On May 16, 10:42*am, wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:34:32 -0700, wrote:
Wow. Incitement to violence. A call for assassination. This ****er
should be locked up.

You are a bit "light" understanding the limits of free speech as
defined in case after case by SCOTUS. Such comments are o.k.
and we all should be glad for that situation. As a matter of history,
America was founded on political violence, i.e., lynching of tories,
attacks on British troops, destruction of private property.

It's funny you should call a lawyer of 20 years practice with a lot of
Constitutional law background, a bit light from your seat.

It's from that background and knowledge base I used the words
"incitement to violence". They mean something very specific.

Enjoy:

* * * * The First Amendment & Advocacy of Violence: An Overviewhttp://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/overview.aspx?id=11452

. . .Justice Louis Brandeis, joined by Justice Holmes, concurred in an
opinion that read more like a dissent. He wrote:
* * "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free
speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the
function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground
to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced.
There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended
is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil
to be prevented is a serious one."

He added, “even advocacy of [law] violation however reprehensible
morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the
advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate
that the advocacy would be immediately acted upon.”

And then there is Brandenberg:
The case gave rise to the Brandenburg test to determine when speech
transgresses the line from mere advocacy, which is protected by the
First Amendment, to incitement, which is not. That test anticipates
that the unprotected speech intentionally produce a high likelihood of
real imminent harm.http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/....aspx?id=11452

Free speech is sacred unless the comments result in an immediate
action from the
speakers audience that cause harm or property damage.

"He added, “even advocacy of [law] violation however reprehensible
morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the
advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate
that the advocacy would be immediately acted upon.”

Martin

Free speech is sacred

Tell that to Joe the Plumber who spoke freely, then had a very large IRS and
drive-by media microscope put up his ass ............