"This lovely image graced the home page of the Sacramento County Republican Party. As Andrew Sullivan describes it: "Not a lone protestor or crowd member. Not a fringe nut on Free Republic" on the official Republican website in the state capitol of the most populous state in the Union.
His name is Hector Barajas, and he actually picked up his phone and I spoke to him. I told him that this bit was far from the only over-the-top material on the site. Surprisingly, he agreed that there was other objectionable material on the site, and said that it was being reviewed right now and would be taken down in about thirty minutes. "
The reference to a “reasonableperson” makes clear that we were describing a negligence standard, with no requirement of actual intent to threaten. We subsequently reaffirmed Roy’s holding in United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002), and stated clearly that “Roy’s ‘reasonable speaker’ standard does not violate the First Amendment.” Id. at 1084. In United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1990), we upheld the defendant’s conviction for threatening a federal law enforcement officer under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). We were not primarily concerned with constitutional questions, but we observed that “[a] ‘true’ threat, where a reasonable person would foresee that the listener will believe he will be subjected to physical violence upon his person, is unprotected by the first amendment.” Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d at 1266. Again, our reference to a “reasonable person” seems to suggest that the First Amendment permits punishing a threat made with only negligence as to the statement’s threatening character.
A statute making it a criminal act to utter threats as to citizens generally might well be open to constitutional challenge. Assuming arguendo that a statute might not be sustained if applied to any threat toward any one of 200 million Americans(1), the statute here in question [871] must be judged by different standards(2), limited as it is to the Chief Magistrate of the nation and his constitutional successors.
1 Such as the one’s charged in the instant case.
2 This is the core-issue why 875(c) is unconstitutional, it provides no "intelligible” or “clear " standard to guide citizens, officers, prosecutors or judges as to how to define the statute as to a threat. Furthermore, the statue makes no mention of a “false” threat or “true” threat. This turns it into an “I’ll know it when I see it” subjective standard. In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "This quote, and the intent behind it, is well known as summarizing the irony and difficulty in trying to define obscenity. For at least fifty years, the Supreme Court has been struggling with defining what speech is "obscene". The same goes for the definition of a “true” threat.
Judge A. Howard Matz:
"And I think that what the prosecutor said in her brief is unquestionably the case: The "standard" is whether or not a reasonable person would have the basis to conclude that what the speaker said would be perceived by the listener or the recipient or the person as to whom it's directed as a threat.
WRONG: DID YOU NOTICE THE "SECRET" ELEMENTS KNOWN ONLY TO HIM? BESIDES, THERE WAS NEVER ANY VIOLENCE "COUPLED" IN MY CASE.
"So I want the lawyers to understand that without reciting everything that's already clearly Ninth Circuit precedent that's at page 1075, I am applying the Ninth Circuit's test and, in a nutshell, the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally and knowingly communicate the threat once it's been defined to be a threat."
WRONG: WHAT IS A THREAT HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE LAW. AND THAT IS A FACT! AND THE TEST HE APPLIED IS WRONG, TOO. IBID.
A statement that "I will kill you," a statement to "keep your dogs at bay now I'm armed," a statement that "I'm
coming to collect from you personally" when coupled with
pictures of the recipients, of their children, information
about their homes and addresses, is a direct threat that a
reasonable person would perceive to be likely to be perceived
by the recipient -- and these were specific recipients as well
as the public generally -- to provide a risk of violence and a
risk of injury."
WRONG:
NOTICE HOW HE REVERTS BACK TO THE LISTENER [RECIPIENT] TEST?
But then again, I'm officially nutzzzzzz, until certified un-nutzzzzzz in a competent court of the law. So I am waiting on the law, and the certificate required by the law.
But I'm no expert.(.pdf) Anyone see ours, yet? He has our certificate required by the law and I need it to be officially un-nutzzzzzz. And that's a fact!
"I want to kill him. I want his intestines
on a stick. I want to kill his dog." Mel Gibson on Frank
Rich, NY Times writer.
"Michael Moore and I actually have a
lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's
free expression," Clint Eastwood was quoted as telling the
National Board of Review awards dinner in New York Tuesday night.
With a cold glare Eastwood took notice of Moore sitting in the
audience and said bluntly and without a smile: "But, Michael,
if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill
you."
Many
disgruntled ex-employees dream of revenge against their former bosses,
but Steven Sutcliffe, who lost his job at Global Crossing in September
2001, didn't just dream about revenge -- he actually did something
about it. And now he's been convicted of identity theft and making
threats to harm Global Crossing executives, for which he faces a long
stretch up river.
Sutcliffe set up a Website dedicated to making
threats against his former employers, such as former chairman and fat
cat Gary Winnick (see Winnick Walks). But the FBI recently put the
kibosh on Sutcliffe's site, where he allegedly posted messages
threatening to injure his former colleagues -- threats that included
such plangent cris du coeur as 'I will personally send you back to the
hell from where you came.'
