get the sense that most states have similar provisions.
 DA> I was reminding someone else, a local man was convicted of making
 DA> threats against the local prosecutor and against the parents of the
 DA> victims who were killed by 3 people, one of whom was his son. He said
 DA> something like "If my son receives the death penalty, then other death
 DA> sentences will be carried out."  There was more, too. He made the
 DA> statements to news reporters who got it on tape.  He got something
 DA> like a 1 or 2 year sentence, but is free on appeal.
 I really don't believe it's responsible for a person to go around
 making threats of any sort.  But one should take into account the real
 likelihood of a threat being acted on.  Who among us hasn't at one
 time or another said something in the heat of emotion that he would
 never carry out?
 Besides, it's bad tactics to warn your enemy of your intentions .
 PN> DA> After hearing the left whine and cry about Limbaugh and Liddy and
 PN> DA> other rightist talkers, who do not advocate violence, this
 PN> DA> coddling of a leftist who *did* encourage violence is very
 PN> DA> offensive to me.
 
 PN> While it's emotionally satisfying to see any statist get what's coming
 PN> to him...I still have to come back to the basic premise.  IOW, there
 PN> being no credible threat, what harm has this person caused?
 DA> I think there *was* a "credible threat" in the message in
 DA> question.  You don't have to be standing in front of someone with
 DA> weapon in hand to issue a "credible" threat.
 
 PN> Since the threat isn't credible, since there's been no harm is it a
 PN> _good_ thing that he's being prosecuted?  Or persecuted?
 DA> 1. I think it was credible.  The object of the threats was a
 DA> public figure, who could EASILY be tracked down.
 If "credible" is meant in terms of the individual originally posting
 the statement, then I'll disagree.  I don't find it such.  If it means
 "credible" in terms of causing another person to act, then _if_ another
 person acts on a statement there are adequate laws to deal with those
 actions.
 DA> 2. I think there was a certain degree of harm done to the
 DA> legislator being threatened.  Not bodily harm, but a degree of
 DA> terror to the point of disturbing peace and order. Instead of
 DA> living in "general" fear, now the object of those threats has to
 DA> live in *specific* fear.
 
 Well...it's about time some legislators got the fear of the voters
 put upon 'em .  No, not a fear that somebody's gonna pop out
 of the woodwork and commit a violent act.  But doesn't a certain degree
 of this sort of thing go with the territory?
 PN> To quote:
 PN>  From: Dave Appel
 PN>    To: Steve Elliott
 PN>  Subj: carry extra ammo?
 
 PN>The police fall back on the position of "no harm = no foul,"  so until
 PN>someone is hurt or property is damaged, they don't make an arrest.
 PN> End quote.
 PN> Isn't that a better concept than prosecuting persons for speech?
 DA> Paul, not all speech is protected by the 1st amendment!  Yelling
 Agreed, agreed, agreed.
 DA> "fire" in a crowded theater and all that.  When speech is used to
 DA> threaten, intimidate, coerce, incite, it is not protected.
 Not analagous.
 DA> How far can you take the "no *physical* harm = no foul" concept?
 DA> If someone swings his fist at you, and you duck, and he misses,
 DA> is all forgiven?  What if you do that to a cop?  If you swing and
 DA> miss at a cop, is the cop going to say "Gee, he didn't connect
 DA> and no harm was done, so I'll let him go on his way." If you
 DA> throw a rock and aim at a point 5 feet from a cop, and
 DA> intentionally miss the cop, is the cop going to say "no harm, no
 DA> foul" and just ignore you?
 I don't see an analogy.  There was a physical attempt to strike in the
 instances you state.  There was no attempt in the statments made by the
 person posting the message under discussion.
 I'd suggest there's a significant difference between my standing in
 front of you swinging my fist and my standing behind a wall trying to
 convince another person to go swing at you with _his_ fist.  Or
 hollering at you from behind that wall that I was gonna come over next
 thursday and swing my fist at you.
 DA> I was once attacked with chemical spray when I told some woman to
 DA> get her car out of my reserved spot.  I was out of range, so she
 DA> missed.  Cops didn't do a dang thing.  If I tried to spray a cop,
 DA> and missed, would the cop ignore that situation too?
 
 She performed a physical act.  That her attack was not successful is
 irrelevant: in my world she would have been punished.  But in my world
 the justice system would have time to punish her, the world we live in
 doesn't have the resources to deal with incidents such as this.
 PN> Now in the situation you describe in the post I've quoted from (above),
 PN> was that threat credible?
 DA> Yes.  In close physical proximity, face to face, and "armed."
 
 PN> Would a reasonable person have believed himself in immediate danger?
 DA> Yes.  A group of 6 teens, with one mouthy leader, frothing at the
 DA> mouth, yelling, standing against one adult.  It was not until
 DA> midway through the encounter that it became clear that the punk
 DA> was all talk and no action.
 
 PN> Physical proximity, the individual being armed, (even if "only" a rock)
 PN> and the stated threat to others' person(s)...well, you may have laws
 PN> that make it illegal to do anything, but you're welcome to give him my
 PN> address.
 PN> He'll stop bothering you.
 DA> This makes me wonder where you are coming from.  If you really
 DA> think what the punk did on my porch was illegal (I do) or at
 DA> least arrestable, then we are on the same page in this matter.
 DA> The only difference between us would be what constitutes "credible".
 We're sitting in the same church, the pews are in close proximity,
 we're reading the same book...but perhaps we're just in different
 chapters .
 Your world would probably pinch me a little around the edges, mine
 might frustrate you a bit because you'd want folks to do a bit better
 job of following the rules...but neither of us would be all that
 uncomfortable.
 DA> BTW, I've been in proximity to him a couple times since then
 DA> during the normal course of our comings and goings.  He hasn't
 DA> said anything, so I figure he figures he's saved face by standing
 DA> up to whitey.
 It will be interesting to see what happens down the road.  On one hand
 it's too bad buttons like this haven't had the experience of being
 taught some basic manners.  Now he's likely to believe he can make
 threats with impunity.  OTOH, from what you describe as your place of
 residence it sounds as if you'd have been up the crick if you'd acted
 to protect yourself.  And imo it sucks for somebody to have to live
 like that.  But at least you don't have to clean up the spot on yer
 front porch...
 BTW, just for the sake of clarification, the incident described with
 the young'un on your front porch _is_ a credible threat.
 Something posted in cyberspace ain't.
 Just mho, of course.
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR]
---------------