Wingnuts get a pass, again.
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that calling for someone to kill the President of the United States cannot be classified as a threat because standing law does not prohibit "predictions or exhortations" to violence.
In a 2-1 decision, judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California resident Walter E. Bagdasarian was engaging in free speech when he wrote that Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head soon," then called on someone to "shoot the nig."
The basic premise of the judges who ruled FOR this is that while the statements are "repugnant because they directly encourage violence" because of the particular law the dreamy assailant was convicted , they did not rise to the level 'a threat' as defined in that legislation.
"There are many unstable individuals in this nation to whom assault weapons and other firearms are readily available, some of whom might believe that they were doing the nation a service were they to follow Bagdasarian’s commandment," they continued. "There is nevertheless insufficient evidence that either statement constituted a threat or would be construed by a reasonable person as a genuine threat by Bagdasarian against Obama."
And what this wingnut did is EXACTLY what Glenn Beck does on a nationwide TV show. Or used to.
And this particular paragraph tells me these judges are aware of what Glenn Beck prattles on about, and I got the requisite $20 that says Mr. Let's Kill the President is a Beckistani.
The dissenting opinion:What about Hal Turner?
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw cast the dissenting vote. In her opinion, she cites the conviction of former white supremacist radio host Hal Turner, who was sentenced after he published comments on his website calling for the assassination of three judges. She also cites cases dealing with threats against abortion providers, where the defendants made statements of similar nature to Bagdasarian's comments.
Of course, I weigh in on the side of the dissenting opinion: If I or many of the readers of this humble piece made exactly the same statement about Bush - or even Obama, since not everybody at Daily Kos is completely ecstatic with his performance - we'd not be getting let of the hook.
I'm not a lawyer so we'll scan the comment section to see any feedback from those who understand the twists and turns being employed here, but I feel reasopnably secure saying that if this was 5 years ago and the same exact language was employed with reference to Bush, it would have been another critter altogether.
I'll just come out and say it stinks, it smells like a white-priviledge double-standard: liberals would be savaged for threatening Bush - and often were - while people make threats against Obama are white wingnuts and they get a pass from the system.
[UPDATE] The history of this:
Walter Bagdasarian Convicted Of Making Racially-Charged Threats Against Then-Candidate Obama (HuffPo 2009 posting)
(Associated Press) SAN DIEGO - A man has been convicted in San Diego of making racially charged comments on the Internet during the U.S. presidential campaign about killing Barack Obama.
Walter Bagdasarian of La Mesa posted the messages in October. Prosecutors say one on a Yahoo Finance board read, "He will have a 50 cal in the head soon." Authorities say they found a .50-caliber rifle in his home.
U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff reached the verdict only an hour after the trial started Tuesday. No witnesses were presented.
An attorney for the 47-year-old defendant said his client was drunk when he posted the comments. Bagdasarian faces up to five years in prison when he is sentenced Oct. 26.
That one-hour trial with no witnesses is a bit of a concern - ianal but it would seem fishy for something this important.
Drunkeness makes it pretty good excuse, huh?