Normally I shrug this talk off, but this concerns me because Reagan makes reference to Ron Paul supporters (me) and I don't like being grouped with truthers.
Here is some back story. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I looked into the 911 truth movement. I found no compelling evidence that there was an inside job. I just saw data mining, an unwillingness to concede defeat on lost points in the argument, and propaganda. Truthers quite frankly creep me out.
I quit taking people to my local meeetup group for Ron Paul (and eventually stopped going) because truthers were using it as their soapbox to spread their message.
Unfortunately the vast number of truthers support Ron Paul. However, I don't think the vast number of people who support non-interventionism *like me* and limited government are conspiracy theorists.
One of the most annoying truthers (second to Alex Jones) is Mark Dice. I've seen him because Thedailypaul sometimes links to Alex Jones or other truther sites.
Mark Dice is the type of person to bull horn 911 was an inside job in libraries, public, and he generally harasses people--from what I can tell.
His new thing is to send Alex Jones DVDs to soldiers with pamphlets talking about an inside job.
ick.
In comes Michael Reagan. *I'm sorry this link is the only that I found with the full audio.* Michael Reagan calls for them to be shot. I apologize because it has Jones at the end with his usual ranting.
Here are some quotes:
quote: Excuse me folks, I'm going to say this. We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullets
quote: How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice
Is this just hyperbole? Is he just talking about how traitors in general should be treated? Or is he eliciting violence on a citizen?
If someone said this about a government official, how would he/she be treated? It sounds like hyperbole to me, BUT he is offering to buy the bullets. He does mention Mark Dice by name with an interest in seeing him get killed.
Do you think something illegal happened in this broadcast? Or is this just tasteless freedom of speech? I am a big proponent of the freedom of speech, but I don't fully understand the line of when it has been crossed.
I get yelling fire in a theater is illegal and calling for the direct murder of someone is illegal. I am unsure where Mike Reagan's comments fall in the freedom of speech spectrum.
I would love to see a political cartoon with Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine, and Reagan behind thir microphones with them saying in unison, "Four legs good two legs bad."
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I usually put this sort of thing down to hyperbole. He's just playing to an audience, but what I don't understand is why he would open himself up to such a huge liability. Sure, he's just pandering to a particular audience that likes hearing that sort of thing, but what would be the legal ramifications if one of his listeners took him seriously and acted on his claims?
That being said, it's just more vitriol from the pundits. I try not to pay too much attention to them, I find my life is a lot less stressful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I get yelling fire in a theater is illegal and calling for the direct murder of someone is illegal. I am unsure where Mike Reagan's comments fall in the freedom of speech spectrum.
Criminally prosecuting speech calling for illegal violent acts requires an imminent threat of the violence occurring. So pointing at a guy coming out of a courthouse and yelling to the angry mob "Get him!" can lead to criminal liability. I don't think this qualifies.
I will try to link a recent article that goes into it some.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In 1969, for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to “send the Jews back to Israel,” to “bury” blacks, though he did not call them that, and to consider “revengeance” against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to whites.
Only Klan members and journalists were present. Because Mr. Brandenburg’s words fell short of calling for immediate violence in a setting where such violence was likely, the Supreme Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for incitement.
From Brandenburg v. Ohio: "[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
If a member of the police department were to call up Mr. Reagan and claim to be willing to do the shooting if Mr. Reagan were to provide the ammo, and Mr. Reagan did supply that ammo or money to purchase that ammo--could we prosecute him for conspiracy to commit murder?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yep (assuming "we" means "appropriate law enforcement entity"). The crime conspiracy to commit murder would take place in some states at the time Reagan said, "Yes" and in other states at the time he bought ammo.
If the officer actually carried out the murder, both could be prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Wouldn't that be considered entrapment?
I guess that I'm assuming Dan specified "member of the police department" to imply this was a sting operation. Otherwise I can't see any difference between the call made by a police officer and a call made by a soccer mom (or any other person).
I'm curious, if someone after listening to Reagan went out and shot Mark Dice, Alex Jones or one of the random people handing out his DVDs, would Reagan be criminally liable?
I suspect it would be a difficult case to prosecute even under those circumstances. What about civil liability? If the mother of the victim filed a suit against Reagan would she have a strong case? What if she sued the stations that broadcast the message?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess that I'm assuming Dan specified "member of the police department" to imply this was a sting operation.
Oh, I thought he meant disgruntled right-wing police officer wanting to commit the crime with him.
It might or might not be entrapment - the key would be a factual finding concerning whether he might have committed the crime absent the government action. This is phrased in a variety of ways - "predisposition to commit the crime" or whether it was a "trap for the unwary innocent or a trap for the unwary criminal."
quote:I'm curious, if someone after listening to Reagan went out and shot Mark Dice, Alex Jones or one of the random people handing out his DVDs, would Reagan be criminally liable?
Almost certainly not, for reasons I outlined above.
quote:What about civil liability? If the mother of the victim filed a suit against Reagan would she have a strong case? What if she sued the stations that broadcast the message?
Probably easier than finding criminal liability, but still difficult.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Criminally prosecuting speech calling for illegal violent acts requires an imminent threat of the violence occurring.
Thank you Dag! I liked the link and the explanation. That helped clarify the law for me.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
If it was Law & Order then they would charge him with murder.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I still have some questions about how this applies to broadcast media because in a broadcast situation a speaker is largely unaware of the circumstances that surround the listeners. Its entirely possible that listeners will be in a position where there is an imminent threat of violence. For example, someone might be listening to Reagan and cleaning his guns at precisely the time when truthers are canvasing the neighborhood.
It isn't quite like speaking to an angry mob in front of a courthouse but it also isn't like the like speaking at a KKK convention either.
A radio pundit is speaking to an audience that might include the angry mob in an actionable situation. Ethically, I think the liability here is certainly less than if the speaker knows he is speaking to an angry mob who has the capability of acting immediately on his words but also greater than if the speaker knows his audience isn't capable of taking immediate action.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I still have some questions about how this applies to broadcast media because in a broadcast situation a speaker is largely unaware of the circumstances that surround the listeners.
That would go to the "directed to" aspect. If he's unaware that someone might be inspired to shoot the truthers, then he's not likely to be directing them to do it.
quote: Its entirely possible that listeners will be in a position where there is an imminent threat of violence. For example, someone might be listening to Reagan and cleaning his guns at precisely the time when truthers are canvasing the neighborhood.
That would go to the likelihood aspect. Typically the element "likelihood" requires more than "entirely possible." I haven't found a definitive statement as to whether the likelihood element is subject to a mens rea requirement that the speaker know or should know of the likelihood. However, the "directed to" element argues strongly that such a knowing requirement exists.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote: Excuse me folks, I'm going to say this. We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullets
Really? I think they should be taken out to a few engineering classes.