Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jbapple 4146 days ago
What were the threats against the agent and the agent's children? I'm asking because I read some of them ("ruin his life", "look into" his kids), but I'm not sure which of those are protected under the First Amendment.

Broad categories of rude speech are protected under the First Amendment, including things like, IIRC:

1. Saying if President Johnson makes you pick up a gun, he'll be the first in your rifle sight. (Watts v. United States)

2. Telling a cop "I'll kill you, you white devil" while you are in handcuffs and unable to kill him. (? v. ?)

3. Swearing "revengeance" upon the Jews. (Brandenburg v. Ohio)
1 comments
jbapple 4146 days ago
It was "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you", and it was Gooding v. Wilson.
link
eurleif 4146 days ago
And as far as I can tell, it wasn't that what he said was constitutionally protected. It's that the statute he was charged under was unconstitutionally broad, because it prohibited "abusive language" in general. A more specific statute, prohibiting only threats, would have likely been ruled constitutional.
link
jbapple 4146 days ago
I'm not sure about "likely", but upon a closer reading, I agree that the Gooding decision looks like it was mainly about the broadness of the statute. Thanks for noting that.
link
eurleif 4146 days ago
>I'm not sure about "likely"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

link
jbapple 4146 days ago
"threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole". Obviously, I don't know what the court would have held in this case, but it seems possible it would have held that this was "obvious hyperbole".
link
vpeters25 4146 days ago
Could someone with legal background please explain the concept of "protected speech"?

I thought the Constitution is "where the buck stops", the Supreme Law. It takes precedent over any law, legal theory, precedent, tradition, etc.

The first amendment, as written, outright "enjoins" Congress from creating any "exceptions" or define what kinds of speech are actually protected.

I also think the Constitution provides one, and only one way for Congress to modify the 1st amendment so there can be categories of speech that can be "abridged": a constitutional amendment.

So, which kind of legal maneuvering, or reasoning as been used to somehow justify the amending of the 1st amendment without actually amending it?

link