Free speech violation or not?

Raleigh, N.C. — A man facing a federal charge for allegedly threatening Raleigh Mayor Nancy McFarlane has asked a judge to drop the case. Alec Dane Redner's attorney, John Wiles, filed the motion to dismiss Monday, saying that prosecuting Redner violates his First Amendment protection of political speech because his statement to the mayor was not a "true threat" of violence. Redner was indicted March 17 on a charge of communicating a threat against an individual for allegedly sending McFarlane a message through her website. According to police, Redner told her to "watch out" and that she would soon be "on the other end of the barrel."

wral

I understand that making a direct threat is illegal. I don't understand why the comment this man made would be punishable by law. Seems like this will open the door to making anything that "could" be interpreted as a threat punishable by law. Seems to be a bit over reaching IMO and a clear violation of this mans rights.

Either way I hope he wins

Thoughts?

ooops misread.... re-read and changed my mind.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

It would be interesting to see the entire narrative and not just the media's abbreviated version. Oh course, in no way should he directly or indirectly threaten the mayor but sometimes words can be misconstrued.

originally posted by: elevatedone
ooops misread.... re-read and changed my mind.

NO! Say it isn't true. elevatedone made a mistake?????

Back on topic. Posting to someone to, watch out, and they'll be on the other end of the barrel, can be taken several ways.

Both are threatening. One being less than the other, depending on how you took the threat. In this day and age, free speech or not, using the example of a gun in a threat, is not the wisest of moves.

Look what throwing a shoe at someone can get you...

Des

If somebody said that to me, I'd take it as a threat.

a reply to: Destinyone

Yes but there was no obvious intent shown in his comment.

Also, isn't that exactly what Americans are expected to do if those in power are violating the constitution? All the man was really saying is that continued infringements on the US constitution would bring such reaction IMO.

IDK I can kind of see both sides. F-it! fight the power! Free the Patriot! lol

Redner was indicted March 17 on a charge of communicating a threat against an individual for allegedly sending McFarlane a message through her website. According to police, Redner told her to "watch out" and that she would soon be "on the other end of the barrel." But Wiles argues in the motion that Redner was warning McFarlane that if she continued "'mak[ing] a joke of the U.S. Constitution,' she 'soon …will' make such jokes 'at the other end of a barrel,' and that she should 'watch out.'" "Nowhere does the communication say or suggest that its sender personally stands behind the communication as a, much less as the, potential future actor to cause the recipient to be on the 'other end of the barrel,'" according to the motion. "It does not express the sender's serious expression of intent to do harm to Mayor McFarlane. It does not even express a serious desire that someone else do harm to Mayor McFarlane." The filing cites a 1966 case having to do with a statement a man made about shooting then-President Lyndon B. Johnson. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the man's conviction after finding that the statement was political hyperbole and was not "communicating a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence." After Redner's federal indictment, Wake County prosecutors dropped state charges of communicating threats and threatening an executive, legal or court officer. Also dropped was an obstruction of justice charge stemming from allegations that the 27-year-old sent his mother a letter from jail instructing her to destroy a laptop that he said he hid in her home. Read more at www.wral.com...

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Allegorical threats are not threats. To outlaw allegorical threats would be to outlaw teenagers from playing video games.

It is also not illegal to threateningly vocalize a line in the sand. To do so would be to outlaw businessmen, politicians, and police.

What if i said, " Hey Obama.. Watch out.. you might soon be on the other end of my barrel ! "

No, this is not a direct threat because it was not said TO Obama. I'm being facetious in my statement above of course.

These words could mean many things such as " I'm gunning for you" Opps.. er.. perhaps that wont work..LOL er

How about.. " I have you on my short list" or " We The People gonna get you corrupt politician suckers (in court may be implied although not specified)"

It doesn't have to mean a threat of violence with a firearm.

All of the expressions like Gunning for you or Got you in my sights or gunning for you with both barrels etc have all been widely used to denote going after people in other ways besides by shooting them. There is NO WAY this can stick.

I think we all feel passionate about things at one time or another, unfortunately it is all too easy to take to the internet or social media and express our opinions. Sometimes, not quite articulating what we are trying to express. Although, once it is out there it is out there.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

I guess he can argue that one congress man that threatened that reporter got off with an apology, why cant he?
www.cbsnews.com...
That was face to face, and said with some gusto.

Why would an email carry a federal charge?

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare
a reply to: Destinyone

Yes but there was no obvious intent shown in his comment.

Also, isn't that exactly what Americans are expected to do if those in power are violating the constitution? All the man was really saying is that continued infringements on the US constitution would bring such reaction IMO.

IDK I can kind of see both sides. F-it! fight the power! Free the Patriot! lol

Was that a serious question? No. You're not supposed to threaten to shoot the mayor if you think she's doing something unconstitutional, you're supposed to vote her out of office.

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
What if i said, " Hey Obama.. Watch out.. you might soon be on the other end of my barrel ! "

No, this is not a direct threat because it was not said TO Obama. I'm being facetious in my statement above of course.

These words could mean many things such as " I'm gunning for you" Opps.. er.. perhaps that wont work..LOL er

How about.. " I have you on my short list" or " We The People gonna get you corrupt politician suckers (in court may be implied although not specified)"

It doesn't have to mean a threat of violence with a firearm.

All of the expressions like Gunning for you or Got you in my sights or gunning for you with both barrels etc have all been widely used to denote going after people in other ways besides by shooting them. There is NO WAY this can stick.

individual for allegedly sending McFarlane a message through her website.

Here, this is from another source.

“One of the purposes of this website is to allow citizens the opportunity to communicate with Nancy McFarlane, the mayor of Raleigh, through electronic messages,” police detective B. Huger stated in the search warrant application.

The police searched Redner’s home and seized a silver Toshiba laptop computer, a black HP Notebook and a Dell laptop computer. Investigators also recovered several mobile phones, a .357 Smith & Wesson handgun, a Remington Wingmaster shotgun and a journal, court records show.

Redner, a Minnesota native who also lived in North Dakota before moving to Raleigh, has had entanglements with law enforcement officials in the past.

Wake County Sheriff’s Office officials told investigators that on May 6, 2010, Redner avoided a driving while impaired checkpoint and led deputies on a car chase. When the deputies apprehended Redner, they found an AR-15 assault rifle in his car along with “anti-government documents and literature related to the Aryan Nation,” court records show.

source

EDIT:

and..

According to police, Redner posted a message to Nancymcfarlane.com which read “You make a joke about the U.S. Constitution but soon you will (be) on the other end of the barrel.” Included in the message, Redner called the mayor an obscenity and told her to “watch out.”

According to the warrant, the name associated with the return email is “AntiZionist.”

source
Hmmm.. maybe the original source wasn't the best?

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

No obvious threat = Free Speech.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Holy crap they searched a house over this!?!?!
How does an email warrant a search of the house!

Congress man threatens a reporter face to face and gets nothing
Jane citizen does less, over an email, and gets screwed....

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare
a reply to: Destinyone

Yes but there was no obvious intent shown in his comment.

Also, isn't that exactly what Americans are expected to do if those in power are violating the constitution? All the man was really saying is that continued infringements on the US constitution would bring such reaction IMO.

IDK I can kind of see both sides. F-it! fight the power! Free the Patriot! lol

So if somebody said that to your Mom you would't take it as a threat?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: theantediluvian

Holy crap they searched a house over this!?!?!

How does an email warrant a search of the house!

Congress man threatens a reporter face to face and gets nothing
Jane citizen does less, over an email, and gets screwed....

Michael Grimm should have at least been censured. A politician threatening bodily harm to a member of the press? F'ing disgraceful.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

According to police, Redner told her to "watch out" and that she would soon be "on the other end of the barrel."

Well, I'd like to hear the recording, the cops being the source and all.

If thats what the person said though, that is a death threat. Isn't that illegal?

a reply to: theantediluvian

He should have been arrested, that is a serious death threat if I have ever seen one...
But no, he is an elected official that just got caught in moment, it is ok for him, not for the rest of us.

Well, obviously, everyone knows that people on the internet are 99.999% all talk so I would say that anything you read online that implies that someone is going to take an action of any kind has to be taken with salt.

That said, a person would have to be awfully dumb to write something like this on her web site. Either that or he was just trying to get a reaction so he could claim free speech. Which is likely.

On the other hand, something like this could very easily be staged for the same purpose. To provoke a free speech "debate".