Ted Nugent: Free Speech or Death Threat?

[aerius]

Vendetta much?

Take it to the mods and see how far it gets you. You were wrong, laughably so I might add.
I used it as an educational opportunity to show how stupid and absurd your opinions are.

[Flagg]

And yet he has never acted on them, the last I checked. It's stupid and he deserves a smack across the head for it but jail, not so much.

Umm, the whole point of laws against making threats are that the person making them be stopped from acting on said threats. Should we wait for him to take a shot at Obama before acting, or can we get our heads out of our asses and recognize a threat where we see one?

To put this in context, this was said at the national NRA convention in front of people who despise Obama and own guns. If you watch the video it's clearly not said in jest and he goes at length to describe how he views Obama and anyone who supports him as traitors. This was a threat.

Talk is cheap. There are steps in between jail people who mouth off idiotically and wait until shooting starts to intervene. Given his history of blathering like that and never taking any action, he's not likely to follow through. Now if he started trying to find President Obama's schedule and trying to stalk him, then the Secret Service should whisk him away. But until he takes steps like that, I don't think there's cause to jail him.

How is it cheap? I mean if he had flat out said "I'm going to kill Obama if he's reelected" is that enough? Does the fact that he was vague and roundabout in pretty much saying exactly that excuse it somehow?

[Panzersharkcat]

How is it cheap? I mean if he had flat out said "I'm going to kill Obama if he's reelected" is that enough? Does the fact that he was vague and roundabout in pretty much saying exactly that excuse it somehow?

Because he hasn't actually done anything but blather on, even if he went and said it more directly. Now if he actually started making plans, like stalking him, then it's time for the Secret Service to step in and whisk him away. Until then, he's just mouthing off like an idiot like the people back in the 2004 election claiming they'll move to Canada if Bush won. There's obviously a great deal of difference, namely they're not threatening to end somebody's life, but it's just talk, nonetheless. This is not to say that I would disapprove of the Secret Service paying him a visit to tell him what a colossal idiot he's being and keeping an eye on him in case he does start making more definite plans. I'm just saying this is not something worth jailing him over.

[Flagg]

He's made threatening statements in the past, as well. Like saying Obama could suck on the barrel of his machinegun.

Well then the Secret Service has almost certainly opened a file on him in the past... and that could actually help him get out of this if they've judged him not a credible threat before. If they think he's serious before and now he'll be a lot more likely to end up facing some kind of charge, but generally the Secret Service is very reluctant to do so because the fact is talk is cheap and the real threats generally come from silent types. These statements were not totally ambiguous, but not completely explicit either which means a trial conviction would be uncertain. Charges have been filed against IIRC at least one person for making verbal or written threats against Obama so far, maybe more, but its really really uncommon. If the US tried to put everyone who made a threat against the president on trial we'd end up with every Secret Service agent busy giving testimony and nobody out guarding him.. as can you imagine how many are made online every single day? Statistically most US domestic terrorists don't talk or put out written demands/statements until after they've made at least one attack and that's why the people who talk about it generally are sent off with a warning they are being watched.

Does a death threat have to be "credible" for it to be a crime? I mean the only reason we have to believe that he's not serious when he says he is going to kill Obama is that he hasn't done it.

[Panzersharkcat]

Does a death threat have to be "credible" for it to be a crime? I mean the only reason we have to believe that he's not serious when he says he is going to kill Obama is that he hasn't done it.

I think that's a pretty good reason to believe he's just talking. The worst you can get him on is incitement if something does happen.

[Gandalf]

It stops being hyperbole when you threaten a mans life.

I keep waiting for this to be ruled on in a court somewhere.

Freedom of speech laws are being used to protect the Phelps' and their actions, as well as Fox lying on air. It seems like this kind of threat is a few good lawyers away from being all fine and legal unless it's ridiculously specific and explicit.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't really think this sort of thing should be punishable by jail time, on general principles: the presidency is too imperial as it is. If he were making these threats directly (i.e. mail the White House), or if there were credibility that he weren't just a blowhard, I could maybe see the argument for pressing charges. But as it stands, I think a "close call, close attention" approach by the Secret Service, with the visit mentioned earlier and so on... I think that's enough.



Also:

So... you really think that if Obama is re-elected, the US will turn into a suburb of Indonesia in four years' more time, Choc? It's amazing how non-Indonesian the place is after four years of him in office now.

[Gandalf]

I don't really think this sort of thing should be punishable by jail time, on general principles: the presidency is too imperial as it is. If he were making these threats directly (i.e. mail the White House), or if there were credibility that he weren't just a blowhard, I could maybe see the argument for pressing charges. But as it stands, I think a "close call, close attention" approach by the Secret Service, with the visit mentioned earlier and so on... I think that's enough.

Could he rule that it's part of his performance, and get around this kind of rule? It's like smoking as part of a show in nonsmoking clubs in California if it's part of one's act?

People go to a Ted Nugz show not just to see the hits of thirty years ago, but also the angry ranting.

[Flagg]

I don't really think this sort of thing should be punishable by jail time, on general principles: the presidency is too imperial as it is. If he were making these threats directly (i.e. mail the White House), or if there were credibility that he weren't just a blowhard, I could maybe see the argument for pressing charges. But as it stands, I think a "close call, close attention" approach by the Secret Service, with the visit mentioned earlier and so on... I think that's enough.

Could he rule that it's part of his performance, and get around this kind of rule? It's like smoking as part of a show in nonsmoking clubs in California if it's part of one's act?

People go to a Ted Nugz show not just to see the hits of thirty years ago, but also the angry ranting.

Maybe if he said it at a concert? But he didn't, it was at an NRA convention during a hate filled rant. I urge you to watch the tape.

It's NSFW so here's a link: You Tube.

[Gandalf]

Maybe if he said it at a concert? But he didn't, it was at an NRA convention during a hate filled rant. I urge you to watch the tape.

It's NSFW so here's a link: You Tube.

Well there goes that theory.

Just to avert any possible misunderstandings, I'm not defending any of Nugent's bullshit. He clearly broke the law. I just find it a fascinating law.

[weemadando]

Wait what? THIS administration is responsible for military casualties, criminality and lies?

Good to know that they were secretly running their puppet regime from 2001-2008.

[Stark]

Where in the world does free speech mean you can say anything at all and it's ok? The lost isle of Libertopia?

[Sea Skimmer]

Where in the world does free speech mean you can say anything at all and it's ok? The lost isle of Libertopia?

All the US consitution says is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since abridge means reduce in scope or curtail rather then remove completely, you can in fact argue that this means you can say anything. Side effect maybe of having the supreme law of the land written by violent rebels in an era when dueling was still somewhat commonplace so personal bodily threats just weren't the same thing as today.

The US Supreme court has ruled meanwhile in separate cases that freedom of speech can only be restricted in the case of true threats, specific attempts to intimidate, or if you can show specific bodily harm that would be caused such as publishing classified documents that mattered like positions of troops, rather then say the Pentagon Papers dealing with stuff years old. One or two other cases might exist that I am forgetting about. Intent must be proven in each threat case, it can't be assumed in the law for specific acts.

Basically in this case you have to prove that a person who personally saw the threat be made would believe the person making it was going to personally carry it out. You do not have to prove that the defendant actually was going to carry out the threat. This is a big problem for a criminal case in this matter, because most people would not believe he was actually seriously going to go kill Obama months from now if we won reelection. One could more easily believe that he hoped to inspire other people to do his dirty work for him, but he does not use language that explicitly encourages others, and the language is also at least partly theoretical.

[Stark]

Thanks for that. I guess that's why I can say absolutely anything I like in America, right? Because CONSTITUTION. :v

[Sea Skimmer]

That was kind of the point. Certainly it seems like you can say more in the US then you could in some other democratic countries with more clear cut laws.

Now... go forward to only 1798 when the US first found itself at war with someone other then Indians, the French, and the SEDITION ACT was passed which made sedition a crime in speech and print. However it expired in 1801 and was never used. So it wasn't until the US passed the Espionage Act in 1917, in a climate of actual German spying and sabotage with several ammo plants and docks blown up prior to the US entry into the war that laws that seriously hindered free speech began to be passed that didn't expire, and we didn't see many trials let alone supreme court cases until after WW2. As a result even in the 2000s we still saw the supreme court trying to decide some rather important limits on free speech. The general trend is for convictions to be struck down, but not always. Of course even in striking down a conviction the court still establishes more rules on what the limits are.

Now Abraham Lincoln, our GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER, had no need for the constitution, because he had to protect the Union FIRST so the constitution had a home! So he actually had civilians arrested by military personal far behind the front lines and tried in military courts and sentenced to death during the US Civil War for publishing seditious newspapers in the north. However none of the sentences were carried out, and the arrests and trials and basis of the convictions (it was ruled they showed no direct harm IIRC, besides just being illegal uses of the military) were ruled unconstitutional just after the war ended. This is when the court first said you had to show a direct link between speech and harm inflicted, and not just a possibility of threat as far as print went. They also said context mattered a great deal, and military arrests could not be justified so deep in the Union rear.

The Bush administration BTW, used those cases rather heavily in its legal briefs justifying Gitmo and its use of military trials.

[Ford Prefect]

I guess school projects are more worrying than a gun rights activist shouting at gun owners.

[SCRawl]

The exchange with Chocula and Flagg has been excised and HoS'd for now. That exchange will not be further referenced or continued in this thread.

[Simon_Jester]

I guess school projects are more worrying than a gun rights activist shouting at gun owners.

I hope not; if the Secret Service is going to be psychotically overzealous, then we should at least get some good out of it. Did they manage to respond to the kid's project within one day, though?

[SCRawl]

I mean if he had flat out said "I'm going to kill Obama if he's reelected" is that enough? Does the fact that he was vague and roundabout in pretty much saying exactly that excuse it somehow?

To answer these questions, in order: "yes" and "not applicable". Uttering death threats is a crime pretty much everywhere. The premise of your second question is rejected because Nugent did not "pretty much [say] exactly that." The business about chopping off heads in November was referring to voting, and the passage about him being "dead or in jail" is nowhere near explicit enough to be considered a threat.

[Flagg]

I already conceded that the Braveheart comment was hyperbole. But why would he be dead or in jail? Suicide or unpaid parking tickets? Given the context and the wild-eyed ranting before and after the comments in question I think it's a pretty clear threat. But I'll readily admit I don't know if it is illegal as such, since I think he was just a cunthair vague enough to get away with a visit from his friendly neighborhood Secret Service agents.

[SCRawl]

A visit from the Secret Service? Sure, sounds like a prudent thing to do. They investigate threats to the president, and act according to those investigations. But that's not what you were suggesting earlier: you said that Nugent ought to be in jail -- and by jail I assume you meant prison, after having been convicted of a crime -- for his comments. This requires something far more serious than a screed whose meaning could be stretched to mean almost anything.

[Flagg]

I do think he should be in jail. From a moral standpoint at least. The guy has publicly threatened the duly elected Presidents life, solely because he disagrees with him, on 2 occasions now. He may not have violated the letter of the law but as was said before he sure as hell violated its spirit.

[Flagg]

You guys are ignoring how he said he'd "either be dead or in jail this time next year". For what exactly?

King Obama's extrajudicial execution and indefinite detention programs are something that should worry anyone who is concerned about liberty or tyranny, which happens to include people like Nugent.

Funny how he didn't seem that concerned when Chimpus Caesar was doing much of the same shit.

In other news, he keeps digging that hole deeper.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Now... go forward to only 1798 when the US first found itself at war with someone other then Indians, the French, and the SEDITION ACT was passed which made sedition a crime in speech and print. However it expired in 1801 and was never used.

Pardon?

[Simon_Jester]

You guys are ignoring how he said he'd "either be dead or in jail this time next year". For what exactly?

King Obama's extrajudicial execution and indefinite detention programs are something that should worry anyone who is concerned about liberty or tyranny, which happens to include people like Nugent.

Do you consider Nugent's prediction realistic?