Skip to comments.La Mesa man convicted of threatening pouts has conviction overturned by Ninth Circuit
Posted on 07/27/2011 6:16:32 AM PDT by at bay
"Even if "shoot the ni-" or "he will have a 50 cal in the head soon" could reasonably have been perceived by objective observers as threats within the factual context, this alone would not have been enough to convict Bagdasarian.....The government must also show that he made the statements intending that they be taken as a threat.
A statement that the speaker does not intend as a threat is afforded constitutional protection and cannot be held criminal."
(Excerpt) Read more at ca9.uscourts.gov ...
Some jerk reports this guy to the SS and the game is on. It's a very slippery slope when we start punishing people for stuff I see on Internet comments almost on a daily basis.
POTUS, I believe.
A typo, to be sure, but still works. No law against pouting.
Well, he does pout a lot. It is the stage before his real frowns...
They are called the 9th Circus for a reason. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
He told the FBI: “IF I DON’T GET MY WAY, I SWEAR I WILL SIT IN A CORNER AND POUT.”
Apparently this may be illegal.
I pout threateningly quite often. It depends upon my mood.
It's not a federal crime, according to the Ninth Circuit Vourt.
Gubmint been doing a lot of pouting these days, no?
“They are called the 9th Circus for a reason. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
Last time I checked, not many timepieces are spitting out 34 page well reasoned documents. Another good free speech decision was given in favor of a Santa Cruz local who dared raise his hand in silent protest at their city council meeting and was arrested. The whole ninth practically unanimously ruled in his favor—there ain’t no stinking law against expressing yourself at a city council meeting unless you are truly disruptive.
I don’t disrespect a court that fundamentally guards our first amendment rights day in and day out. Without them, I would have had to emigrate in 2003 as they were all that stood between me and another local tyrannical government.
The 9th Circus? I’m just surprised this case did not involve a threat to W.
Hypothetical talk really should not count as a threat, although it might be a reason to investigate the talker.
Seriously, they have usually been on the wrong side. I’m glad that they get it right every once in a while.
When I tried to see if anyone had posted this yet, I searched “ Bagdasarian” and there was quite a lengthy thread at the time of his original conviction. Most posters were not in favor of the conviction.
I believe in sites self policing, and I don’t hesitate to hit the abuse button herein if something is truly racist. Its important that trolls not be able to post garbage here, and then have others say this is a site with hate speech.
But those of you with an ax to grind against the 9th circuit, why not take the time to get to know the court better? One way is to look up the en Banc (all justices) oral argument in the Norris v City of Santa Cruz.
You can actually listen to it, if not view it as well. A lot of interest during that oral argument, by the justices in preserving our free speech, the cornerstone, IMHO of our personal freedoms.