Just as a slightly unrelated example of why such a broad free speech guarantee is necessary, note that things like this occur despite that level of leniency:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/quote-for-the-4.html

Posted at October 8, 2008 1:05 PM in response to Inciting a riot

The imminence requirement that rumpole mentioned above would probably be the issue in such a case. Of course, a candidate personally and specifically calling for an opponent's death is very different from what we've seen recently. Although there is a case to be made for criminal charges in your example, I think a conviction would only be guaranteed if Obama was in the same city or neighborhood as the Palin rally. As far as I know there aren't any precedents for many of the possible versions of this hypothetical--such as a case in which everyone at the rally had a loaded gun or the crowd was full of felons (obviously extreme examples)--so certain facts could alter the outcome. I'm not positive, but I think rumpole is right that the "threats against the president" rule doesn't apply to any other public officials.

Posted at October 8, 2008 1:02 PM in response to Inciting a riot

Yea, rumpole is correct. Minus a clear directive to commit violence, Palin/McCain's speeches are absolutely protected under the First Amendment. Even if Palin, for example, finished a speech by yelling "finish off the traitors once and for all!" or "wipe 'em out" or something similar, I suspect courts would be unwilling to infer that she was calling for violence. I won't go into the whole reasoning behind it here, but I believe the law is exactly as it should be. Although reprehensible and possibly increasing the likelihood of violence in the future, this type of speech should be legally protected. Hatred is an ugly emotion, and I am confident that outbursts of "terrorist" and "kill him" will ensure that the larger ideas behind the candidates' incitements will fail in the marketplace of ideas.

Posted at October 8, 2008 11:12 AM in response to Inciting a riot

Wow, at least a few of these need to be posts of their own. (1) Those are some pretty big leads for Obama in Penn., Ohio, and Florida. That's the election if those numbers hold. (2) Kudos to the Register for not sucking for a change. (3) Damn right I'm pissed about the prospect of an "normal Joe six-pack" as VP. That's effing ludicrous.

Posted at October 1, 2008 9:08 AM in response to Election Central Morning Roundup

Not to be overly critical, but I found this line hilarious:

"I have to say, it's typical of a baby boomer to frame things in generational terms."

Posted at September 10, 2008 5:17 PM in response to Dear Twenty-somethings, Please Save Us!

I think this post is precisely the type of thing that is needed to mobilize my age group (and increase the Democratic base for the future).

Too often the "youth never show up so they won't this time" claims are self-fulfilling, in my opinion.

Locally (including the Iowa caucuses this January) I have noticed that youth turnout will increase if kids think their effort matters. Before the primary season, national and local media pushed the story that Obama's outreach to younger voters could tip the scales, focusing especially on college students. I honestly believe the youth vote will thrive if more of the spotlight is shone on our participation.

Obama has younger voters excited to be a part of the process, but that enthusiasm needs to be nurtured and encouraged. Whether or not such a view is justified, some younger voters subconsciously equate "your generation won't show up, so you won't make a difference" with "your vote doesn't matter." I think the attitude behind posts like this are necessary for proving that old adage wrong.

Posted at September 10, 2008 5:16 PM in response to Dear Twenty-somethings, Please Save Us!

I don't post too often because nothing seems to stay up long enough to make a difference (unless, apparently, it relates to birth fluids). Of course an internal server error that triples the overall output makes it next to impossible to see what people have posted.

Please do repost this in the morning--I think there are a lot of people who will be interested in the story, and this will definitely disappear long before then. I don't have the discipline to do it, unfortunately.

I think you're right---"sad" seems to be the most apt word for the terrible propaganda attempts now coming from the once height of objectivity in reporting.

Posted at September 1, 2008 10:46 PM in response to AP Feels the Heat - Issues Fournier Talking Points

I did it again....YAAAYYY!

Posted at September 1, 2008 9:32 PM in response to AP Feels the Heat - Issues Fournier Talking Points

As I posted here (three times no less!):

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/the-aps-new-fournier-talking-p-2.php

I actually think this is good. They basically admit they have no argument with such weak talking points. They're also essentially admitting that the complaints are working. Hopefully the pressure keeps up and it's just a matter of time until changes come.

Posted at September 1, 2008 9:28 PM in response to AP Feels the Heat - Issues Fournier Talking Points

As I posted here (three times no less!):

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/the-aps-new-fournier-talking-p-2.php

I actually think this is good. They basically admit they have no argument with such weak talking points. They're also essentially admitting that the complaints are working. Hopefully the pressure keeps up and it's just a matter of time until changes come.

Posted at September 1, 2008 9:22 PM in response to AP Feels the Heat - Issues Fournier Talking Points