Posted on 07/03/2005 5:16:10 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
PHOENIX -- The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday that a newspaper cannot be sued for printing a letter that suggested Americans respond to attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq by going to the nearest mosque and killing the first five Muslims they see.
The high court unanimously held that the letter to the editor was political speech protected by the First Amendment. It threw out a lawsuit accusing the Tucson Citizen of intentionally inflicting emotional distress on residents.
Two Tucson men had sued the Gannett Co. newspaper for unspecified damages after it ran the letter in 2003.
The letter frightened some area Muslims enough to keep their children home from religious schools, and protests poured into the newspaper.
Four days later, the Citizen ran an apology and said the letter's author had written a second letter to clarify that his comments referred only to military actions in combat zones.
In fighting the lawsuit, the newspaper said the letter contained no immediate physical threat to anyone and was constitutionally protected. The plaintiffs argued that the letter was a direct call to violence.
Last year, Pima County Superior Court Judge Leslie Miller had allowed the case to proceed, saying, ``Clearly, reasonable minds could differ in determining whether the publication of the letter rose to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.''
Sigh. Good ideas often encounter hostility, at first.
Wouldn't dare wager a bet on the decision if this case landed
in the USSC in its current condition.
With Sandy, they could still reach a compromise.
Five muslims?
How about three muslims?
Okay, four muslims.
You'd think that if it were worth killing someone on account of his status, you'd get all of that class.
Solve for X. The story,stripped of all the judicial razzel dazzel,is about two slimeballs jockeying to scam money by suing someone over a crank letter in the middle of a World War...claiming that ethnic noncombattants are somehow "intimidated" by this .
Good night folks!
Say "Good night" Kent.
Their "holy book" is a direct call to violence.
If this suit had gone in favor of the plaintiffs, couuld anyone sue any muslim?
Please, please tell me this comes with subtitles.
You'd think that if it were worth killing someone on account of his status, you'd get all of that class.
He was probably a hunter, and a good sport...Maybe it was something about bag limits...?
Well, he must have forgotten about that. Guess he could increase the number.
I just realized the guy was probably not a hunter.(Punch line to an old joke):
"Ever try to CLEAN one of those things?"
I'm sorry, I didn't get that. Could you repeat it?
Americans [should] respond to attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq by going to the nearest mosque and killing the first five Muslims they see.
Again?
Americans [should] respond to attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq by going to the nearest mosque and killing the first five Muslims they see.
One more time. I lost my hearing at the Trade Center on 9/11.
AMERICANS [SHOULD] RESPOND TO ATTACKS ON U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ BY GOING TO THE NEAREST MOSQUE AND KILLING THE FIRST FIVE MUSLIMS THEY SEE.
Oh. Yeah, that's a bad idea. Don't do that.
Uh-oh, I'm conflicted. Although I applaud the idea of it, we'd be up in arms if the paper ran a letter from a MuSLUM suggesting their brothers do the same to us infidels. I think the paper was stupid to print the letter regardless of the intent.
Just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you SHOULD or HAVE TO. Unfortunately no one follows that anymore.
If free speech is good enough for ward churchill to suggest murdering our servicemen and women, then it's good enough for a letter to the editor from an "untenured" citizen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.