Free speech vs. threats made online

Upon reading about two similar cases involving free speech (and threatening speech) made online, one of which we’ve directly commented on, I couldn’t help but feel that we’re coming up on some interesting territory for first amendment protections.

The first case is reported here, in a law.com article:

“"These Judges deserve to be killed," declared Harold "Hal" Turner on his Web site on June 2. He was attacking three federal judges who earlier that day had upheld Chicago-area bans on handguns.

By the end of the month, Turner was in handcuffs. On Dec. 1, he's scheduled to go to trial in Brooklyn, N.Y., in a federal case that will test First Amendment protections online.

The case will turn on whether Turner's June 2 and other postings on his Turner Radio Network site are protected as an exercise of free speech, albeit violently hyperbolic, or constitute a "true threat" that posed imminent danger to the targets.”

The second story, which our legal director John Reinstein was quoted in, concerns two men who made a rap video containing alleged threatening remarks (with images) about the New Bedford police.

From the Boston Globe:

“John Reinstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the outcome of the case will probably rest on whether a judge or jury agrees that the men were directly threatening police officials.

“The law makes a distinction between true threats and political speech,’’ said Reinstein, who did not see the video. “A direct threat to harm someone has usually been held to be outside the protection of the First Amendment.’’

We’ll be watching both cases closely.