Let us start
with the actual incitement. Via The
Blaze we have the reaction of Mike Browns’ parents, including his step
father, Louis Head, shouting “burn this b-tch down!” Which we all know is what they proceeded to
do.
Watch for
yourself, below the fold:
Regular
readers know that Brett Kimberlin unconstitutionally silenced me in 2012 on the
legal theory that peaceful criticism of a person was incitement to
violence. I wrote about that experience
in a series of posts, here,
but suffice to say that if that was actually the law, it would be the end of
Freedom of Expression. For instance, by
his theory, Richard Nixon could have enjoined Woodward and Bernstein from investigating
and writing about him, lest it “incite” violence against him.
Of course,
this is not the law. In Brandenburg
v. Ohio, the Supreme Court set up a test for what can be
constitutionally prohibited as incitement:
the
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.
I hadn’t even
reached the first step in that test: I have never advocated violence against
him. But Mr. Head? I think there could be no more pure example
of incitement.
So... arrest Mr. Head. Well, not so fast. Brandenburg
doesn’t make true incitement illegal.
It merely says that a state
can make true incitement illegal. And I can’t
find any law that fits the description.
For instance, if you go through the different statutes in their chapter
on “Offenses
Against Public Order” none of the statutes seem to fit. For instance, this is what their statute says
on Rioting:
574.050.
1. A person commits the crime of rioting if he knowingly assembles with six or
more other persons and agrees with such persons to violate any of the criminal
laws of this state or of the United States with force or violence, and
thereafter, while still so assembled, does violate any of said laws with force
or violence.
Agreement,
every lawyer will tell you is a meeting of the minds (“Hey, caps, let’s go have
a riot!” “Capital idea!”). Mr. Head isn’t agreeing with anyone to
Riot. He is telling them to riot.
The statute
punishing “Promoting
Civil Disorder” seems like a more logical fit, but it also fails to hit the
mark. It says in relevant part:
Whoever
teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or
construction of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device capable of causing
injury or death to any person, knowing or intending that such firearm,
explosive, or incendiary device be used in furtherance of a civil disorder, is
guilty of the crime of promoting civil disorder in the first degree.
In other
words, it is about planners, which doesn’t apply. Likewise, the closest thing covered by “Peace
Disturbance” is “fighting.” But inciting is not fighting.
I am reluctant
to say that it is legal, but at the moment I can’t find how it is illegal under Missouri Law. Feel free to let me know if you find a
statute that does cover this kind of incitement.
Meanwhile, we
have what I referred to as “near incitement.”
There is conduct that is not legally incitement, that is still irresponsible. We are granted freedom of speech not because
the founders didn’t think speech was often irresponsible, but because they didn’t
trust government to patrol the line. A
good example of this is doxxing: it is often legal, but utterly immoral. And that is what the NY Times and Slate did
to Darren Wilson (via IBTimes,
which has annoying auto-starting video ads):
Wilson
received death threats after he was identified as the officer who shot Brown,
and as community members and activists plan to protest if he is not indicted,
the location of his home could potentially endanger him, his new wife, and his
property if the protests result in violence, some of his defenders say.
Wilson’s home address is a matter of public record, and it has been published
in numerous media reports beginning in August.
But
printing his street name in the nation’s most influential newspaper on the day
the grand jury is expected to hand up a decision on the indictment could
reignite interest in -- and awareness of -- the location, and some critics
worry that it could result in protesters descending on his home. Slate even
went a step further than the Times, publishing an article featuring a photo of
the modest, red-brick house on Monday.
Probably
realistic, Wilson has figured out he can never go back to that house
again. But if anyone dies in that
neighborhood, that isn’t a crime, but that is still on the heads of the NY
Times, Slate, and anyone else who published his address.
Meanwhile the
rioting turned uniquely tragic for one store owner. This whole thing started with Brown robbing a
liquor store. And guess which store was
looted? Read
the whole thing.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I
have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and
adjudicated pedophile) Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed
and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you
read starting here,
you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video
evidence. If you would like to help in
the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on
the right. And thank you.
Follow me at
Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for
snark and site updates. And you can
purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A
Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.
And you can read a little more about my
novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused
some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice
I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice
system. I do not want to see vigilante
violence against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the
particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that
matter, don’t go on his property. Don’t
sneak around and try to photograph him.
Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision. Your behavior could quickly cross the line
into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.
The only
exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course
nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any
stories you might report. And even then
if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request. That this is a key element in making out a
harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you
refuse.
And let me say
something else. In my heart of hearts, I
don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
No comments:
Post a Comment