An alleged neo-Nazi in Louisville is pushing the constitutional envelope with a poem that resulted in a criminal charge as a threat to kill the President. Johnny Logan Spencer Jr. is charged with threatening the life of the President with his poem that refers to killing a black president but not Obama by name.
I have long harbored serious constitutional concerns over the federal law used to investigate and charge people for threats against the President. The Justice Department takes the position that even saying “I wanted to shoot that man” in reference to a president is a federal crime as opposed to free speech. Such expressions are juvenile and common in our society.
The case against Spencer, 27, is based on a sixteen-line poem entitled “The Sniper” including the statement “DIE negro DIE.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Philip Chance insists “[t]his is a threat by one individual against another because he is the president and because he is black.”
In fairness to Chance, this is consistent with past prosecutions. However, I strongly disagree with the premise of these prosecutions. The poem is vile but it is also an act of free speech and should be protected by the Constitution. It is possible to be both vile and protected speech.
Spencer faced five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for writing and publishing a poem.
What is particularly disturbing is that Oliver Stone can do a movie on killing a black president but Johnny Spencer cannot do a poem on the same premise. It is an example of criminalizing speech that should be anathema to Americans — regardless of how unsympathetic we are to the defendant.
For the full story, click here.
I read your Washington Examiner article. No where in it does it state that the article was not reposted recently.
And since the actual article we are discussing clearly states that it was, and since the first article you posted also refers to the “ORIGINAL” poem, there is just no reason to question that fact as its been presented. That the Washington Examiner omits that piece of information in no way discredits the other articles which include it.
And since we know the Secret Service is not stupid, and since we know that no court or judge would authorize a warrant to arrest someone for threatening the President BEFORE he was the President, your argument is nonsensical.
That you are desperately scouring the web for an article that would support your nonsensical position is clear. You cannot be “wrong to me”. I get it.
But you’re doing yourself no service by pushing an argument that has absolutely no foundation in reality.
The article above CLEARLY states that the arrest was due to a recent reposting of the poem.
If we find out that is not the case and that the FBI was lying about that then no doubt all charges will be dropped against Mr Spencer. Because obviously you cannot charge someone with threatening the President if the threat they made was before he was President, and there isn’t a court in the land that would uphold such a warrant.
But based on the article above, and the first article you provided us to counter it with the only information we have so far to go on reports that Mr Spencer was arrested due to a recent “REPOSTING” of the “ORIGINAL” poem.
“Gerty,
What is the name of this other white-supremacist website? ? ” – Duh
The article doesn’t tell us the name of the other website, so how would I know?
“If the article is correct in stating that it was recently re-posted, why not tell us what site it was recently re-posted on? ” – Duh
Gee, I don’t know, could it be that they haven’t released that information yet because the site is under investigation?
But that doesn’t change the fact that the article clearly points out that the charges stem from a “RECENT REPOSTING” of the article and not the “ORIGINAL” article.
Once again Duh, if you’d try taking the time to actually read the articles you are trying to argue with me on, you’d see that Mr Spencer’s arrest stemmed from a “RECENT” complaint filed due to a “REPOSTING” of the poem on some White Supremacist website used for social networking, and not the “ORIGINAL” posting of the poem several years ago.
I know you are chomping at the bit when it comes to opportunities to disagree with me on something, but please.
Try reading the articles first so you know what it is you’re disagreeing with me on.
Gerty,
What is the name of this other white-supremacist website? If the article is correct in stating that it was recently re-posted, why not tell us what site it was recently re-posted on? They posted the name of the place it was posted in 2007, so it can’t be that they don’t want to identify white supremacist websites. They already did that.
I’m not getting my information from just one source.
If he recently re-posted the poem, why not provide us with at least the month and year? I’m looking for something to support “recently”.
This article in the Washington Examiner states
“U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Stephan M. Pazenzia said Johnny Logan Spencer Jr., 27, of Louisville wrote and posted the poem, titled “The Sniper,” on a page called NewSaxon.org. The site is described as an “Online Community for Whites by Whites.” The poem was posted in August 2007, according to an arrest affidavit”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/84773862.html#ixzz0gI7gDRBl
So you not only didn’t take the time to read the article, you’re now linking us to ANOTHER article that you likewise didn’t bother to read?
Here. From your article.
“The ORIGINAL version of the poem called “The Sniper” debuted on a white supremacy site called newsaxon.org.”
…and
“The arrest came as a result of a complaint filed by a Secret Service agent this week.”
So clearly your article also clearly distinguishes between the current complaint, and the ORIGINAL posting of the poem.
http://www.whas11.com/news/Poem-lands-Louisville-man-behind-bars-seen-as-threat-to-President-Obama-84808622.html
No response Duh?
Then we can assume you finally took the time to read the article and now understand that “earlier this month” does not equal 2007?
Duh–
You said: “I don’t see anything that supports a posting anyplace other than NewSaxon.org, nor a posting date more recent than 2007.”
An excerpt from the article Professor Turley linked to:
“Pazienza said he received a call earlier this month from an FBI special agent who said that a man with the user name “Pain1488” —later identified as Spencer — HAD RECENTLY POSTED (my emphasis) the poem on a Web site used for social networking by white supremacists.”
NOTE: Pazienza is the Secret Service Special Agent mentioned in the article.
“everything I have read indicates that “recently” is a few years ago.” Duh
Well that’s not what the article states.
The article states that he did write the poem “a few years ago”, but several times it points out that he “reposted” the article recently.
Which clearly distinguishes the “recent” posting from a “few years ago”.
In fact it states that at the beginning of the article.
Here. From the opening line of the article.
“Testing the limits of the First Amendment, federal prosecutors have charged a Louisville man with threatening to kill the president based on a poem he wrote and recently re-posted on a neo-Nazi Web site.”
And further down the article we see this point reiterated;
“The agent said Spencer apologized for writing the poem a couple of years ago and for posting it on the NewSaxon.org Web site, which Chance said is affiliated with the American National Socialist movement. But Spencer said he didn’t intend to harm the president, Pazienza said.
Pazienza said he received a call earlier this month from an FBI special agent who said that a man with the user name “Pain1488” —later identified as Spencer — had recently posted the poem on a Web site used for social networking by white supremacists.”
So we clearly see that the “NewSaxon.org” posting a few years ago is clearly distinguished from the “recent posting” on “a Web site used for social networking by white supremacists”.
So we see the article clearly distinguishes between the NewSaxon.org posting a few years back and the “RECENT” posting on some OTHER website.
Like I said the first time.
If you would take the time to read the article, you’ll see that he recently reposted the poem on a Neo Nazi website.
“I think the journalist writing the article has taken some liberties. While I have not been able to find the affidavit (so that I could read it myself), everything I have read indicates that “recently” is a few years ago. ” – Duh
Well I can only comment on the information provided in the article.
If your retort is that you “don’t believe” the article then I would have no response to such an argument. I can only comment on the facts as they are presented and while you may be right, I have no information at this time to discredit the article or the author of it.
If you don’t “believe” it that is your prerogative but it is not something I can respond to.
Gerty,
I think the journalist writing the article has taken some liberties. While I have not been able to find the affidavit (so that I could read it myself), everything I have read indicates that “recently” is a few years ago. The original posting in August 2007 was to a neo-nazi website. I don’t see anything that supports a posting anyplace other than NewSaxon.org, nor a posting date more recent than 2007.
“Gerty,
How did a guy threaten “President” Obama over a year before he was even elected to that office? And if the threat is perceived as real, why did they wait until a year after Obama took office to arrest him?” – Duh
Duh.
If you take time to read the article you’ll see that he recently reposted the poem on a Neo Nazi website.
“Obviously, no one wants bad things to happen. But preventing bad things from happening has always been the reason given for reducing freedom of speech and other freedoms, as well. If we try to arrest everyone who expressed hatred for another person because they might then commit violence, well…that just wouldn’t work.” – LJM
I think “bad thing” is a little light given what we are discussing but ok. It would be a bad thing. But lets be clear I did not suggest we arrest everyone who expressed “hatred” for another person.
Heinrich Himmler’s Grandson here did not express just “hatred”.
He expressed a sniper operation to assassinate the President.
That’s a far cry from just expressing hatred.
I read the article, and in it the Secret Service point out that Spencer confirmed he was talking about President Obama. To be fair he also indicated he did not intend to kill him, but the fact is his poem says otherwise. Or at least it incites OTHERS to do so.
Free speech is one of the most sacred protections we have Constitutionally, particularly the right to protest our government. But the Supreme Court ruled that speech which incites others to do harm or injury, whether by intent or design is not covered by free speech protections. You can’t yell “fire in a crowded movie house” for example.
Yet you’re not threatening anyone.
You’re not threatening to light a fire.
You’re not encouraging others to do so.
But what you are doing is inciting others to behave in a manner which could cause injury and even death.
Thus, you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater.
So if that’s the interpretation, how can you yell “ASSASSINATE” to a group of people who are anti govt and heavily armed?
Fomenting treason, sedition, murder.
These to me do not seem like speech protected by the Constitution.
I think too many threats are being ignored and its comforting to see that is starting to change.
Well, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Spencer and others like him should be ignored. But there’s a big difference between investigating a potential threat, and arresting people for what this is: a thought crime.
I would never want to see free speech stifled but I also, never, EVER want to see this President lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda.
Obviously, no one wants bad things to happen. But preventing bad things from happening has always been the reason given for reducing freedom of speech and other freedoms, as well. If we try to arrest everyone who expressed hatred for another person because they might then commit violence, well…that just wouldn’t work.
And the best response to bad speech, like Spencer’s, is more speech, never less.
Gerty,
How did a guy threaten “President” Obama over a year before he was even elected to that office? And if the threat is perceived as real, why did they wait until a year after Obama took office to arrest him?
There once was a man from Kentucky
Who was as racist as he was unlucky
He wrote a verse
About the prez in a hearse,
And now he’s in prison, how sucky.
Wow, tough call. I really agree with the idea of not restricting speech. I also have to be fair and acknowledge that there is and ever has been only one black President, so,..little Himmler here was obviously making a threat to President Obama.
I’m torn on this one as I am a strong free speech advocate, but the fact is there have been WAY, WAY, WAY too many threats on this President’s life. Many of them being fomented in CPAC and GOP rallies by actual members of Congress. There’s a massive trend in the neoconservative camps for murdering this President, so I have a hard time faulting the Justice Dept here. After all what if this guy got a high powered rifle and did try or succeed in assassinating the President? What then?
Would there not be massive calls for condemnation against officials for ignoring such an obvious threat? What other black Presidents could this Heinrich Himmler look-alike have meant? Would not society be up in arms with officials for not acting on such an obvious threat?
I like President Obama. I didn’t vote for him and I might not vote for him again if he doesn’t reverse his decisions on our 4th Amendment protections. But I like him. He’s a decent guy who’s at least TRYING to do something unlike his predecessor. I do not want to see him hurt. In fact, I don’t think this country could take that right now. I think it would lead to civil unrest like this country hasn’t seen since Dr King was murdered by another scumbag with a racial problem. So I am glad they are addressing this case. Does the guy deserve to go to prison for this poem? Probably not. But he also doesn’t deserve to be ignored.
On another note it draws a distinct question as to where this sort of concern was when neoconservative lunatics with Rifles and Semi Automatic handguns were protesting near the President carrying signs calling for his assassination? The sign “Its time to water the tree of liberty” is a clear death threat. The clearest. There is no ambiguous nature there when the bearer of such a sign is also carrying an M16 over his shoulder.
I thought that that person should have been arrested for clearly threatening the President and if not threatening, at least inciting others to do so. Which this Heinrich Himmler descendants poem clearly is designed to do. Either threaten to kill or encourage others to do so.
Tough call. I can’t fault your argument Dr Turley but I can’t completely agree with it either. I think too many threats are being ignored and its comforting to see that is starting to change. I would never want to see free speech stifled but I also, never, EVER want to see this President lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda.
I’ve seen that once in my life already and once was enough.
“The agent said Spencer apologized for writing the poem a couple of years ago and for posting it on the NewSaxon.org Web site, which Chance said is affiliated with the American National Socialist movement. But Spencer said he didn’t intend to harm the president, Pazienza said.”
“for writing the poem a couple of years ago”???
According to Spencer’s attorney, the poem was written and posted in 2007.
[COMMENT CENSORED BY DHS]
Coming soon to a blog near you . . .
Louisville you say? The Word Slugger of today? I suppose they are trying to put a cork in it….