bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Good thing Clinton funded all those prisons and cops then and every member of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Good thing Clinton funded all those prisons and cops then and every member of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it
And pretty well every single Republican. Who, it should be noted, authored the bill in question. Let's not blame Bill Clinton for all of it - though he certainly deserves a percentage of the blame. This one bill, though, isn't the only reason why black people are in prison in record numbers and far outside of their demographics. It, too, deserves a percentage of the blame, but even in situations where the law is equivalent, blacks are multitudes of times more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, tried, and convicted - and their sentences are likely to be longer.Good thing Clinton funded all those prisons and cops then and every member of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
You need to go back and see who authored that bill. It passed on a party line vote .. Dems for. Republicans against (mainly due to cost concerns and unfunded mandates)
Wasn't 94...? Oh, no, 94 was the year the Republicans won the house, right?
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
They won the house and Senate in November 1994 to be seated in January 1995. The crime bill was an election issue. Democrats were trying to be seen as tough on crime and also sending a lot of pork in there to inner cities .... the midnight basketball provision was an election issue for the GOP for example.
Every member of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for this ... many of whom are trying to run away from it now.
Here are the votes
House Dems 188 Yes, 64 No, 4 Did not vote
House GOP 46 Yes 134 No 1 Did Not Vite
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml
Senate
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295
Passed 61-38 (4 Republicans voted yes -- All the more liberal ones, 2 Dems voted no -- one of them was Shelby who switched parties in 1995)
This was government coming into the rescue to save the inner cities from crime and violence!
Last edited:
And it was a bad bill that legalized behaviours already occurring, rather than finding solutions. The war on drugs hasn't worked - being "tough on crime" doesn't work.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Nope it does not. I am glad Paul brought this up. I am not saying the GOP is innocent here. But, this is not a GOP problem. Look at the mayors, legislative bodies, those who appoint the police chiefs, those who have the support of the police unions in the inner cities .. it is and has been Dems for decades .. with a few notable exceptions (Riorden in LA Giuliani in NY).
At a minimum, they have an equal hand in this mess
I credit Rand Paul and Corey Booker for getting past the partisan crap and getting some actual legislation passed that has at least made things a bit better.
At a minimum, they have an equal hand in this mess
I credit Rand Paul and Corey Booker for getting past the partisan crap and getting some actual legislation passed that has at least made things a bit better.
This is a problem at every level of government and for every politician that has been a part of it for a long time, since the War on Drugs began. Nobody can own it individually because it belongs to everyone - and you're right. Booker and Paul did the right thing in working together to make some progress. Corey Booker has been a pretty good Democrat, and I think if Paul wasn't so hard-line on some of the religious nuttery he'd be a fine Senator.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Again .. good for Rand. My favorites in bold #9 is exactly what we are talking about with free speech and #10 and #12 is sadly how government seems to operate, not just with this, but with everything.
Edit: 3 is pretty damn good too
In an impassioned rebuke of the National Security Agency’s surveillance capabilities, Sen. Rand Paul spoke for more than 10 hours on the Senate floor Wednesday to filibuster a Patriot Act provision used to legally justify the bulk collection of telephone data. Congress faces a tight deadline to reauthorize or change the law, which expires June 1, with its Memorial Day recess starting at week’s end. Nonetheless, the candidate for the Republican presidential nomination held forth (relieved at certain points by several fellow senators). Here are some of his most notable quotes from the marathon session.
1. “I will not let the Patriot Act, the most unpatriotic of acts, go unchallenged. At the very least, we should debate. We should debate whether or not we are going to relinquish our rights, or whether or not we are going to have a full and able debate over whether or not we can live within the Constitution, or whether or not we have to go around the Constitution.”
2. “The president began this program by executive order. He should immediately end it by executive order. For over a year now, he has said the program is illegal, and yet he does nothing.”
3. “We have to decide whether our fear is going to get the better of us. Once upon a time we had a standard in our country that was ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ We’ve given up on so much. Now, people are talking about a standard that is ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.’ Think about it. Is that the standard we’re willing to live under?”
4. “Why don't we see any questions from the press? Why don't we see anybody from the media saying, ‘Mr. President, it's illegal, you started it, you are performing a program that is collecting all of the phone records from all Americans, it's been declared illegal from the second highest court in the land, why don't you stop?’”
5. “I think we've made the [collection] haystack so big, no one's ever getting through the haystack to find the needle. What we really need to do is isolate the haystack into a group of suspicious people and spend enormous resources looking at suspicious people, people who we have probable cause.”
6. “Nobody ever was fired for 9/11. Instead of firing the people who didn’t do a good job, we gave them medals. The guy who did a good job, I don’t know what happened to him. And what we did was we decided we’d just collect everybody’s information. That we’d sort of scrap the Bill of Rights.”
7. “Who gets to decide who’s an enemy combatant and who’s an American citizen? Are we really so frightened and so easily frightened that we would give up a thousand-year history?”
8. “Any time you make an analogy to horrific people in history, Mussolini or Hitler, people say, ‘Oh, you’re exaggerating, you’re talking about, it’s hyperbole.’ Maybe it is. … But I would say is that if you are not concerned that democracy could produce bad people, I don’t think you’re really thinking this through too much.”
9. “You don't know who the next group is that's unpopular. The Bill of Rights isn't for the prom queen. The Bill of Rights isn't for the high school quarterback. The Bill of Rights is for the least among us. The bill of rights is for minorities. The bill of rights is for those who have minority opinions.”
10. “In the aftermath of 9/11, the Patriot Act was rushed to the floor. Several hundred pages. Nobody read it … But people voted because they were fearful and people said there could be another attack and Americans will blame me if I don't vote on this.”
11. “Any time someone tries to tell you that metadata is ‘meaningless, don't worry, it's just who you call, it's just phone records, it's not a big deal’ -- realize we kill people based on metadata. So they must be pretty darn certain that they think they know something based on metadata.”
12. “You wonder why your government's completely broken? We lurch from deadline to deadline, and it's on purpose really. We do deadline to deadline because … ‘we've got to go. It's spring break, we're going to be late for spring break, and we've got to go, so we've got to finish this up before we go.’”
13. "Let’s say tomorrow that there was a president, that we elected a president that eliminated the bulk collection of data. Let’s just say it happened. What do you think would happen? People are like ‘the sky would fall. We would be overrun with jihadists.’ Maybe we could rely on the Constitution. Maybe we could get warrants. … If you make the warrant specific, there’s no limit to what you can get through a warrant.”
Edit: 3 is pretty damn good too
In an impassioned rebuke of the National Security Agency’s surveillance capabilities, Sen. Rand Paul spoke for more than 10 hours on the Senate floor Wednesday to filibuster a Patriot Act provision used to legally justify the bulk collection of telephone data. Congress faces a tight deadline to reauthorize or change the law, which expires June 1, with its Memorial Day recess starting at week’s end. Nonetheless, the candidate for the Republican presidential nomination held forth (relieved at certain points by several fellow senators). Here are some of his most notable quotes from the marathon session.
1. “I will not let the Patriot Act, the most unpatriotic of acts, go unchallenged. At the very least, we should debate. We should debate whether or not we are going to relinquish our rights, or whether or not we are going to have a full and able debate over whether or not we can live within the Constitution, or whether or not we have to go around the Constitution.”
2. “The president began this program by executive order. He should immediately end it by executive order. For over a year now, he has said the program is illegal, and yet he does nothing.”
3. “We have to decide whether our fear is going to get the better of us. Once upon a time we had a standard in our country that was ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ We’ve given up on so much. Now, people are talking about a standard that is ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.’ Think about it. Is that the standard we’re willing to live under?”
4. “Why don't we see any questions from the press? Why don't we see anybody from the media saying, ‘Mr. President, it's illegal, you started it, you are performing a program that is collecting all of the phone records from all Americans, it's been declared illegal from the second highest court in the land, why don't you stop?’”
5. “I think we've made the [collection] haystack so big, no one's ever getting through the haystack to find the needle. What we really need to do is isolate the haystack into a group of suspicious people and spend enormous resources looking at suspicious people, people who we have probable cause.”
6. “Nobody ever was fired for 9/11. Instead of firing the people who didn’t do a good job, we gave them medals. The guy who did a good job, I don’t know what happened to him. And what we did was we decided we’d just collect everybody’s information. That we’d sort of scrap the Bill of Rights.”
7. “Who gets to decide who’s an enemy combatant and who’s an American citizen? Are we really so frightened and so easily frightened that we would give up a thousand-year history?”
8. “Any time you make an analogy to horrific people in history, Mussolini or Hitler, people say, ‘Oh, you’re exaggerating, you’re talking about, it’s hyperbole.’ Maybe it is. … But I would say is that if you are not concerned that democracy could produce bad people, I don’t think you’re really thinking this through too much.”
9. “You don't know who the next group is that's unpopular. The Bill of Rights isn't for the prom queen. The Bill of Rights isn't for the high school quarterback. The Bill of Rights is for the least among us. The bill of rights is for minorities. The bill of rights is for those who have minority opinions.”
10. “In the aftermath of 9/11, the Patriot Act was rushed to the floor. Several hundred pages. Nobody read it … But people voted because they were fearful and people said there could be another attack and Americans will blame me if I don't vote on this.”
11. “Any time someone tries to tell you that metadata is ‘meaningless, don't worry, it's just who you call, it's just phone records, it's not a big deal’ -- realize we kill people based on metadata. So they must be pretty darn certain that they think they know something based on metadata.”
12. “You wonder why your government's completely broken? We lurch from deadline to deadline, and it's on purpose really. We do deadline to deadline because … ‘we've got to go. It's spring break, we're going to be late for spring break, and we've got to go, so we've got to finish this up before we go.’”
13. "Let’s say tomorrow that there was a president, that we elected a president that eliminated the bulk collection of data. Let’s just say it happened. What do you think would happen? People are like ‘the sky would fall. We would be overrun with jihadists.’ Maybe we could rely on the Constitution. Maybe we could get warrants. … If you make the warrant specific, there’s no limit to what you can get through a warrant.”
Last edited:
On this, Rand Paul is 100% right
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Even for politicians, this is pretty sleazy ... which is saying a lot
=====================
Bill Clinton was paid for "consulting" through a secret shell company during his wife's time as secretary of state, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. WJC, LLC has no financial assets, so Bill Clinton's private office and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign said they were not obligated to report its existence in recent financial disclosures. The only things that had to be disclosed about Bill Clinton's consulting work during Hillary's time in Foggy Bottom were who paid him and if it was more than $1,000—but not exact figures. "Little is known about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton's non-speech business interests," the AP notes
=====================
Bill Clinton was paid for "consulting" through a secret shell company during his wife's time as secretary of state, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. WJC, LLC has no financial assets, so Bill Clinton's private office and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign said they were not obligated to report its existence in recent financial disclosures. The only things that had to be disclosed about Bill Clinton's consulting work during Hillary's time in Foggy Bottom were who paid him and if it was more than $1,000—but not exact figures. "Little is known about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton's non-speech business interests," the AP notes
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Looks like Paul might pull it off ... good for him
Rand Paul plans to force the expiration of the PATRIOT Act Sunday by refusing to allow Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to expedite debate on a key surveillance bill.
In a statement to POLITICO Saturday, Paul warned that he would not consent to any efforts to pass either an extension of current law or the USA Freedom Act, a reform bill passed overwhelmingly by the House earlier this month.
Here’s Paul statement to POLITICO in full:
“I have fought for several years now to end the illegal spying of the NSA on ordinary Americans. The callous use of general warrants and the disregard for the Bill of Rights must end. Forcing us to choose between our rights and our safety is a false choice and we are better than that as a nation and as a people. “That’s why two years ago, I sued the NSA. It’s why I proposed the Fourth Amendment Protection Act. It’s why I have been seeking for months to have a full, open and honest debate on this issue— a debate that never came. “So last week, seeing proponents of this illegal spying rushing toward a deadline to wholesale renew this unconstitutional power, I filibustered the bill. I spoke for over 10 hours to call attention to the vast expansion of the spy state and the corresponding erosion of our liberties.
“Then, last week, I further blocked the extension of these powers and the Senate adjourned for recess rather than stay and debate them. “Tomorrow, we will come back with just hours left before the NSA illegal spying powers expire. “Let me be clear: I acknowledge the need for a robust intelligence agency and for a vigilant national security.
“I believe we must fight terrorism, and I believe we must stand strong against our enemies.
“But we do not need to give up who we are to defeat them. In fact, we must not.
“There has to be another way. We must find it together.
“So tomorrow, I will force the expiration of the NSA illegal spy program.
“I am ready and willing to start the debate on how we fight terrorism without giving up our liberty.”
“Sometimes when the problem is big enough, you just have to start over. The tax code and our regulatory burdens are two good examples.”
“Fighting against unconditional, illegal powers that take away our rights, taken by previous Congresses and administrations is just as important.”
“I do not do this to obstruct. I do it to build something better, more effective, more lasting, and more cognizant of who we are as Americans.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-of-the-patriot-act-118443.html#ixzz3be6zOAni
---------------------------------------
Of course dire words of warning from Obama ...
"Heaven forbid we’ve got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who was engaged in dangerous activity, but we didn’t do so simply because of inaction in the Senate," Obama said.
"So, what’s the problem? A small group of senators is standing in the way. And, unfortunately, some folks are trying to use this debate to score political points. But this shouldn’t and can't be about politics," Obama said.
Rand Paul plans to force the expiration of the PATRIOT Act Sunday by refusing to allow Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to expedite debate on a key surveillance bill.
In a statement to POLITICO Saturday, Paul warned that he would not consent to any efforts to pass either an extension of current law or the USA Freedom Act, a reform bill passed overwhelmingly by the House earlier this month.
Here’s Paul statement to POLITICO in full:
“I have fought for several years now to end the illegal spying of the NSA on ordinary Americans. The callous use of general warrants and the disregard for the Bill of Rights must end. Forcing us to choose between our rights and our safety is a false choice and we are better than that as a nation and as a people. “That’s why two years ago, I sued the NSA. It’s why I proposed the Fourth Amendment Protection Act. It’s why I have been seeking for months to have a full, open and honest debate on this issue— a debate that never came. “So last week, seeing proponents of this illegal spying rushing toward a deadline to wholesale renew this unconstitutional power, I filibustered the bill. I spoke for over 10 hours to call attention to the vast expansion of the spy state and the corresponding erosion of our liberties.
“Then, last week, I further blocked the extension of these powers and the Senate adjourned for recess rather than stay and debate them. “Tomorrow, we will come back with just hours left before the NSA illegal spying powers expire. “Let me be clear: I acknowledge the need for a robust intelligence agency and for a vigilant national security.
“I believe we must fight terrorism, and I believe we must stand strong against our enemies.
“But we do not need to give up who we are to defeat them. In fact, we must not.
“There has to be another way. We must find it together.
“So tomorrow, I will force the expiration of the NSA illegal spy program.
“I am ready and willing to start the debate on how we fight terrorism without giving up our liberty.”
“Sometimes when the problem is big enough, you just have to start over. The tax code and our regulatory burdens are two good examples.”
“Fighting against unconditional, illegal powers that take away our rights, taken by previous Congresses and administrations is just as important.”
“I do not do this to obstruct. I do it to build something better, more effective, more lasting, and more cognizant of who we are as Americans.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-of-the-patriot-act-118443.html#ixzz3be6zOAni
---------------------------------------
Of course dire words of warning from Obama ...
"Heaven forbid we’ve got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who was engaged in dangerous activity, but we didn’t do so simply because of inaction in the Senate," Obama said.
"So, what’s the problem? A small group of senators is standing in the way. And, unfortunately, some folks are trying to use this debate to score political points. But this shouldn’t and can't be about politics," Obama said.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
He's making a big point out of it, and since it's a popular opinion we don't have to be a visionary to know that many people like this, but some people are looking further.
For instance, what did he say about the justice system and police rules/behaviour, when it comes to violence (and equality)?
edit:
In the first five months of this year the American police have killed 385 people, according to the Washington Post. A severe increase, because in eralier years there were 400 per year. (The numbers given by federal instances are not reliable because police stations don't have to report all shooting incidents.)
For instance, what did he say about the justice system and police rules/behaviour, when it comes to violence (and equality)?
edit:
In the first five months of this year the American police have killed 385 people, according to the Washington Post. A severe increase, because in eralier years there were 400 per year. (The numbers given by federal instances are not reliable because police stations don't have to report all shooting incidents.)
Last edited:
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Paul has said a fair amount on criminal justice reform and policing and he puts the blame right where it belongs on failed government program after failed government program that has lead the US to be more and more of a police state. That and the NSA are two of his primary campaign planks.
Also, he seems to be nearly the only one with any kind of political power saying this about the NSA .. not Obama (who is arguing to keep these programs going and expanded them), not Hillary (who has said pretty much nothing so far), and not much of the rest of the GOP field.
From the Washington Post as well
The vast majority of victims — more than 80 percent — were armed with potentially lethal objects, primarily guns, but also knives, machetes, revving vehicles and, in one case, a nail gun.
The Post analysis also sheds light on the situations that most commonly gave rise to fatal shootings. About half of the time, police were responding to people seeking help with domestic disturbances and other complex social situations: A homeless person behaving erratically. A boyfriend threatening violence. A son trying to kill himself.
---
The stats would be better if the police just let these people kill who they intended to kill instead of trying to intervene
Also, he seems to be nearly the only one with any kind of political power saying this about the NSA .. not Obama (who is arguing to keep these programs going and expanded them), not Hillary (who has said pretty much nothing so far), and not much of the rest of the GOP field.
From the Washington Post as well
The vast majority of victims — more than 80 percent — were armed with potentially lethal objects, primarily guns, but also knives, machetes, revving vehicles and, in one case, a nail gun.
The Post analysis also sheds light on the situations that most commonly gave rise to fatal shootings. About half of the time, police were responding to people seeking help with domestic disturbances and other complex social situations: A homeless person behaving erratically. A boyfriend threatening violence. A son trying to kill himself.
---
The stats would be better if the police just let these people kill who they intended to kill instead of trying to intervene
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
4 cases of government over reach .. I hope the assholes drop all 4
Elonis v. United States
Anthony Elonis claims that he's "just an aspiring rapper" who likes to post violent lyrics and graphic first-person murder fantasies to Facebook. But after numerous Facebook postings in which Elonis wrote about killing his estranged wife, killing his boss, and killing others, including the FBI agent sent to investigate him, a federal jury found him guilty of transmitting "in interstate or foreign commerce any communications containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another." He was sentenced to 44 months in prison.
In Elonis v. United States the Supreme Court will decide whether those Facebook posts constituted a "true threat" of violence or whether they count as constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.
Horne v. United States Department of Agriculture
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property for a public use. Yet according to a federal regulation designed to "stabilize" the raisin market, raisin farmers such as Marvin and Laura Horne are required to physically surrender a portion of their crop to federal officials each year without receiving just compensation in return. For example, in 2002-2003, the USDA demanded 30 percent of the annual raisin crop, which amounted to 89,000 tons. In return, the federal government paid nothing back to raisin farmers.
Do the USDA's actions violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment? The Supreme Court will decide in Horne v. USDA.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Do state legislatures have the lawful power to prohibit gay marriage? Or do state bans on gay marriage violate the 14th Amendment, which forbids the states from denying the equal protection of the laws to any person within their respective jurisdictions? In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court confronts the possibility of legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
King v. Burwell
The question before the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell is whether the Obama administration illegally implemented the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) when the IRS allowed tax credits to issue to certain persons who bought health insurance on federally established health care exchanges. According to the text of the ACA, such tax credits should only issue in connection with purchases made via an "Exchange established by the State." According to the Obama administration, however, the phrase "established by the State" is actually a "term of art" that encompasses exchanges established by both the states and by the federal government. The legal challengers, by contrast, maintain that the statutory text is clear and that the health care law means what it says. Depending on how the Court sees it, the long-term survival of Obamacare could be at risk.
Elonis v. United States
Anthony Elonis claims that he's "just an aspiring rapper" who likes to post violent lyrics and graphic first-person murder fantasies to Facebook. But after numerous Facebook postings in which Elonis wrote about killing his estranged wife, killing his boss, and killing others, including the FBI agent sent to investigate him, a federal jury found him guilty of transmitting "in interstate or foreign commerce any communications containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another." He was sentenced to 44 months in prison.
In Elonis v. United States the Supreme Court will decide whether those Facebook posts constituted a "true threat" of violence or whether they count as constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.
Horne v. United States Department of Agriculture
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property for a public use. Yet according to a federal regulation designed to "stabilize" the raisin market, raisin farmers such as Marvin and Laura Horne are required to physically surrender a portion of their crop to federal officials each year without receiving just compensation in return. For example, in 2002-2003, the USDA demanded 30 percent of the annual raisin crop, which amounted to 89,000 tons. In return, the federal government paid nothing back to raisin farmers.
Do the USDA's actions violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment? The Supreme Court will decide in Horne v. USDA.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Do state legislatures have the lawful power to prohibit gay marriage? Or do state bans on gay marriage violate the 14th Amendment, which forbids the states from denying the equal protection of the laws to any person within their respective jurisdictions? In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court confronts the possibility of legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
King v. Burwell
The question before the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell is whether the Obama administration illegally implemented the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) when the IRS allowed tax credits to issue to certain persons who bought health insurance on federally established health care exchanges. According to the text of the ACA, such tax credits should only issue in connection with purchases made via an "Exchange established by the State." According to the Obama administration, however, the phrase "established by the State" is actually a "term of art" that encompasses exchanges established by both the states and by the federal government. The legal challengers, by contrast, maintain that the statutory text is clear and that the health care law means what it says. Depending on how the Court sees it, the long-term survival of Obamacare could be at risk.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Good .. 1 down already .. I thought it would be announced later.
A broader ruling on 1st amendment rights would have been better though
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck another blow for free speech Monday, ruling that communications over the Internet may be considered criminal threats only if they include a measure of intent.
The decision was a temporary victory for Anthony Elonis and those like him whose threatening words on Facebook or similar social media sites may instill fear in their targets. It was a defeat for the government and groups that defend victims of domestic violence.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 8-1 decision for a near-unanimous court. It was based only on the court's interpretation of a federal criminal statute, rather than more broadly under the First Amendment.
"The jury was instructed that the government need prove only that a reasonable person would regard Elonis's communications as threats, and that was error," Roberts said. "Federal criminal liability generally does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant's mental state."
Elonis might not be off the hook, however. The high court's ruling means his case will be sent back to a lower court to determine whether he meant what he posted or was at least reckless in posting it.
While Roberts said "negligence is not sufficient to support a conviction," he made clear that the threat would be a crime if it was intended as a threat or if Elonis knew it would be perceived as one.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, and Justice Samuel Alito dissented in part. Both said mere recklessness on Elonis' part would be sufficient for conviction; Roberts left it up to the lower court to decide that question.
"The court's disposition of this case is certain to cause confusion and serious problems," Alito wrote. While he, too, would have reversed Elonis' conviction and sent the case back for further review, he said the court should have defined what does and does not constitute a true threat.
"The court declines to say," he lamented. "Attorneys and judges are left to guess. This will have regrettable consequences."
A broader ruling on 1st amendment rights would have been better though
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck another blow for free speech Monday, ruling that communications over the Internet may be considered criminal threats only if they include a measure of intent.
The decision was a temporary victory for Anthony Elonis and those like him whose threatening words on Facebook or similar social media sites may instill fear in their targets. It was a defeat for the government and groups that defend victims of domestic violence.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 8-1 decision for a near-unanimous court. It was based only on the court's interpretation of a federal criminal statute, rather than more broadly under the First Amendment.
"The jury was instructed that the government need prove only that a reasonable person would regard Elonis's communications as threats, and that was error," Roberts said. "Federal criminal liability generally does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant's mental state."
Elonis might not be off the hook, however. The high court's ruling means his case will be sent back to a lower court to determine whether he meant what he posted or was at least reckless in posting it.
While Roberts said "negligence is not sufficient to support a conviction," he made clear that the threat would be a crime if it was intended as a threat or if Elonis knew it would be perceived as one.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, and Justice Samuel Alito dissented in part. Both said mere recklessness on Elonis' part would be sufficient for conviction; Roberts left it up to the lower court to decide that question.
"The court's disposition of this case is certain to cause confusion and serious problems," Alito wrote. While he, too, would have reversed Elonis' conviction and sent the case back for further review, he said the court should have defined what does and does not constitute a true threat.
"The court declines to say," he lamented. "Attorneys and judges are left to guess. This will have regrettable consequences."
All I can think of is that it is a scary world where if you post lyrics to an Eminem song on your Facebook you could go to prison for 44 months.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Another police shooting
AZLE, Texas (AP) - A North Texas sheriff's deputy has fatally shot a man suspected of stabbing three of his relatives at a home.
The Tarrant County Sheriff's Office late Monday night answered a domestic disturbance call in Azle (AY'-zil), about 10 miles northwest of Fort Worth.
Sheriff's spokesman Terry Grisham says the deputy arrived to find two stabbing victims outside the house. Grisham says the deputy heard another person yelling for help, went into the residence and saw the suspect attacking that third person.
Grisham says the suspect refused to drop the knife so the deputy opened fire.
The victims - two women and a man - were transported to hospitals. Their names, relationship and conditions weren't immediately released Tuesday.
Investigators also didn't immediately release names of the suspect or the deputy.
AZLE, Texas (AP) - A North Texas sheriff's deputy has fatally shot a man suspected of stabbing three of his relatives at a home.
The Tarrant County Sheriff's Office late Monday night answered a domestic disturbance call in Azle (AY'-zil), about 10 miles northwest of Fort Worth.
Sheriff's spokesman Terry Grisham says the deputy arrived to find two stabbing victims outside the house. Grisham says the deputy heard another person yelling for help, went into the residence and saw the suspect attacking that third person.
Grisham says the suspect refused to drop the knife so the deputy opened fire.
The victims - two women and a man - were transported to hospitals. Their names, relationship and conditions weren't immediately released Tuesday.
Investigators also didn't immediately release names of the suspect or the deputy.
Good? Nobody has ever argued that police always use their force inappropriately, or even all the time. Conversely, the argument is one inappropriate use of force is a million too many.