I do believe that while the law may allow you to do something it doesn’t mean it is prudent or nice to do it.

I have zero disagreement with that. And the way we point that out is with speech, a social sanction against imprudent and not-nice behavior.

So what happens if this person’s employer were to find out they did this poll of FB and all of a sudden this person was out of a job? When you post such polls are you taking some sort of risk besides the gestapo hauling you off to some secret location in say, Cuba?

What happens if the person is out of a job? That’s an employment law question. It depends on the nature of the employer-employee relationship — to summarize an extremely complex and varied field to the point of being unhelpful, some employees may, in some circumstances, have protection from being fired for speech activity like this. [A complete answer to your question, with all the possible scenarios (private vs. public employee, contract vs. no contract, different jurisdictions, etc.) would take hours and hours.

Suffice it to say that in many circumstances an employer could fire an employee for posting that poll. I don’t have a problem with that, at least for private employees.

Most people would recognize this as a phenomenon of ancient provenance: “kids are assholes.” I expect reaction to be “OMG rightist rage has warped teh chiiilldreeen.”

Well really I do have a question. So what happens if this person’s employer were to find out they did this poll of FB and all of a sudden this person was out of a job? When you post such polls are you taking some sort of risk besides the gestapo hauling you off to some secret location in say, Cuba?

No to a warrant, because I don’t think that there’s probable cause that it’s a true threat, and therefore no probable cause to think that a warrant will yield evidence of a crime. Yes to interviewing friends, family, and employers who are willing to talk — that doesn’t implicate Fourth Amendment rights, and the government is free to ask questions of whomever they want so long as they do so voluntarily.

Obtain search warrants, question friends, family and employers, subpoena bank records??? Would it be OK for a judge to sign off on a search warrant in this case? It starts getting a little hairy. Personally, I think this entire thing is a giant case of pure stupidity. And if stupidity were against the law, these guys would get life sentences. I find it difficult to defend stupidity that rises to this level.

It sounds as if we are on nearly the same page. Yes, the Turner case is a troublesome one. I think Jacob Sullum is right that it is properly analyzed as incitement rather than threat. I’m not sure I agree with him that the incitement is not sufficiently immediate. I’d have to see all the facts (like the proximity of releasing addresses to saying “they should be killed,” for instance) to know.

No, I was just trying to point out why some threats should be taken more seriously than others with respect to our “history”. I doubt any of it rises to the level of criminality. I remember a radio show host who got into a lot of hot water a while back for telling people to stop paying their taxes. I think it was Irv Homer in Philadelphia.

Second, do you think that voting “yes” on a poll asking “should Obama be killed” is reasonably interpreted as a serious expression of intent that the person voting will harm the President? Really?

Of course not. At least not in and of itself. We are talking about investigating and not prosecuting, right? And as far as Free Speech, it was a privately owned site.

There is a case in NJ pending which is similar. Here’s the link to a Libertarian Blog about it. The person made the statement, and then also posted names, addresses, and phone numbers. I’m not comfortable at all, with this one.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134367.html

Are you? It should be an interesting case.

I have no idea what the relevant laws, precedents, etc. are, but it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if any sort of public speech (print or otherwise) using unambiguous language advocating the killing of the president were to be illegal. I don’t see how any good would be removed from public discourse by such a principle.

All killings, or only some killings? What about “George W. Bush should be extradited to the Hague, tried, and executed?” What about “If President Glenn Beck did rape and kill a girl in 1990, he should be impeached, tried, and executed?”

Also, is it your position that this poll was unambiguous language advocating the killing of a President? If I start a poll, does that mean I unambiguously advocate one possible answer?

Then again, I’m not a person who is comfortable with rights language in general

I’m not sure what that means.

Then again, I’m not a person who is comfortable with rights language in general, so I’m a bit out of the mainstream on american political philosophy all around.

Let me make sure I have you right. You think that it is — or should be — illegal to say certain things about some presidents but not others? Or are you saying that whether it is legal, or illegal, depends on the skin color of the President?

Can you find any cases, Freddy, that support the notion that the “true threat” test depends on the level of opposition to the President in question? (Hint: if you read Watts, you’ll find the opposite — that the prevalence of overheated rhetoric makes it less likely that a particular statement can be reasonably interpreted as a true threat.

Second, do you think that voting “yes” on a poll asking “should Obama be killed” is reasonably interpreted as a serious expression of intent that the person voting will harm the President? Really?

As to why the “threats” against BHO are taken more seriously than GWB. Well ,let’s see. We’ve been swinging black folk from trees for many years in this country. Not so much, anymore, but this is American, and we have a rich history.

[Aryan Nations link deleted]