Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater and get away with it?
If the Bush Administration was deciding, it would likely depend on whether you were a liberal or a conservative.
Universal Press Syndicate columnist Ann Coulter "joked" during a Thursday speech that liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.
"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."
And by all accounts, no action was taken against Coulter, save for a smattering of boos from the audience.
Christian conservative leader and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson declared a fatwa on Aug. 22, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said of Chávez on his show, The 700 Club. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Robertson first lied about what he said, claiming the Associated Press "misrepresented" his words. He later apologized. And again, by all accounts, no action was taken against him.
Now, JABBS is completely in favor of free speech. A favorite movie moment is the speech given by Michael Douglas' character, President Andrew Shepherd, at the end of the 1995 film, The American President:
DOUGLAS: America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RedTard
As many of your posts demonstrate, you're not really concerned with the facts or a balanced view but I'll provide that for you anyway. Your article is comparing apples to oranges.
The secret service, whose job it is to protect the president, did not close the exibit or remove the bumper sticker, or infringe on anyone's right to free speech at all. They did they're job.
The secret service does not protect Justice Stevens or Hugo Chavez. I think that Chavez takes the threat of assassination very seriously. I don't think a joke by Ann Coulter would cause Justice Stephens to designate a food tester at this time.
2 - gonzo marx
well now, David has provided pertinent links to each of his assertations, and the points he has made in his Opinions are clear and concise
some folks may have problems with what he has said, but overall...good stuff here, if for no other reason than food for Thought
i know a bit about what the secret service's job entails...and it IS part of their job to investigate threats...
according to the links provided, none of these incidents were threats...
just a Thought
Excelsior!
3 - david r. mark
JABBS doesn't expect, nor does it desire, to have Coulter or Robertson visited by Secret Service agents or arrested. But a consistent interpretation of the law would be appreciated.
>>
Isn't that a clear enough point, RedTard?
Which is the greater threat: suggesting the murder of a SC justice, or holding up an anti-Bush sign at a rally?
Which is the greater threat: suggesting the assassination of a foreign leader, or having a bumper sticker on your car?
Indeed, these are not apples to apples.
4 - Dave Nalle
So when you're sitting in your car do you talk to yourself and think you're having a conversation with JABBS?
Dave
5 - david r. mark
Apparently, you have run out of things to bitch about, huh?
6 - Matthew T. Sussman
Free speech is one thing. Speaking in front of an audience who likes him is another. Spontaneous criticism is obviously one of his flaws, but hey, he won the election.
Although because of this he has to be extra careful who he lets in every speech from then on out, which is too bad but we all come to expect it. Plus he can never appear on the Daily Show. (Le sigh.)
But I don't see a link between screening a Republican audience and being inconsistent about 1A.
7 - gonzo marx
et tu , Suss?
have you so quickly forgottwen the verifiable facts that all of these so called "town hall meetings" were not only security screened, but all attendees had to actually sign "loyalty oaths"
ponder that , my friend...
Excelsior!
8 - david r. mark
Matthew, that's a whole other argument. I'm not talking about pre-screened audiences for "town hall meetings," or loyalty oaths -- although I've written at length on those before.
The point is simply that there's an inconsistency. To me, what Coulter and Robertson said should raise the same First Amendment questions as what the various anti-Bush protesters said/did.
9 - david r. mark
you're not really concerned with the facts>>
Please note any "facts" that are incorrect, RedTard. I'd be happy to correct anything.
Did Coulter not make the statement? Did Robertson not make his? Do you dispute the truthfulness of the accounts of the various anti-Bush protesters? Did I misquote the dialogue from the movie?
Of course not. What you really are saying is that you don't agree with me, and therefore I must be wrong.
Then you misstate my argument, and knock down that straw man.
Do you guys all go to some Ken Mehlman boot camp?
10 - RedTard
That's an interesting take GM. There is more than one way to lie. I suppose we are much more critical of arguments that are against that come from other viewpoints than those who agree with us.
A purposeful misrepresentation has been made in several of these stories to make them appear worse than they are. I think that is just as bad, or worse than, an outright lie.
The bumper sticker guy was interviewed because his neighbors called him in as a threat. I know that's not as exciting as imagining some evil government agent tailing people with Kerry stickers, but it's way closer to the truth. When the Secret Service has a threat called in they have a duty to investigate and they did.
Military blogs are only restricted from posting information with actual intelligence value. The example given is that of showing of weapon damage on tanks. This gives the enemy knowledge of the weak spots and how to destroy our equipment. The military was right to shut down the blog. Some overzealous leftwing media may think it is an infringement but I view it as common sense.
The T-shirt incident is the closest to being an actual infringement. I don't think that can be pinned on this administration however. The officers who made the arrest were not federal, and the secret service denies ordering the arrest. A couple went to a Bush rally meaning to cause trouble and when they did they filed a lawsuit and started whining.
His three examples are completely lame. He then tries somehow to compare that to some statements about Chavez and a joke by Ann Coulter. It simply irritates me that some people will skim this and really think that the secret service is turning into the Gestapo. Although it may not be an outright lie it is very, very far from the truth.
11 - david r. mark
RedTard: "It simply irritates me that some people will skim this and really think that the secret service is turning into the Gestapo."
JABBS: JABBS doesn't expect, nor does it desire, to have Coulter or Robertson visited by Secret Service agents or arrested.
Build a straw man, knock it down. Congrats, RedTard. You have learned well from the GOP spin-meisters.
12 - Matthew T. Sussman
Did the loyalty oaths come with ball gags? 'Cause that would be hot.
In all honesty I did forget about that. It's just another precaution which sounds like they're overdoing it, but still not a 1A violation, I think.
And if I were to run, it's not a policy I would implement. Then again, what do I know about campaigns? I never won a student council election in my life.
13 - david r. mark
RedTard first says I'm not concerned with facts. Yet, he is unable to cite any factual errors.
Then he says I misrepresent events to make them appear worse than they are.
I provide a list of relevant items, with links to the original stories. I don't use any unusual language to describe the events. I don't minimize the events -- it's not like I avoid mentioning that the mock postage stamps include one depicting Bush with a gun pointed at his head.
Who exactly is committing a "purposeful misrepresentation"?
14 - david r. mark
Matthew, I didn't bring up the loyalty oaths or the pre-screened events because I don't think it's relevant to this story.
However, I have always found it unusual that the Bush Administration would take those steps, when historically, no other politician -- Democrat or Republican -- has done so.
My feeling has always been that Bush/Cheney do themselves no favors by speaking to such audiences. It just suggests they don't have enough confidence in their arguments to withstand the potential of criticism or booing.
15 - Matthew T. Sussman
They aren't helping their popularity, that's for sure. Yet there in the White House he lives. Maybe there's no correlation. Maybe they won despite during a deaf ear to criticism and anti-Bush tees. Maybe Scott McClellan has no comment, as this is part of an ongoing conversation.
But since I'm not a military veteran, I'm not allowed to comment on the war under penalty of being labeled a chickenhawk, so neither can I say whether shutting down a milblog for security purposes is justified.
As for the SS coming to "visit" (that's a great euphemism) people portraying the death of the president, I don't know. That's probably overdoing it. It's probably standard procedure. But if they're getting this information from wiretaps, then let's just give them more gobbledygook to sort through, shall we?
Ahem:
"I would like to murder President Bush" is an example of something that will prompt in Secret Service agents throwing you in pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
16 - Dave Nalle
JABBS: JABBS doesn't expect, nor does it desire, to have Coulter or Robertson visited by Secret Service agents or arrested.
When you buy a plane ticket do you get a second one next to you for JABBS? Does he like a window or an aisle seat?
Dave
17 - RedTard
"Who exactly is committing a purposeful misrepresentation?"
You are purposefully ignoring the fact that the Secret Service only investigates threats against the limited protectees including the president, not comedic banter about judges or threats against foreigners (except when in this country). You made a bold accusation about this administration and you provided absolutely no reasonable evidence to back it up.
Your article may be factually correct but it doesn't logically support your title either.
18 - david r. mark
RedTard, you keep ignoring this sentence in the article:
"JABBS doesn't expect, nor does it desire, to have Coulter or Robertson visited by Secret Service agents or arrested."
19 - david r. mark
Dave Nalle, regarding #4 and #16: my use of the word "JABBS" is a writing style in keeping with newspaper policy editorials. "It is the opinion of the Post/Times/Gazette."
But please, keep telling lame jokes.
20 - david r. mark
RedTard goes from claiming I'm not concerned with facts to admitting the article is "factually correct." Bravo.
I expect there to be disagreement with my opinion. But maybe next time, you'll skip the hyperbole and misrepresentation, and instead try to have a meaningful discussion.
Here's a question: is there no action to be taken against Coulter or Robertson? Their comments are nationally known, and have far greater impact than a bumper sticker or an art exhibit.
As a country, we regularly question free speech. People are regularly put in jail for protesting. In 2004, thousands in NYC were arrested for protesting the RNC convention, for example.
Again, I'm not suggesting Coulter or Robertson should be jailed for their comments, but don't you see an inconsistency? Is this equal punishment under the law? Who is posing the bigger threat?
21 - alethinos59
We haven't had free speech in this country since it has been allowed to sue someone into silence. The perfect example was the book IN THE SPIRIT OF CRAZY HORSE, about the AIM movement and the killing of two FBI agents at Wounded Knee. The book, by Peter Matthiessen, a very respected writer who had published lots of books via Viking Press found that it was facing a massive lawsuit by the then governor of South Dakota. Even though all the facts in the case had been
meticulously proven, with practically a book's worth of references in the back of the tome - much of it via the Freedom of Information act, Viking couldn't handle the cost of a protracted court case. So Peter and Viking gave in and the book was PULLED from shelves. It became nearly impossible to find it - even in libraries.
I personally called Viking Press and was told by the head internal librarian there that "no such book was published by Viking." I said, "Ma'am, I have the ISBN number right here" and read it to her. She looked it up and was shocked.
Looooooooonnngg story short eventually Viking was able to re-publish the book.
Odd, that the federal judge who heard the last appeal by LEONARD PELTIER and who denied Peltier's attorney's from using ALL of the evidence from all the previous trials... Became head of the FBI less than two years later...
Nice reward...
You get those for going above and beyond the call of duty in shutting down free speech...
22 - troll
* I suppose we are much more critical of arguments that are against that come from other viewpoints than those who agree with us.*
editorial note: when using the Royal 'We' be sure to capitalize
troll
23 - Dave Nalle
Here's a question: is there no action to be taken against Coulter or Robertson? Their comments are nationally known, and have far greater impact than a bumper sticker or an art exhibit.
No action was taken against the leftists you mention in your article. Why should any action be taken against Robertson or Coulter. But if you just want fairness, kick Robertson out the next time he shows up at a moveon.org rally and ask Coulter why she has a bumper sticker scoffing at democrats next time you see her.
The point being that nothing meaningful was actually done to any of these people even though a couple of them made what was perceived as worth investigating as a terroristic threat against the president - but after investigation nothing was actually done to them.
Dave
24 - david r. mark
The point being that nothing meaningful was actually done to any of these people>>
Even brief jail time, or a visit from the Secret Service, is something. It's more than Coulter or Robertson got.
25 - Scott Butki
So let me see if I have this straight - you think the Secret Service should visit Coultier or Robertson even though the SS is supposed to be protecting the president and neither of those windbags threatened the president?
I mean, I can understand frustration on how liberal protestors were treated but how does that justify harrassing idiots on the other end of the political spectrum?