Can Coulter and Malkin be prosecuted?

windovervocalcords

Former Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
0
NEW YORK The man arrested this weekend for allegedly sending white powder to media figures and other high-profile people may be a big admirer of conservative syndicated columnists Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, according to a writer interviewed on MSNBC.
Coulter has said some ... absolutely ludicrous things about -- she once said that ... "we need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, making them realize that they can be killed, too".'
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003408109
 
Radar Online writer John Cook was interviewed by Keith Olbermann in this article. Cook said the following:


Cook speculated that "Coulter and Malkin ... sort of present a kind of rhetorical world view where they have their troops out there, and I think he thought of himself as one of their troops and wanted to live up to their standards."
*snip*

"It appears that Mr. Castagana was a poster to the FreeRepublic, which, as you know, is an online library of some of the most thoughtful right-wing thinkers out there. And his profile said, 'Ann Coulter is a goddess and I idolize Malkin"
*snip*

Cook added: "I don't think we can always hold these people responsible for the actions of the least hinged of their followers, but I think it is clear that he was an acolyte of the Coulters and the Malkins, and I think that they clearly enjoy having acolytes, and they clearly sort of issue calls to action -- not necessarily to send threatening powder-filled envelopes to you in so many words, but they certainly exhort their followers to let themselves be known."
*final snip*
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Here's what I think on this situation... of course, what I'm about to say is JMO! :truce:
How could Ann Coulter possibly be held responsible for the actions of some crazy poster on her website? That is absolutely ridiculous to me. I'm no Coulter fan by any stretch. I think she's a disgusting media wh*re... but to suggest that she can control the actions of her "fans" is absurd... I don't know why this interview was done, or this article was even written, for that matter. :doh:






 
While I find Coulter to be unhinged, I will defend to the end her right to state her opinion. She should not be held responsible for this man's actions.
 
southcitymom said:
While I find Coulter to be unhinged, I will defend to the end her right to state her opinion. She should not be held responsible for this man's actions.
There was a case in Oregon that Morris Dees was involved in.

A man from Ethiopia, Mulugeta Seraw, was beaten to death in a racially motivated murder by skinhead youth.

They were inspired by hate speech by Tom Metzger, Aryan Resistance leader who claimed no responsibility, because he was 1000 miles away from Portland at the time.

Morris Dees sued Metzger and won which gave money to the Seraw family and broke the back of the White Aryan Resistance.
 
windovervocalcords said:
There was a case in Oregon that Morris Dees was involved in.

A man from Ethiopia, Mulugeta Seraw, was beaten to death in a racially motivated murder by skinhead youth.

They were inspired by hate speech by Tom Metzger, Aryan Resistance leader who claimed no responsibility, because he was 1000 miles away from Portland at the time.

Morris Dees sued Metzger and won which gave money to the Seraw family and broke the back of the White Aryan Resistance.
I have read of a few cases like this one that your describe. I know it is possible to hold people liable is cases like this. Without knowing all the details of any individual case, I will withhold my opinion.

I will say that I think it sets dangerous legal precedent to blame someone's words for someone else's actions. Freedom of speech is a concept I hold near and dear to my heart.
 
southcitymom said:
I have read of a few cases like this one that your describe. I know it is possible to hold people liable is cases like this. Without knowing all the details of any individual case, I will withhold my opinion.

I will say that I think it sets dangerous legal precedent to blame someone's words for someone else's actions. Freedom of speech is a concept I hold near and dear to my heart.
Normally, I agree with free speech.

I draw the line at hate speech and violent speech. Ann Coulter appears to have no other interest than to incite hatred. If she knew she could be sued, she might be financially motivate have to control herself.

That would be a worthwhile and positive thing.
 
windovervocalcords said:
Normally, I agree with free speech.

I draw the line at hate speech and violent speech. Ann Coulter appears to have no other interest than to incite hatred. If she knew she could be sued, she might be financially motivate have to control herself.

That would be a worthwhile and positive thing.
It's a fine line, I agree...best left to the Courts and the specific facts of any given case.

Ann Coulter certainly has a following that agrees with her positions. They feel like she speaks the truth and is more about that than inciting hatred.

I know she says some over-the-top things. She's a rabble-rouser to be sure - but lots of political pundits are. I wouldn't begin to know how to shut them all up except by turning off the radio or the television.

She doesn't appeal to me, but I am loathe to call for the silencing of people with strong opinions that differ from my own.
 
she's just acting out because the dems are taking control again.. and her party's failings are embarrassing her. BAWWw-HAW!! jealous much, loser....???
 
I don't know that I draw the line at hate speech or violent speech because that too is a matter of perspective. To a pacificist, any person that speaks in a manner that leads men into war (ie, our President, military leaders, etc..) could be accused of violent, hate speech.

I think - with rare, specific exception - freedom of speech should be jealously guarded and protected - even when loathsome things are being said.
 
southcitymom said:
I don't know that I draw the line at hate speech or violent speech because that too is a matter of perspective. To a pacificist, any person that speaks in a manner that leads men into war (ie, our President, military leaders, etc..) could be accused of violent, hate speech.

I think - with rare, specific exception - freedom of speech should be jealously guarded and protected - even when loathsome things are being said.
There is a difference between what the President did to start the Iraq War and hate speech.

I disagreed with the President and never bought his reasons for pre-emptive Iraq War but even though he said Iraq was part of an axis of evil it did not strike me as hate speech.

Coulter said she wished Mc Veigh had driven his truck with explosives into the NY Times building. She said she wished someone would put poison in a Supreme Court Justice's creme brulee. Coulter has wished assassination on Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta and accused Mineta of "burning with hatred for America" because he opposes racial profiling in airport screening.

Her rap sheet of hateful remarks includes this gem to the Conservative Political Action Committee: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too."

Are we surprised when one of her greatest fans gets busted sending anthrax like letters to people on Coulter's hate list?

We can and should start holding extremists like Coulter responsible for the behavior of their rabid fans. Their rhetoric is designed to inflame and incite hatred. They are getting more extreme to hold their audience, they are generating death threats and now this pretend anthrax scare.
They’ve crossed the line between free speech and hate speech and should held accountable.

Why doesn't Homeland Security bust her for terrorism? They go after school children for petes sake!

Read Crimes of Sedition in the PP. Numerous examples of Homeland Security picking on ordinary citizens who dissent and they let Coulter get away with attempted murder by proxy.
 
southcitymom said:
...Ann Coulter certainly has a following that agrees with her positions...
IMO, AC is a very smart woman. Yes, she is over the top, but that's her public persona. That's how she makes a living. I envision her being a little softer when in private. ;)
 
southcitymom said:
It's a fine line, I agree...best left to the Courts and the specific facts of any given case.

Ann Coulter certainly has a following that agrees with her positions. They feel like she speaks the truth and is more about that than inciting hatred.

I know she says some over-the-top things. She's a rabble-rouser to be sure - but lots of political pundits are. I wouldn't begin to know how to shut them all up except by turning off the radio or the television.

She doesn't appeal to me, but I am loathe to call for the silencing of people with strong opinions that differ from my own.


You are so right in your comments, South , and I wholeheartedly agree. The minute you silence speech because of its content, however unpopular, hateful or politically incorrect, we all are in danger of losing what makes us free.

Eve
 
windovervocalcords said:
There is a difference between what the President did to start the Iraq War and hate speech.

I disagreed with the President and never bought his reasons for pre-emptive Iraq War but even though he said Iraq was part of an axis of evil it did not strike me as hate speech.

Coulter said she wished Mc Veigh had driven his truck with explosives into the NY Times building. She said she wished someone would put poison in a Supreme Court Justice's creme brulee. Coulter has wished assassination on Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta and accused Mineta of "burning with hatred for America" because he opposes racial profiling in airport screening.

Her rap sheet of hateful remarks includes this gem to the Conservative Political Action Committee: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too."

Are we surprised when one of her greatest fans gets busted sending anthrax like letters to people on Coulter's hate list?

We can and should start holding extremists like Coulter responsible for the behavior of their rabid fans. Their rhetoric is designed to inflame and incite hatred. They are getting more extreme to hold their audience, they are generating death threats and now this pretend anthrax scare.
They’ve crossed the line between free speech and hate speech and should held accountable.

Why doesn't Homeland Security bust her for terrorism? They go after school children for petes sake!

Read Crimes of Sedition in the PP. Numerous examples of Homeland Security picking on ordinary citizens who dissent and they let Coulter get away with attempted murder by proxy.
But aren't Coulter's over-the-top statements the modern day equivalent of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal", written in 1729, where he suggests that the starving Irish eat babies.

Like Swift, Ann Coulter puts forth obnoxious extremes to get people thinking. The vast majority of Coulter's fans understand this and respect her for having the stones to say "what they believe to be true." They consider her a patriot. Most of them are sane enough not to do any of the crazy things she suggests just like most of the Irish were sane enough not to eat their babies.

ALL rhetoric is designed to inflame, incite, impassion, rouse, etc... Whether you like the rhetoric that is being put forth depends on whether or not you agree with it. That's why it needs to be protected.

I don't know where I draw the line with free speech vs. hate speech....heck, I don't even know if I draw the line. I don't know what I consider to be hate speech. Fred Phelps and his contention that the world is in a sorry state because of homosexuality comes to mind, but I still believe he has the right to say what he says.

People should have the freedom to voice hate just as they should have the freedom to voice love.
 
southcitymom said:
But aren't Coulter's over-the-top statements the modern day equivalent of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal", written in 1729, where he suggests that the starving Irish eat babies.

Like Swift, Ann Coulter puts forth obnoxious extremes to get people thinking. The vast majority of Coulter's fans understand this and respect her for having the stones to say "what they believe to be true." They consider her a patriot. Most of them are sane enough not to do any of the crazy things she suggests just like most of the Irish were sane enough not to eat their babies.

ALL rhetoric is designed to inflame, incite, impassion, rouse, etc... Whether you like the rhetoric that is being put forth depends on whether or not you agree with it. That's why it needs to be protected.

I don't know where I draw the line with free speech vs. hate speech....heck, I don't even know if I draw the line. I don't know what I consider to be hate speech. Fred Phelps and his contention that the world is in a sorry state because of homosexuality comes to mind, but I still believe he has the right to say what he says.

People should have the freedom to voice hate just as they should have the freedom to voice love.
I draw the line when someone takes Coulter up on her hatred and does an illegal terrorist act.

Its nice than nan has fantasies of the kinder, gentler, private Coulter. I hope for Coulter's sake she has one. If you watch her you give her power, you support her being on the air. It's Coulter's public behavior I am more concerned about and what it incites people to do.

Fred Phelps can say what he likes. Everyone knows he is crazy. My problem with Coulter is she gets a free ride and is deemed "acceptable".

That is wrong.

She can voice hatred but when she takes it a step further and starts saying someone ought to do something violent and intimidating and they do that is different.


PUNISHING HATE is a well-written, comprehensive resource on bias crime law.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
658
Total visitors
728

Forum statistics

Threads
589,921
Messages
17,927,691
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top