In the case of Watts v. United States 394 U.S. 705 (1969),[62] the United States Supreme Court ruled that mere political hyperbole must be distinguished from true threats. At a DuBois Club public rally on the Washington Monument grounds, a member of the assembled group suggested that the young people present should receive more education before expressing their views. The accused, an 18-year-old man, replied:
They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed his conviction, but the Supreme Court reversed, stating, "We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was 'a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the president.' Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise."
In a concurring opinion, William O. Douglas noted, "The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done away with them forever ... Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution."
Those were the days my friend.. we thought they'd never end ...
But they did. Apparently.
#20 You just said, Clown, that you "...actually read the article and understood what Barney Frank said..."
Oh, you also said:
But then, curiously, in less than 145 minutes you make a 180 turn......and then claim that Barney Frank...
So, which is it, Clown?Your turn.