Court Overturns Conviction Of Racist Who Threatened The President

The jerk in the picture above is Walter Bagdasarian. During the 2008 presidential campaign this fool went online and wrote that Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head soon". He then went on to say someone should "shoot the nigger". Making matters even worse, Bagdasarian was the proud owner of a 50 caliber weapon (with ammunition).

The Secret Service was not amused. They filed charges against Bagdasarian for threatening a major presidential candidate -- a charge that could have gotten him 10 years in prison. He got off lucky though. In 2009 he was sentenced to time served and two years of supervised release.

Bagdasarian said he was drunk when he made the online threats, and he appealed his conviction. He evidently was not aware that being drunk is not a justification for committing a crime (and neither are stupidity and racism, both of which he has an abundance of). But a 3-judge appeals court panel has overturned his conviction anyway (in a 2-1 decision).

The court said his conviction was a violation of the constitutional guarantee of free speech. The court said, "There are many unstable individuals in this nation to whom assault weapons and other firearms are readily available, some of whom might believe they were doing the nation a service were they to follow Bagdasarian's commandment. There is nevertheless insufficient evidence that either statement constituted a threat or would be construed by a reasonable person as a genuine threat by Bagdasarian against Obama."

The court went on to say that in spite of the fact that Bagdasarian owned a 50 caliber firearm and ammunition, his statement was just "a prediction that conveyed no explicit or implicit threat on the part of Bagdasarian that he himself would kill or injure Obama."

Peter Scheer, director of California First Amendment Coalition, said he thought the court's decision was a correct one. But then he added, "I only feel comfortable saying that having 20-20 hindsight in knowing that the threat wasn't carried out."

I have to disagree. I'm glad the threat wasn't carried out, but who's to say the next one wouldn't be carried out. I believe the man threatened the presidential candidate and had the weapon to carry out the threat (and may only have been prevented from carrying it out by the quick action of the Secret Service). I agree with the dissenting judge that there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction.

I like to think of myself as a believer in the First Amendment and free speech. But it has always been recognized that there are limits to free speech (such as putting lives in danger by yelling fire in a crowded theater). And one of those limits comes when threats are made toward others. It is a crime to threaten bodily harm to anyone, and that crime is much more serious when the person threatened is a public official (or a candidate for the highest office in this country).

The appeals court decision was wrong. The conviction should not have been overturned. It will just encourage others to do the same, and next time someone might actually follow through on the threat.

I know that some on both the left and the right will disagree with me. There are those who are First Amendment "absolutists" and others who agree with Bagdasarian's sentiments. We will just have to disagree. I still think the man committed a crime.