'Burning Bush' comment draws prison term

[KeiFront]

Sorry but this one is to funny to let it pass.

"SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (AP) -- A man who made a remark about a "burning Bush" during the president's March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls was sentenced Friday to 37 months in prison"

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/06/burning.bush.ap/

[Technoid]

Wonder what he had happened if he had been heard saying : "I'm going to go pee behind a bush"

They'd lock him away for life?

[UtwigMU]

So much for freedom of speech. For instance this would not occur here.

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by UtwigMU
So much for freedom of speech. For instance this would not occur here.

Actually it's well known that threatening the President, even in jest, is a Federal crime under the 18 U.S. Code § 871 and has been for a long time. It's also been upheld by the Supreme Court. More recent law extends the protection to certain federal officials.

As for "freedom of speech" goes, it's not 100% and never has been. You can be sent to jail for fraudulently yelling "fire" or "he's got a gun" in a theater. Likewise you have lible and slander laws.

Hell; in Canada, and much of Europe my Slovenian friend, you can go to jail for calling someone a "bad name" under their "hate speech" laws, which I find hilariously hypocritical given how often Canadian and European officials have called our President names and the rampant anti-semitism currently being openly exhibited in current European public and political "speech".

Dr. Mordrid

[Joel]

Of course we have CNN, the Clinton News Network, reporting it so we have to question the completeness of the report when it deals with anything involving President Bush.

Of course threaten anyone's life even in joking can get you in trouble.

With freedom of speech comes responsibility, some of which Doc pointed out.

Joel

[thop]

i remember gurm saying sth. much different.

Hell; in Canada, and much of Europe my Slovenian friend, you can go to jail for calling someone a "bad name" under their "hate speech" laws

funny, this is news to me.

[Dr Mordrid]

Then you aren't paying attention.

There were, as of my last count, 3 Americans in German jails for using "illegal adjectives" in content the wrote IN THE US but either published on the net or distributed papers or magazines that were available in Europe. The German police got wind of them being in Europe and snagged them a couple of years ago.

This was done under German Federal Penal Code 130 Article 3 regarding "defamation." This retroactive statute, which alone would make this law unconstitutioal in the US, does not define this crime explicitly; leaving its interpretation to the whims and biases of German prosecutors.

Basically: it means whatever the police say it means

Of course there is another twist: no bail under this statute.

Now...they may well have been very offensive writings, but this is a bit much.

Also; these quotes from the freedome of speech sites;

Top managers of BARNES and NOBLE and AMAZON are threatened with imprisonment in Germany for internet book sales. (The Jewish Press August 27, 1999 and Die Welt September 17, 1999)

An American publisher is kidnapped in Denmark under a German arrest warrant, taken against his will to Germany and imprisoned there for four years! His offense? He published a newspaper in America promoting free speech. Germany’s jurisdiction claim? The newspaper also has subscribers in Germany.

A WWII veteran is arrested at the Frankfurt airport and jailed for over five months. His offense? He wrote a letter from America protesting against human rights abuses in Germany. Germany’s jurisdiction claim? That letter was mailed to Germany.

An educator is been imprisoned in Germany because of his totally legal newsletter – in English – on an Internet web site in Australia!

German Justice Minister Nehm (at the time) publically threatened to arrest Americans entering Germany if their internet sites in the US "displease him".

Germany’s jurisdiction claim? These sites are "accessible" in Germany. (* Der Spiegel #46/1996)

Hmmmm......

Dr. Mordrid

[Schorsch]

Doc,

I don't know what an "illegal adjective" is but usually the people who are jailed under § 130 StGB (which is not retroactive, by the way) have distributed nazi propaganda in Germany. The same applies to Barnes & Noble and Amazon who were delivering Hitler's "Mein Kampf" to Germany. The definition of § 130 is pretty clear (and distributing nazi propaganda is one of the things that are covered by it), and it doesn't matter what the police says it means - you only go to prison if you are sentenced by a court.

And one last thing: Nobody goes to jail in Germany for calling somebody a "bad name" - at least not for the kind of names that Mr. Bush has been called. I hope this clears things up a bit...

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Schorsch

And one last thing: Nobody goes to jail in Germany for calling somebody a "bad name" - at least not for the kind of names that Mr. Bush has been called. I hope this clears things up a bit...

This is not quite true. Bad nameing the "Bundespräsident" can actually get you in jail. Ridiculous, yes, but unfortunately true.

[KvHagedorn]

Hey, you Germans had better blow up the Autobahns.. the Nazis built them, so they must be evil..

Honestly, it's time we all put that behind us.. Hitler did more damage to Germany itself than to anyone else, and the taboo of that whole era has enforced a kind of self-hatred upon Germans which is completely uncalled for today. Supressing ALL nationalist thought is at least as bad as having too much nationalist thought, and by this very supression, the worst part of the nazi regime is revisited upon the present day. If the nazis were so bad, why are the police still burning books like the gestapo did?

[Schorsch]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn

Honestly, it's time we all put that behind us.. Hitler did more damage to Germany itself than to anyone else, and the taboo of that whole era has enforced a kind of self-hatred upon Germans which is completely uncalled for today. Supressing ALL nationalist thought is at least as bad as having too much nationalist thought, and by this very supression, the worst part of the nazi regime is revisited upon the present day. If the nazis were so bad, why are the police still burning books like the gestapo did?

Of course, not all nationalistic thought is suppressed in Germany (unfortunately we've got enough right-wing radicals to prove that ) but there is some truth to what you say. Democracy in Germany has been working well for more than 50 years now, and I think it should be able to put up with any kind of agitation - even if it is propaganda from those who would like to abolish democracy and return to the Third Reich. Of course it is hard to swallow when those nazi idiots preach their disgusting racist bullshit but freedom of speech should not be restricted because of that (and talking about a "burning Bush" should be allowed, too ). But I guess this is a minority's opinion in Germany...

[thop]

I agree with what you say KvH, and Schorsch (you sure you're from FFM? ). Unfortunately the politicians are afraid of an open discusscion, even when IMO the radicals would be ripped apart.

Still my main question is unanswered: where was the police protecting the "burning bush" guy while he was practicing freedom of speech?

[Rags]

Originally posted by thop
I agree with what you say KvH, and Schorsch (you sure you're from FFM? ). Unfortunately the politicians are afraid of an open discusscion, even when IMO the radicals would be ripped apart.

Still my main question is unanswered: where was the police protecting the "burning bush" guy while he was practicing freedom of speech?

When he made the move from saying something general like I see a burning bush, to saying specifically what is GOING to happen to him, that is where the line was overstepped. It's the same as yelling fire in a theatre or calling the fire dep't and saying there is a fire where there is no fire.

Freedom of speach means that you can say what's on your mind so long as you are responsible with it (bascically don't say things that are going to be slander/lible, directly harmful, or threatening).

Rags

[GNEP]

That's just where it gets interesting Rags: where do you draw the line? IMHO the only real freedom of speach allows anybody to say anything . It would be up to everyone else to decide whether to listen or not. And I mean the anything without exception - ie you are still allowed to say "i think that you should go and shoot the president". Only when someone actually tries to shoot the president can you make arrests. Otherwise it's just not *true* freedom of speech, which I think is still only a theoretical concept - it doesn't (yet?) exist anywhere in the world.

Gnep

[thop]

that's not freedom of speech then. i don't see where it's different compared to other countries in the world.