Diane writes from Gotham unhappy with an evil professor who advocates the murder of US soldiers, speculating about whether she perhaps overstated the case with her headline.
Actually, the headline “De Genova is a rapist” does not got nearly far enough. Sexual assault is a nasty and wicked thing, but actively publicly advocating mass murder, trying to whoop up murder against our own people is far beyond.
Like any person not a member of the trial lawyers’ lobby, I detest frivolous lawsuits, but legal action such as Diane advocates is not at all frivolous. It is one thing to say you think the US government is wrong. It is something else to directly and specifically advocate the murder of our soldiers. How much further could you possibly cross the line, other than to personally give the thugs guns and maps to troop locations?
Indeed this seems like it might go past a civil liability issue, and into absolutely felonious criminal activity. If you went out on the corner with a bullhorn and said “Any good (insert group name here)s would get a gun and kill the president, Supreme Court justices, and every member of the US Congress” then you would be commiting a big felony. The feds would lock you up and throw away the key.
Whereas Nicholas de Genova actually says “The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the US military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.” Exactly what is the difference between this and my hypothetical example?
Perhaps there exists some subtle legal distinction here that a smart lawyer could explain showing that these statements somehow do not constitute a criminal attempt at inspiring people to murder. If there is such a distinction, it definitely must be razor thin. Maybe it’s the difference between saying you would be a hero if you kill US soldiers versus saying you should be a hero. Seems like a pretty thin difference.