Freedom speech issues

[trish]

I'm neither a lawyer nor a police officer, though I seem to recall that you (NYBURBS) are. I was wondering about the following. Suppose Mrs. X verbally contracts Mr. Y to murder her husband and pay him the after the deed is done with no money up front. Suppose Mr. Y is stupid enough to accept the deal. I assume that if Mr. Y carries out the deed, both parties can be prosecuted for first degree murder. Even if Mr. Y botches the job and Mr. X survives, I assume both parties can be prosecuted for conspiracy to murder. The weapon, the ammunition, the money withdrawn from the bank by Mrs. X and found in an envelop in her dresser are evidence that the conversation between Mrs. X and Mr. Y was serious, constituted conspiracy and wasn't just a discussion about some fantasy that Mrs. X had. The conspiracy is the verbal contract and the contract consists of speech. If I'm right about all the above, then the moral to be drawn is that the First Amendment is not an impediment to prosecuting Mrs. X, even though all she did was speak. The larger moral is that the First Amendment is not an impediment to prosecution when the judge or the grand jury surmises that the speech in question elicited a crime, or (as in the case of shouting fire) recklessly endangers one or more persons. Language is imprecise and nothing in the Constitution is black and white. As always is the case, judges and juries determine its interpretation within the confines of precedent and discernible meaning.

[hippifried]

The concept is exactly the same. The type of danger that the malicious speech creates is irrelevant to the general concept, just as the target is. Whether there's directed hatred involved is just about the degree of heinousness. That elevates the status of the crime from prank to whatever degree of high misdemeanor or felony, but the main point still stands. Free speech cannot be used as an excuse for putting others in danger. Not ever.

I don't think you understand what "fighting words" are. They're what pisses you off or scares you enough to take violent action toward the speaker. They're not illegal. They're just stupid, & negate any claim you think you might have for redress if you're the speaker who gets bitch slapped. Incitement of violence toward others falls into another category.

A direct conspiracy to murder or injure someone is an entirely different matter. There's no free speech issue involved in any way.

[NYBURBS]

The concept is exactly the same. The type of danger that the malicious speech creates is irrelevant to the general concept, just as the target is. Whether there's directed hatred involved is just about the degree of heinousness. That elevates the status of the crime from prank to whatever degree of high misdemeanor or felony, but the main point still stands. Free speech cannot be used as an excuse for putting others in danger. Not ever.

My point is that almost anything can be considered "hateful," but that it is wrong to criminally prosecute someone for merely stating an opinion or an idea. If one can show some additional action, solicitation, or agreement to bring about a violation of another's personal rights (i.e., murder, assault, destruction of property, etc) then it has in fact transitioned from a mere opinion to that of a conspiracy or accomplice, and of course would be prosecutable. What started this thread was a case brought about because someone stated an opinion, not one in which someone solicited or conspired to harm someone.

I don't think you understand what "fighting words" are. They're what pisses you off or scares you enough to take violent action toward the speaker. They're not illegal. They're just stupid, & negate any claim you think you might have for redress if you're the speaker who gets bitch slapped. Incitement of violence toward others falls into another category.

I think I do know what they are, and I've tried explaining them to you. I'm going to give you two sources to check for yourself:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/315/568/case.html (The 'fighting words case'). Now I don't agree with it, but it is in fact still standing precedent; however, I don't think they would uphold the judgment in this particular case if it came across the court today.

The section of NY law that I referred to earlier (note the bolded part):

Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
Disorderly conduct is a violation.

[NYBURBS]

I'm neither a lawyer nor a police officer, though I seem to recall that you (NYBURBS) are. I was wondering about the following. Suppose Mrs. X verbally contracts Mr. Y to murder her husband and pay him the after the deed is done with no money up front. Suppose Mr. Y is stupid enough to accept the deal. I assume that if Mr. Y carries out the deed, both parties can be prosecuted for first degree murder. Even if Mr. Y botches the job and Mr. X survives, I assume both parties can be prosecuted for conspiracy to murder. The weapon, the ammunition, the money withdrawn from the bank by Mrs. X and found in an envelop in her dresser are evidence that the conversation between Mrs. X and Mr. Y was serious, constituted conspiracy and wasn't just a discussion about some fantasy that Mrs. X had. The conspiracy is the verbal contract and the contract consists of speech. If I'm right about all the above, then the moral to be drawn is that the First Amendment is not an impediment to prosecuting Mrs. X, even though all she did was speak. The larger moral is that the First Amendment is not an impediment to prosecution when the judge or the grand jury surmises that the speech in question elicited a crime, or (as in the case of shouting fire) recklessly endangers one or more persons. Language is imprecise and nothing in the Constitution is black and white. As always is the case, judges and juries determine its interpretation within the confines of precedent and discernible meaning.

Trish, I've never attempted to argue that soliciting or conspiring to commit a murder would be protected speech. A better example, and perhaps more fitting to the topic at hand, would be this:

I state that the world would be better off without Trish- This would be mere opinion, and while perhaps hurtful or even hateful, in itself it is nothing more that the statement of an opinion (and not one that I personally hold, just to be clear lol).

I state that the world would be better off without Trish, and then hand someone a gun and a map of where to find Trish- This goes beyond the scope of mere opinion, and clearly enters into the realm of soliciting a crime.

[robertlouis]

Trish, I've never attempted to argue that soliciting or conspiring to commit a murder would be protected speech. A better example, and perhaps more fitting to the topic at hand, would be this:

I state that the world would be better off without Trish- This would be mere opinion, and while perhaps hurtful or even hateful, in itself it is nothing more that the statement of an opinion (and not one that I personally hold, just to be clear lol).

I state that the world would be better off without Trish, and then hand someone a gun and a map of where to find Trish- This goes beyond the scope of mere opinion, and clearly enters into the realm of soliciting a crime.

I'm curious to know, in this specific context, how you would view Ayatollah Khomeini's wordlwide fatwa on Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses? Was it a hate crime or simply expressing opinion?

[NYBURBS]

I'm curious to know, in this specific context, how you would view Ayatollah Khomeini's wordlwide fatwa on Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses? Was it a hate crime or simply expressing opinion?

"I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book entitled 'Satanic Verses'. . . as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, are hereby sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Moslems to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islamic sanctity. Whoever is killed doing this will be regarded as a martyr and will go directly to heaven."

I'd say that pretty clearly falls in the "solicitation" category lol. More accurately, it is state sanctioned retribution for what someone has deemed to be an offensive position or opinion. It's horribly wrong, and while the Dutch law and prosecutions are not nearly so barbaric, in concept they are also just as wrong.

[robertlouis]

"I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book entitled 'Satanic Verses'. . . as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, are hereby sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Moslems to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islamic sanctity. Whoever is killed doing this will be regarded as a martyr and will go directly to heaven."

I'd say that pretty clearly falls in the "solicitation" category lol. More accurately, it is state sanctioned retribution for what someone has deemed to be an offensive position or opinion. It's horribly wrong, and while the Dutch law and prosecutions are not nearly so barbaric, in concept they are also just as wrong.

Thanks and appreciated.

What about cross-hairs on the maps of your political opponents' hometowns and the use of gun-based metaphors in overheated rhetoric?

Thrilled and relieved to see Gabby Giffords looking so well and on the road to recovery this week.

[NYBURBS]

Thanks and appreciated.

What about cross-hairs on the maps of your political opponents' hometowns and the use of gun-based metaphors in overheated rhetoric?

Thrilled and relieved to see Gabby Giffords looking so well and on the road to recovery this week.

Yea, I think that whole debate was over-hyped and misplaced. I'm no fan of Palin, but both sides routinely used graphics like that. It is perhaps ill-considered, but I'm pretty sure it was more a metaphor for political battles than anything else.

It is good that she is recovering, and I wish her all the best.

[trish]

Yea, I think that whole debate was over-hyped and misplaced. I'm no fan of Palin, but both sides routinely used graphics like that. It is perhaps ill-considered, but I'm pretty sure it was more a metaphor for political battles than anything else.

It is good that she is recovering, and I wish her all the best.

I largely agree on the specifics here. However, there are murkier cases. Websites, for example, which publish the home addresses of abortion providers, call them murderers, claim that the law won't do anything about it and hint at Second Amendment solutions. So far, when doctors are murdered, these sites have successfully hid behind the First Amendment. My guess, however, is that this situation will change if the shooter ever directly attributes his action to such a site. Anyway, it is my personal opinion that those cases should mark the boundary of and be excluded from First Amendment protections.

[hippifried]

I'm curious to know, in this specific context, how you would view Ayatollah Khomeini's wordlwide fatwa on Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses? Was it a hate crime or simply expressing opinion?

Neither. It was a reaction to "fighting words".