In the 1969 case, BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, the KKK leaders convictions were overturned because "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." This may have applied before 9/11 but according to the new definitions, it does not. The new definition of an act of terrorism is:
Title 6 : Section 101 as:
"(15) The term ''terrorism'' means any activity that -
(A) involves an act that -
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive
of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State or other subdivision of the United
States; and
(B) appears to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/6/chapters/1/sections/section%5F101.htmlThere is no distinction in this definition on what First Amendment protections violators enjoy. Does the BRANDENBURG v. OHIO ruling protect Robertson? Or should we be looking to the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire ruling where it states:
"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. 2 There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention <315 U.S. 568, 572> and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. 3 These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. 4 It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 5 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 , 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 128 A.L.R. 1352."
But both of these cases are irrelevant in regards to Roberts call for Assassination of Chavez as he has clearly broken the law:
Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c)
"Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=875Not only does the Patriot Act define him as a terrrorist, U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2331 has no such provision for the first amendment. In fact it is clearly defined in several different places and offers no definition of First Amendment protection.
"(1) the term ''international terrorism'' means activities that
-
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States,
or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;Pat Robertson should be charged with violating Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c). I think bringing him up on terrorism charges may be a bit harsh but well within the legal framework and so far to my knowledge, there are no cases which define those protections offered by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
