En ole muaddib, mutta minä raportoin viestisi. Olen monessa asiassa muaddibin kanssaan erimieltä, mutta viestisi on jo sitä tasoa, että huili olisi mielestäni tarpeen. Sananvapaus on hieno asia, mutta viestisi on esimerkki sen väärinkäytöstä.
Käyttäisin ns. Brandenburg -testiä tähän:
"
Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the
United States Supreme Court in
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969),
for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "
clear and present danger", the standard established by
Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled
Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal.
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in
Hess v. Indiana (1973).
In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.
Lyhyesti siis, epätasapainoisen kretinin uhkailut ovat sananvapaudenvastaisia
vain jos ne johtavat välittömään väkivallan uhkaan minua kohtaan (ja näin ei tietenkään ole). Hauskasti alkuperäisessä Brandenburg vs. Ohio -casessa samanlainen peräkylien KKK-nutjob pääsi historiaan:
Clarence Brandenburg, a
Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural
Ohio, contacted a reporter at a
Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in
Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.
[2] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of
"revengeance" [sic] against "niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race",
Kaveri sai ensin tuomion, mutta Supreme Court hylkäsi tuomion ja mielestäni aivan oikein.
Minusta viestien raportointi on vähän turhaa, ei se Edustajaa fiksummaksi tee, vähentää vain tämänkin ketjun viihdearvoa.
Revengeance shall be mine!
muaddib