Cry Murder
December 2, 2010 3:31 AM Subscribe
Is it legal in America (USA) for individuals especially Politicians and Journalists to publicly call for the murder of an individual who has not been tried or convicted of anything? I am particularly referring to the US rightwing calls for the execution of Julian Assange. Is this considered freedom of speech? and Yes I have read this and this. Which leads to Part 2: - If one of these shills for murder visited another country could they be arrested, or only if they repeated their exhortations whilest in that country?
The articles you include refer specifically to hate speech (ie, incitement to violence against person of a particular sex, race, etc). Perhaps you might get more helpful answers if you include links to the specific quotes these pundits are making.
My understanding of the statements you refer to is that they are made in the context of reviving a policy of assassination in the interests of national security: a policy that the US has not officially pursued since the Cold War. Ths US has publically called for the death of Osama bin Ladin for years - is this any different?
Still, with Sarah Palin calling Assange's actions 'un-American' and 'treasonous' (apparently unaware of the fact he is an Australian citizen), it really is hard to have a reasoned discussion on this issue.
posted by TheOtherGuy at 3:51 AM on December 2, 2010 [6 favorites]
My understanding of the statements you refer to is that they are made in the context of reviving a policy of assassination in the interests of national security: a policy that the US has not officially pursued since the Cold War. Ths US has publically called for the death of Osama bin Ladin for years - is this any different?
Still, with Sarah Palin calling Assange's actions 'un-American' and 'treasonous' (apparently unaware of the fact he is an Australian citizen), it really is hard to have a reasoned discussion on this issue.
posted by TheOtherGuy at 3:51 AM on December 2, 2010 [6 favorites]
Best answer: Your links address hate speech laws in the US, but hate speech laws are not relevant here. Calls for the murder or execution of Julian Assange contain no comment on his ethnic or racial background.
Instead, you should look into the USA's laws on incitement to unlawful acts. You'll find that only somewhat less permissive than our hate speech laws, however, as mere abstract advocacy of violence cannot be barred unless the speech is directed to inciting violence and there is a threat of "imminent lawless action." Brandenberg v. Ohio is the leading Supreme Court case on this issue.
So, basically, a radio host can call for the execution of Julian Assange, but if, say, Assange was being led in handcuffs through an American street, and the radio host made a call then and there for "good, loyal citizens" to shoot him during the perp walk, then there would be a problem.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:01 AM on December 2, 2010 [14 favorites]
Instead, you should look into the USA's laws on incitement to unlawful acts. You'll find that only somewhat less permissive than our hate speech laws, however, as mere abstract advocacy of violence cannot be barred unless the speech is directed to inciting violence and there is a threat of "imminent lawless action." Brandenberg v. Ohio is the leading Supreme Court case on this issue.
So, basically, a radio host can call for the execution of Julian Assange, but if, say, Assange was being led in handcuffs through an American street, and the radio host made a call then and there for "good, loyal citizens" to shoot him during the perp walk, then there would be a problem.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:01 AM on December 2, 2010 [14 favorites]
Best answer: Sorry, I should have mentioned that the Brandenburg test also requires that the "imminent lawless action" also be "likely". So, three prongs: the speech has to be directed to causing the imminent lawless action, and it must be likely that the speech will actually incite that action. It's a pretty high bar.
As for what happens in other countries, well, that depends on the country!
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:09 AM on December 2, 2010
As for what happens in other countries, well, that depends on the country!
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:09 AM on December 2, 2010
"Execution" is not the same thing as "murder." The former is the end result of a judicial process. The latter is not. Essentially, the public figure in question is suggesting that Assange be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this.
The hilarious thing is that as a non-US citizen, it is legally impossible for Assange to commit treason against the United States, so though he could theoretically be in trouble for espionage, the requisite elements for treason are incomplete.
posted by valkyryn at 4:25 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
The hilarious thing is that as a non-US citizen, it is legally impossible for Assange to commit treason against the United States, so though he could theoretically be in trouble for espionage, the requisite elements for treason are incomplete.
posted by valkyryn at 4:25 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Agree with Valkryn. Also if I recall correctly, Huckabee at least was calling for the execution of "whoever was repsonsible for the leak", by which I think he meant Manning, rather than Assange. Manning of course is an American citizen. While I do not support the death penalty nor live in a country where it is legal, so long as you live in a jurisdiction where capital punishment exists, then it is not accurate to suggest that someone is calling for "murder" of that person when they are suggesting it as a punishment for a particular crime.
posted by modernnomad at 4:34 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by modernnomad at 4:34 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: In English law, it is illegal to intentionally encourage another person to commit an offence. I think this case would be a clear violation of that law since we do not have a death penalty.
To somebody who is not American, execution does not automatically imply capital punishment, and clearly, that could not be a defence when calling for someone's execution in a country without the death penalty. So on a global stage, the distinction mefites have made above between execution and murder are ambiguous at best. In fact, even where a death penalty exists, I'd be very concerned about any calls for an execution without even so much as a criminal charge filed, let alone a conviction. I don’t know if there’s a legal distinction there in the US, but it certainly looks like a moral issue to me. It basically amounts to a death fatwa, although I'm sure the distinction would be lost on those calling for it.
posted by londonmark at 5:19 AM on December 2, 2010
To somebody who is not American, execution does not automatically imply capital punishment, and clearly, that could not be a defence when calling for someone's execution in a country without the death penalty. So on a global stage, the distinction mefites have made above between execution and murder are ambiguous at best. In fact, even where a death penalty exists, I'd be very concerned about any calls for an execution without even so much as a criminal charge filed, let alone a conviction. I don’t know if there’s a legal distinction there in the US, but it certainly looks like a moral issue to me. It basically amounts to a death fatwa, although I'm sure the distinction would be lost on those calling for it.
posted by londonmark at 5:19 AM on December 2, 2010
To somebody who is not American, execution does not automatically imply capital punishment...
Bollocks. Yes it does.
Furthermore, the question was explicitly framed in the context of the United States legal system. It's a breathless and poorly-phrased question, but it's pretty clear about its scope.
As to your other point, even outside the US, suggesting that the death penalty ought to be implemented is going to be really, really hard to construe as a crime, particularly when it isn't on the basis of any protected category but on the subject engaging in criminal activity. Unless you live in a country with absolutely no protections for the freedom of speech, I cannot think of a way of making this statement legally problematic under any existing legal system.
posted by valkyryn at 5:49 AM on December 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
Bollocks. Yes it does.
Furthermore, the question was explicitly framed in the context of the United States legal system. It's a breathless and poorly-phrased question, but it's pretty clear about its scope.
As to your other point, even outside the US, suggesting that the death penalty ought to be implemented is going to be really, really hard to construe as a crime, particularly when it isn't on the basis of any protected category but on the subject engaging in criminal activity. Unless you live in a country with absolutely no protections for the freedom of speech, I cannot think of a way of making this statement legally problematic under any existing legal system.
posted by valkyryn at 5:49 AM on December 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
The folks calling for Assange's execution are doing so in the context of accusing him of treason; a offense that can carry the death penalty in the United States.
The ones that I have seen in the media have not been of the "someone ought to shoot him" variety, but rather of the "he ought to be tried for treason and given the death penalty" variety.
There are many problems with these calls, and I don't agree with them. However, your "shills for murder" comment really looks like you're grinding an axe.
posted by DWRoelands at 5:53 AM on December 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
The ones that I have seen in the media have not been of the "someone ought to shoot him" variety, but rather of the "he ought to be tried for treason and given the death penalty" variety.
There are many problems with these calls, and I don't agree with them. However, your "shills for murder" comment really looks like you're grinding an axe.
posted by DWRoelands at 5:53 AM on December 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
1- Execution does mean capital punishment, because the word execution comes from a shortening of "execution of sentence".
2- You can say "this person ought to be strung up" or "this person deserves to be punched in the head". But you can't say "someone should" or "you should".
3- But if they are calling for execution, as said above, it implies that a trial has happened and he was sentenced to death.
4- It is still tacky and uncool.
posted by gjc at 5:57 AM on December 2, 2010
2- You can say "this person ought to be strung up" or "this person deserves to be punched in the head". But you can't say "someone should" or "you should".
3- But if they are calling for execution, as said above, it implies that a trial has happened and he was sentenced to death.
4- It is still tacky and uncool.
posted by gjc at 5:57 AM on December 2, 2010
Best answer: This is a Free Speech issue, absolutely, and one of the ones that drives non-Americans nuts, but one that even the most liberal and left-leaning Americans usually support unreservedly.
Calling for Assanage's assassination is indeed a political opinion. Were it to be carried out, would be done in a lawful manner by the government. It's no different than calling for the execution of an accused criminal - it's just the due process is a bit different. It's repugnant, but protected speech.
Note - this is different than the constant drumbeat to kill Garfield, an illegal assassination to subvert the rule of law. They aren't calling for vigilante justice, and if they were, that could make them an accessory to murder. They want to kill Assanage, but they believe this is legal or should be made legal, and carried out by government agents.
Even though it is a fundamental right of people like Palin to call for the legal assassination of a civilian, it's morally reprehensible and pretty damn stupid. Welcome to the Right Wing.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:00 AM on December 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
Calling for Assanage's assassination is indeed a political opinion. Were it to be carried out, would be done in a lawful manner by the government. It's no different than calling for the execution of an accused criminal - it's just the due process is a bit different. It's repugnant, but protected speech.
Note - this is different than the constant drumbeat to kill Garfield, an illegal assassination to subvert the rule of law. They aren't calling for vigilante justice, and if they were, that could make them an accessory to murder. They want to kill Assanage, but they believe this is legal or should be made legal, and carried out by government agents.
Even though it is a fundamental right of people like Palin to call for the legal assassination of a civilian, it's morally reprehensible and pretty damn stupid. Welcome to the Right Wing.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:00 AM on December 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
Bollocks. Yes it does.
Definitely doesn't, at least not in your sense of "the end result of a judicial process". Hence phrases in our yellow press such as 'gangland-style execution'. Likewise with killings by other non-state actors such a paramilitary groups, e.g.
posted by Abiezer at 6:10 AM on December 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
Definitely doesn't, at least not in your sense of "the end result of a judicial process". Hence phrases in our yellow press such as 'gangland-style execution'. Likewise with killings by other non-state actors such a paramilitary groups, e.g.
posted by Abiezer at 6:10 AM on December 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
Execution need not refer to the end of a judicial process. It has other meanings.
posted by dfriedman at 6:12 AM on December 2, 2010
posted by dfriedman at 6:12 AM on December 2, 2010
I would add, to clarify things, that "hate speech" is not a constitutionally recognized category in the United States. When people in the U.S. throw around the term "hate speech", they're generally trying to get some body other than the government to penalize the speaker of a statement that they found offensive. There are people who argue that racially charged or other offensive speech is not or should not be protected under the First Amendment, but they're a tiny minority and much loathed by mainstream legal scholars and the public at large.
The weblog "The Volokh Conspiracy", and particularly Professor Eugene Volokh, have covered this repeatedly.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 6:17 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
The weblog "The Volokh Conspiracy", and particularly Professor Eugene Volokh, have covered this repeatedly.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 6:17 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
they're a tiny minority and much loathed by mainstream legal scholars and the public at large.
I think this rather an exaggeration -- you are correct that Eugene Volokh despises the idea of hate speech limiting free speech provisions, but it is a well contested point amongst legal academics. In any event, that's a derail from the question, so let's leave it at that.
posted by modernnomad at 6:47 AM on December 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
I think this rather an exaggeration -- you are correct that Eugene Volokh despises the idea of hate speech limiting free speech provisions, but it is a well contested point amongst legal academics. In any event, that's a derail from the question, so let's leave it at that.
posted by modernnomad at 6:47 AM on December 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
Even in a country like Canada, which has lots of legal mechanisms for protection against hurtful speech, even when it's only subjectively perceived as hurtful by a single person, you can probably suggest publicly that someone some public figure should be killed. It might be bad form, and bad taste, but it's not likely to be seen as a criminal death threat unless there's a reasonable apprehension that you're likely to see the threat carried out somehow. Incitement-type things have a proximity limit too. Rob Ford suggested in a city councillor's meeting that he'd rather see homeless people lynched publicly than staying in a homeless shelter they were proposing in his home riding, and he got elected mayor!
posted by Antexit at 6:49 AM on December 2, 2010
posted by Antexit at 6:49 AM on December 2, 2010
they're a tiny minority and much loathed by mainstream legal scholars
...who are themselves a tiny minority in the world legal community-- I think pretty much all liberal democracies have enacted some sort of legislation limiting the publication of hate speech to a certain extent.
Check out Jeremy Waldron's recent Holmes lectures recently-- he makes a very measured and reasonable argument for the proscription of certain types of public hate speech. Is he much loathed by the mainstream; more than liberal constitutional scholars are usually loathed by the mainstream?
posted by Antexit at 6:54 AM on December 2, 2010
...who are themselves a tiny minority in the world legal community-- I think pretty much all liberal democracies have enacted some sort of legislation limiting the publication of hate speech to a certain extent.
Check out Jeremy Waldron's recent Holmes lectures recently-- he makes a very measured and reasonable argument for the proscription of certain types of public hate speech. Is he much loathed by the mainstream; more than liberal constitutional scholars are usually loathed by the mainstream?
posted by Antexit at 6:54 AM on December 2, 2010
Essentially, the public figure in question is suggesting that Assange be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this.
This is false and deliberately disingenuitive framing. That is absolutely not what any of the public figures in question are calling for. Many, if not most, of the calls for his death have specifically called for his execution without any charges, trial or due process. They're not calling for his arrest, theyre calling for his immediate execution.
Marc Thiessen explicitly called for a US drone strike to kill Assange whenever he is hiding. Other rightwing calls to action have been along the same line. Enemy combatant. Terrorist organization. Theyre not advocating employing the legal process with execution as possible end outcome. They want immediate deployment of US military assets against an Australian citizen, without a trial or even an arrest.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:01 AM on December 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
This is false and deliberately disingenuitive framing. That is absolutely not what any of the public figures in question are calling for. Many, if not most, of the calls for his death have specifically called for his execution without any charges, trial or due process. They're not calling for his arrest, theyre calling for his immediate execution.
Marc Thiessen explicitly called for a US drone strike to kill Assange whenever he is hiding. Other rightwing calls to action have been along the same line. Enemy combatant. Terrorist organization. Theyre not advocating employing the legal process with execution as possible end outcome. They want immediate deployment of US military assets against an Australian citizen, without a trial or even an arrest.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:01 AM on December 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
But detached from any specific proximity to a real threat, isn't that just a more violent and reactionary way of saying "they should lock him up and throw away the key?" Not to minimize how horrible it must be to see people calling for the US to actually EXPAND "Rule of Law" Obama's disgraceful drone-strike assassinations, but besides being morally gross and gross from the perspective of justice, it doesn't seem like criminal conduct in any way I understand
posted by Antexit at 7:17 AM on December 2, 2010
posted by Antexit at 7:17 AM on December 2, 2010
Interestingly, I've read and heard a lot of complaining individuals who have called for the execution or severe punishment of those "who leaked this information." Note that Assange's organization, of which he is merely a figurehead, has not leaked anything itself.
Bradley Manning, the source for most of wikileaks' recent controversial material, was the "leaker" and is a US citizen, in solitary confinement in a military prison, and may be prosecuted harshly.
Anyone droning on about Assange being "executed" is being disingenuous or notably vague when it comes to international and US law -- in other words, something that's more suited for talk radio than for actual legal proceedings.
posted by mikeh at 7:21 AM on December 2, 2010
Bradley Manning, the source for most of wikileaks' recent controversial material, was the "leaker" and is a US citizen, in solitary confinement in a military prison, and may be prosecuted harshly.
Anyone droning on about Assange being "executed" is being disingenuous or notably vague when it comes to international and US law -- in other words, something that's more suited for talk radio than for actual legal proceedings.
posted by mikeh at 7:21 AM on December 2, 2010
Marc Thiessen explicitly called for a US drone strike to kill Assange whenever he is hiding.
Unless he's saying it directly to someone who (a) has an attack drone and (b) is reasonably likely to use it to murder Assange even in the absence of "proper" orders to do so, this would be impossible to punish in the US. In the real world, where almost nobody has attack drones and thems what do are under reasonably tight control by militaries, it's functionally identical to calling for the Eschaton to lob an impactor at him or for Thor to thwop him on the head with Mjollnir.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:49 AM on December 2, 2010 [7 favorites]
Unless he's saying it directly to someone who (a) has an attack drone and (b) is reasonably likely to use it to murder Assange even in the absence of "proper" orders to do so, this would be impossible to punish in the US. In the real world, where almost nobody has attack drones and thems what do are under reasonably tight control by militaries, it's functionally identical to calling for the Eschaton to lob an impactor at him or for Thor to thwop him on the head with Mjollnir.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:49 AM on December 2, 2010 [7 favorites]
And in the United States, the only one who (a) has an attack drone and (b) is reasonably likely to use it to murder Assange wouldn't consider it murder
posted by Antexit at 8:03 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Antexit at 8:03 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
It's also worth noting that Marc Thiessen explicitly did not explicitly call for a drone strike to kill Assange.
Marc Thiessen said:
"Assange is a non-U.S. person operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement, but also intelligence and military assets, to bring Assange to justice and put his criminal syndicate out of business."
That is actually very explicitly an observation about US law and not a call to do anything. And he neither mentions drones nor killing. It is Eva Rodriguez who goes far out of her way to put those words in his mouth.
posted by 256 at 8:16 AM on December 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
Marc Thiessen said:
"Assange is a non-U.S. person operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement, but also intelligence and military assets, to bring Assange to justice and put his criminal syndicate out of business."
That is actually very explicitly an observation about US law and not a call to do anything. And he neither mentions drones nor killing. It is Eva Rodriguez who goes far out of her way to put those words in his mouth.
posted by 256 at 8:16 AM on December 2, 2010 [2 favorites]
In the real world, where almost nobody has attack drones and thems what do are under reasonably tight control by militaries, it's functionally identical to calling for the Eschaton to lob an impactor at him or for Thor to thwop him on the head with Mjollnir.
You're right of course, except that it's somewhat reasonable to expect that the people with attack drones - the US military and security state, could find this line of argument persuasive and actually do it. What O'Rielly, Palin, etc are calling for is really the exercise of military force in a targeted assassination, not use of the legal system. It's an important rhetorical distinction, but clearly not actionable in the US or probably anywhere else.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:17 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
You're right of course, except that it's somewhat reasonable to expect that the people with attack drones - the US military and security state, could find this line of argument persuasive and actually do it. What O'Rielly, Palin, etc are calling for is really the exercise of military force in a targeted assassination, not use of the legal system. It's an important rhetorical distinction, but clearly not actionable in the US or probably anywhere else.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:17 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Mod note: folks - this is a difficult question and people are not being particularly helpful with the name calling. Please make further comments constructive and directly answering the question otherwise go to email or metatalk, thanks
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:30 AM on December 2, 2010
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:30 AM on December 2, 2010
Hate speech is generally allowed in the US even against the President in many cases. Generally the right-wingers who do this never leave the country because we are the "best country in the world".
posted by JJ86 at 9:56 AM on December 2, 2010
posted by JJ86 at 9:56 AM on December 2, 2010
Definitely doesn't, at least not in your sense of "the end result of a judicial process". Hence phrases in our yellow press such as 'gangland-style execution'. Likewise with killings by other non-state actors such a paramilitary groups
"The end result of a judicial process" is too specific, but the distinguishing factor of execution is that it is sanctioned by the state. The killer has not committed a crime.
The implication in describing a murder as "execution" is that the gang/paramilitary is assuming autonomous authority, defining their own "judicial process" that sanctions the killing. Those who work as executioners for such organizations can be prosecuted for literally doing the killing, but this does not actually bring the murder to justice.
posted by desuetude at 10:24 AM on December 2, 2010
"The end result of a judicial process" is too specific, but the distinguishing factor of execution is that it is sanctioned by the state. The killer has not committed a crime.
The implication in describing a murder as "execution" is that the gang/paramilitary is assuming autonomous authority, defining their own "judicial process" that sanctions the killing. Those who work as executioners for such organizations can be prosecuted for literally doing the killing, but this does not actually bring the murder to justice.
posted by desuetude at 10:24 AM on December 2, 2010
Response by poster: Peter Kemp amswers well here (scroll down)
posted by adamvasco at 10:03 AM on January 3, 2011
posted by adamvasco at 10:03 AM on January 3, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
There is no problem, in America, at least, with someone saying "I think that Person X should be executed for his crime" regardless of what that crime is. I mean, I could say "I think John Doe should be executed since he got a ticket for jaywalking." That be a rather stupid and callow thing to say, but, again, there's no prohibition against me saying that I think someone should be executed for crimes of which that other person has been convicted.
Calling for the wanton murder of someone else, though, is likely different. (Ignore here the question of whether state-sanctioned execution is a form of murder. Regardless of your opinion on the death penalty it's not really germane.)
As for other countries: every country has different laws about speech.
posted by dfriedman at 3:40 AM on December 2, 2010 [5 favorites]