Is threatening to kill the President a crime or not? I always thought it was, but apparently, it's not that simple. Obviously, it is if you're serious, but who determines that? What are the criteria for deciding if someone is to be treated as a harmless prankster or a serious contender for Alcatraz? And, isn't the seemingly innocent act of joking about it a crime in itself? Not to mention, if it's a crime to joke about a bomb in an airport, surely it must be a crime to joke about assassinating the President, right? Not exactly.
According to Ed Donovan, Director of Public Affairs for the Secret Service, and free speech advocates nationwide, it's a considerably grey area. "Each case is investigated and a determination is made as to whether or not the threat is real," said Mr. Donovan. I asked, "Isn't the act itself, joking or not, a felony?" He responded by saying, "It depends on whether or not charges are ultimately brought," and concluded with, "You'd have to ask an attorney."
If the Secret Service can't tell you whether or not it's a crime to threaten the life of the President, in any manner, who can?
The law states, "Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States."
Nowhere does it mention, "All charges will be dropped if you then yell, "Gotcha!"
But, maybe it should. As, in this day and age, with literally billions of tweets and posts and blogs and texts being posted and pasted and tweeted and texted to points across the globe every day, there seems to be a massive grey area when it comes to determining what violates a person's right to free speech as protected by the First Amendment, and what constitutes a legitimate threat of violence?
A perfect example is the unconscionably asinine, and blatantly racist, Facebook post authored by fervent Tea Party supporter and failed California Councilman, Jules Manson, calling for the assassination of President Obama, as well as his wife and kids.
By now, many have seen the virulent post - which has since been removed, but not before Manson received hundreds of outraged emails and a snapshot of the message was taken and posted online.
After being pinned with his back to the social media wall, Manson replied "Once you have taken the position that anyone should be imprisoned for careless emotionally driven remarks that had no real substance, you deserve what your government has become."
Were they simply careless remarks or were they legitimately threatening? You decide:
"It must be countered with assassinations onto them and their children... Assassinate the f----n n---- (N-word) and his monkey children."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a threat was knowingly made if the maker comprehended the meaning of the words uttered by him. (Check). It was willingly made, if in addition to comprehending the meaning of his words (Check), the maker voluntarily and intentionally uttered them as a declaration of apparent determination to carry them into execution.
Okay, maybe not Manson, himself, but are you telling me the above rant doesn't read eerily similar to a Muslim extremist seeking potential martyrs? It even reads 'Biblical'.
I'm all for forgiving careless words said in the heat of the moment. Heck, I want to kill everyone at Cablevision every time my Internet goes down. But, there's a clear difference between "careless" remarks made in anger, and racially motivated slurs designed to inspire an "open call" to violence against anyone, let alone the President of the United States. Manson's extremist words were put out there for any right-wing lunatic to take and make his mission statement, as if they needed any more help. To me, what Manson said reads like a textbook Fatwa.
You also need to take into consideration who said it. This did not come from some stoned high school kid posting on his parent's laptop. It came from a well-educated, politically motivated, right-wing businessman and politician. Would others be apt to act upon his words once sent into cyberspace, as opposed to the rants of a kid or drunken crackpot?
It certainly seems we need to work on defining the parameters of a 'credible threat' when it pertains to matters of any type of violence -be it domestic, kids on kids, and especially against the Commander-in-Chief. And especially when it concerns a "Manson."
No comments:
Post a Comment