Blogger creates Facebook page to support alleged cop killers

[OffenseTaken]

Odd thing to contend people might not see this as free speech. If you look at the philly.com article there are certainly people claiming as much.

Blogger who called for murder of D.A., FOP chief surrenders to police

True though, it is clear that everyone in this country shares all of the exact same beliefs when dealing with the Bill of Rights.

There are people who think they can ignore a summons if their name is printed in all caps. I'm more interested in what the courts have said, and it's extremely unlikely that they will accept the defense argument about constitutionally protected speech.

Secondly, I tend to fall on the side of viewing this as constitutionally protected, cough, cough, "satire" as unfunny as it is. He and the "Innocence of Muslims" guy are in a tough neck and neck race for the most mean-spirited, utterly idiotic and intentionally offensive but rightly or wrongly still constitutionally protected speech.

Thats me.

So making a bad video calling someone who died 1,400 years ago a pedophile, because he married an 8-year-old, is no different from openly calling for the violent deaths of people who are alive today? Sorry if I'm not persuaded.

[seand]

Doesn't pass the smell test. Reading his crap, do you think "this person is really urging me to kill these people" or do you think "this person is a complete and utter jerk making a very unfunny joke"? To me its the latter, not even remotely credible as actual solicitation to kill anyone.

[OffenseTaken]

Doesn't pass the smell test. Reading his crap, do you think "this person is really urging me to kill these people" or do you think "this person is a complete and utter jerk making a very unfunny joke"? To me its the latter, not even remotely credible as actual solicitation to kill anyone.

If he publicly praises the actual murder of one local law enforcement official, then it's no longer a joke when he publicly calls for the murder of two more.

[seand]

He's going to argue it was a "parody" rather something anybody would read as a sincere public call for anything whatsoever and after many expensive appeals, he eventually have a more than passable chance of winning. My predicition. We'll see.

Honestly, I probably won't be proud of it as shining moment for the First Amendment in action, but I won't lose a wink of sleep over it either way.

[five apples]

There are people who think they can ignore a summons if their name is printed in all caps. I'm more interested in what the courts have said, and it's extremely unlikely that they will accept the defense argument about constitutionally protected speech.



So making a bad video calling someone who died 1,400 years ago a pedophile, because he married an 8-year-old, is no different from openly calling for the violent deaths of people who are alive today? Sorry if I'm not persuaded.

Ah yes, the change the argument defense.

[OffenseTaken]

Honestly, I probably won't be proud of it as shining moment for the First Amendment in action, but I won't lose a wink of sleep over it either way.

Nor will I. This is not the stuff landmark SCOTUS decisions are made of, and besides, I hate defending Seth Williams for anything.

In any case, Mr. Albert deserves a little credit for apparently never resorting to actual violence in his reckless attention-whoring. I hope he makes it to an age when he can look back on these days and say, "Gee, why was I such a stupid **** back then?"

Ah yes, the change the argument defense.

I didn't at all, but as this thread is no longer interesting to me you'll have to have this snit fit by yourself.

[five apples]

Nor will I. This is not the stuff landmark SCOTUS decisions are made of, and besides, I hate defending Seth Williams for anything.

In any case, Mr. Albert deserves a little credit for apparently never resorting to actual violence in his reckless attention-whoring. I hope he makes it to an age when he can look back on these days and say, "Gee, why was I such a stupid **** back then?"



I didn't at all, but as this thread is no longer interesting to me you'll have to have this snit fit by yourself.

Awe, but than how can we have your wisdom dropped on us.

Anyway if he is found guilty this will make its way up through the courts and at some point the ACLU will probably get involved. To be honest, I am annoyed they are prosecuting this guy when we have so many violent crimes that fall through the cracks. The dude is a douche in need of serious mental medical attention but I don't think he warrants a criminal prosecution.

[thoth]

So making a bad video calling someone who died 1,400 years ago a pedophile, because he married an 8-year-old, is no different from openly calling for the violent deaths of people who are alive today? Sorry if I'm not persuaded.

I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet: Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intent, imminence, and likelihood. I feel like Albert fails on all three counts.

[DCnPhilly]

One person's terroristic threats and harassment is another's freedom of speech.

Having not seen the actual site, I can't say for sure, but did he really encourage people to kill these people.

The guys is a total douche, and what he did at any level is douchey. But I wonder if it really was breaking the law and if this isn't just sort of petty by the cops. I mean, does anyone in this city think the guy is anything other than a douche.

There's a fine line between Free Speech and things like Conspiracy, Terrorism, even Treason, especially when solicitation of murder is involved. There are a lot of morons on the internet who dont realize how far reaching their words are and that they have consequences. This kid could end up in Guantanamo and the more idiots out there that know that the better.