There is a concerning free speech case out of Tennessee where a retired police officer was arrested after posting anti-Charlie Kirk messages on the Internet. Larry Bushart, 61, of Lexington, Tennessee, was arrested for threatening a mass shooting at a school, but the cited messages do not support such a claim. Indeed, his comments appear to be protected political speech under governing Supreme Court precedent.
I have written about Charlie’s legacy fighting for free speech and how recent terminations and cancel campaigns of his critics dishonor that legacy.
Bushart is clearly one of the unhinged voices on the Internet who trolls and inflames others. At his arrest, even Bushart admitted that he is a bit of “an a**hole,” but insisted that he is not a criminal. He appears correct on both counts.
Bushart was charged Sept. 22 with making threats of mass violence at a school. However, he is not scheduled for a preliminary and bond hearing until December 4th. That delay is also troubling since his bond is set at an astronomical $2 million.
Bushart is a former police officer with the Huntingdon Police Department and was arrested after posting on a Perry County community Facebook group page. There was a planned vigil for Kirk in Linden, Tennessee, on Sept. 23.
Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems accused Bushart of posting what he called “hate memes” about Kirk’s death. Weems correctly noted that such memes are not illegal, but one appeared to cross the line in his view.
One meme showed Trump saying, “We have to get over it,” a direct quote from the president after a January 2024 school shooting in Perry County, Iowa , that left one dead and seven wounded.
The phrase “This seems relevant today” appears above the photo.
The Tennesseean‘s Angele Latham found that the meme was “posted numerous times across multiple social media platforms not connected to Bushart going back to 2024.”
However, Bushart was quickly visited by the police. Undeterred, he posted on the account: “Received a visit from Lexington PD regarding my posted memes.”
He was later arrested on a charge of Threats of Mass Violence on School Property and Activities. A conviction could bring as much as six years in prison.
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously protected hyperbole and rejected claims that political speech could fall under the true threat exception to the First Amendment. In Watts v. United States, a protester claimed that, if drafted, “the first man I want to get in my sights is [then-President Lyndon Johnson].” The court insisted that it was not a “true threat” but rather “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.”
Watts established that a true threat had to be established according to three factors: (1) the context of the statement or statements in question; (2) the conditional nature of the supposed threat; and (3) the reaction of the recipient or listeners.
One recent case could be weighed in the Bushart matter.
In 2023, in Counterman v. Colorado, Billy Raymond Counterman was accused of stalking after he sent thousands of messages over two years to a female musician on Facebook. It included menacing references to her car and movements.
A state appellate court upheld the conviction on the basis that a person could “reasonably perceive” the messages as a threat.
The Supreme Court reversed and ruled that the threats did not have to meet an “objective” standard, but could be sustained by showing Counterman’s state of mind, a “subjective standard.” Under the standard laid out by Justice Kagan, the government must prove recklessness, but not necessarily intent: “The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”
However, the Court expressed concern over the chilling effect of prosecutions in cases of vague threats: “The speaker’s fear of mistaking whether a statement is a threat; his fear of the legal system getting that judgment wrong; his fear, in any event, of incurring legal costs — all those may lead him to swallow words that are in fact not true threats.”
In prior cases, the Court also adopted a protective stance, requiring more than how words or actions were perceived. In Virginia v. Black (2003), the Court upheld the criminalization of cross burning when the act was intended as a threat: ‘True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”
Likewise, in 2015, the Supreme Court reversed a conviction in Elonis v. United States, involving a man who had posted rap lyrics on Facebook that appeared to threaten his ex-wife and others. The Court rejected jury instructions that required only that the jury find that he communicated what a reasonable person would regard as a threat.
The Tennessee case appears to fall substantially short of these prior cases.
Weems insisted that he posted the picture “to indicate or make the audience think it was referencing our Perry High School. This led teachers, parents, and students to conclude he was talking about a hypothetical shooting at our school. “(people) reached out in concern.”
However, that interpretation was not shared by others who commented on the posting, including critics. It was viewed by many as simply Bushart dismissing the killing of Kirk as something that we “should get over.”
The question is what clarity is necessary to sustain a criminal charge. Bushart has a protected right to rail against Kirk and, in his words, be “an a**hole.”
The case is likely to focus on the political speech element, including Weems’s own writings on Kirk. After the assassination, Weems mourned the loss and warned about the “evil” in our midst. “Evil could be your neighbor,” he wrote. “Evil could be standing right beside you in the grocery store. It could be your own family member and you never even know it.”
In a video, an officer explains to a confused Bushart what he is being charged with: “Threatening Mass Violence at a School.”
“At a school?” Bushart responded, and the officer added, “I ain’t got a clue. I just gotta do what I have to do.”
Bushart then said: “I’ve been in Facebook jail but now I’m really in it,.I may have been an a**hole but…”
Bushart would have to post a bail of at least $210,000 to get out of jail.
I do not see how this charge can be sustained on these facts. Given the free speech concerns, the long delay in getting before a judge is even more troubling.
Granted, the guy probably is what he accused himelf of being but doesn’t a threat need to be clear, direct, and imminent to actually be a threat? Hyperbole, or opinions on who deserves what may be disturbing but subjective interpretations seem like a poor basis for legal actions. It becomes too easy for those with power to persecute people they dislike.
Even worse, 2-1/2 months from arrest to bond hearing looks like a violation of civil rights under color of law. It’s a form of lawfare where the process is the punishment even if the case is thrown out. The problem is that the perpetrators never face consequences for their abuse of authority. Total lack of balance.
“Hyperbole, or opinions on who deserves what may be disturbing but subjective interpretations seem like a poor basis for legal actions. It becomes too easy for those with power to persecute people they dislike.”
Absolutely, I think that was Turley’s exact point
“Even worse, 2-1/2 months from arrest to bond hearing looks like a violation of civil rights under color of law.”
I realize that the guaranteed “right to a speedy trial” may have lost some of its meaning in recent times when defendants’ attorneys routinely delay proceedings for as long as possible to the advantage of their clients, but in this case, considering the bond amount, might that not be a clear violation?
In Bushart’s case the locals have wanted to shut him up for some time, OF. I’m sure he’ll continue after release.
Clear and present? I’m holding a knife saying I’m going to cut your throat . Likely in the future, if not today I will one day so be afraid!
Hyperbole is accompanied by a sudden hot tempered argument with words like, I’m going to kill you if you don’t stop. No weapons present.
There’s always Betty Broderick and the Juice OTOH.
The guy has a right to say bad things about Charlie Kirk. It’s despicable but it’s not a crime. What strikes me as ironic is how the leftist socialist hate guns except for the gun that was used to kill Charlie Kirk. They love that gun with every fiber of their souls. Don’t forget, they jumped with glee about the gun that was used in attempt on Donald Trumps life. Communists guns good and should be shared. Capitalist guns bad and should be confiscated. Just a little bit of history repeating.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Until the man uses a stick or a stone to hurt someone he is free to say what he wants to say. There is one exception. A person may not actually commit an act of violence but if he incites others to do so he is subject to the penalty of the law. Short of incitement to violence this man has not broken the law and is protected by the conditions of the first amendment. Though I may not agree with his statements I must be willing to fight to my death for his right to make them. However, there are those who believe that the force of law should be applied to criminalize people for speaking that with which they disagree. When placed in power such people will attempt to form a governmental department and name it the Department of Misinformation.
We should not forget nor become one of those who would be happy if the first amendment were abolished all together. We know who they are.
It seems obvious that this moron will not be convicted and if convicted it will be overturned…as it should be. HOWEVER, maybe sitting in jail for a few months with a 2 million dollar bail is what the leftists should experience after what conservatives went through after J6. Conservatives were held WITHOUT BAIL and in horrible conditions by an aggressively repugnant DOJ that was he** bent on making sure conservatives never protested again. Of course all of this happened after a year (2020) of left wing riots that did much more damage and actually killed people with ZERO punishment being metered out.
So of course this case is an affront to free speech and of course I hope it gets overturned if there is a conviction, but it is about time some leftists a**hats found out what it is like to be a conservative.
are you really that ignorant?
Seems a bit of an overreach, you have Democratic politicians making death threats against their opponents and they arrest this guy for some benign meme? Arrest the ghetto queen ot the guy running for Virginia AG, more substantial than this.
Yes, the AG’s words are far worse because he has power to prosecute as the sheriff also has power to arrest. Mr. Bushart is a common powerless citizen. Sheriff Weems is also a Kirk supporter and participant in the memorial. This is abuse of power.
Will a jury also want to shut up the troll they’ve been plagued by for years?
Turley may be technically correct but with the current crop of crazies that have been ginned up by the vicious rhetoric from the left, it is probably wise to err on the side of caution. Too sad that we have purposefully manufactured so many confused, angry, misinformed people who feel enabled to enact the most horrific acts all in the name of causes that these individuals usually do not comprehend in their entirety. How we deal with several generations of jacked-up morons is another problem that must be confronted.
The “current crop” issue may justify a closer look at the guy. Was he really threatening anyone etc. I get that. But arresting him and putting a $2 mill bail on him over a meme???
Not just “technically correct”, but actually correct in all senses. There is simply no way to see what he posted as a threat. His arrest was outright false, and Weems who ordered it should himself be arrested and charged with perjury, false arrest, making a false report, and every other possible charge, and should be subjected to the same conditions he has caused this innocent a**hole to suffer. And this innocent a**hole deserves at least $500K in compensation, on top of all his lawyers’ fees and other expenses.
“. . . err on the side of caution.”
She might be a witch. So let’s “err on the side of caution” and see if she floats.
That’s what you consider a “wise” use of the law, of a man’s loss of freedom, of penalizing him into bankruptcy?!
The real story here is that the government is making it seem a crime to share a meme. This is what happens in Putin’s Russia.
The real story here is that you turned a blind eye to the man not only arrested but also convicted and jailed for a meme he posted about Hillary Clinton during the 2016. That’s what actually happened in Biden’s police state fascist America.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/10/18/viral-meme-maker-who-joked-about-hillary-clinton-sentenced-to-7-months-in-prison-for-election-interference/
This should not have happened, either.
That was wrong too, but it’s not the same thing. In that case there was something to charge him with, it wasn’t totally fabricated. They should have understood that it was a joke, but it was possible that some moron would take it seriously and not vote. In this case there was literally no threat at all. Just a callous statement that if we should get over school shootings we should get over Kirk’s assassination too. That’s not just not a “true threat”, it’s not even a “false threat”.
It wasn’t a post about Hillary Clinton, it was a post to get people to throw away their votes, and something called “election interference.” In the case at hand, the guy reposted the same words that Trump used. Douglass Mackey had his day in court and was convicted. The tweet had specific instructions. The liberal tweet did not, but noted that they could vote on Super Wednesday, which is hilarious.
There are more details about Douglass at https://www.nydailynews.com/2023/03/26/pro-trump-troll-douglass-mackey-confronted-with-his-racist-sexist-tweets-at-election-interference-trial-in-brooklyn/
“During Mackey’s cross-examination Thursday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Erik Paulsen showed him a string of his tweets from the months leading up to the 2016 election, suggesting that the vote-by-text images were deliberately aimed at fooling Black people and women.”
He wasn’t convicted for a tweet. He was convicted for planning to interfere in the election and putting that planning into effect.
Mail your ballot before the deadline next Wednesday!
More bad news for the libs.
__________________
The group, called Welcome, consulted hundreds of thousands of voters over six months for its broad findings, including that 70% of voters think the Democratic Party is “out of touch.” Most voters, the group found, believe the party over-prioritizes issues like “protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans,” and “fighting climate change” while not caring about “securing the border” or “lowering the rate of crime.”
It’s not bad news for the Liberals. It is bad news for those who believe those things and will vote for the Republicans who will continue to increase the national debt, cut taxes on the wealthy so they can invest in moving good paying American jobs to foreign countries or buy up American housing to rent back to them, cut social programs to increase homelessness, make being homeless a crime to imprison them and use them as slave labor by the wealthy. It’s bad news for those who will suffer from medical problems because the Republicans are at the pre-civilization level of “let the weak die.” but then beg for farm price supports, because “the weak” is code for “minorities.”
It was bad news for those on the Titanic who believed it was unsinkable and therefore didn’t care that the life boats wouldn’t fit the entire crew.
Free speech must include speech that is offensive. Otherwise, how can it be free if we can say only things that everyone, including government officials, agree with. Remarkably, the Supreme Court has taken this position. See Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), Watts v. United States (1969), and National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977).
*. Yes, Floyd, we don’t have the evidence. There is the 2.5 month delay. Reason?
Well folks, there’s 4 or 5 cases cited to read. The new matrix cited 1,2 and 3 with context and conditions. There’s always Brandenburg and clear and present and likely in the future matrix.
Check the boxes before saying anything even hyperbolic like- if you don’t stop that I’ll choke you to death or preceed the hyperbole with I FEEL LIKE CHOKING YOU TO DEATH.
A rose by any other name…
I don’t care.
Yes, I do care about civil liberties and I don’t want to see authorities trample them.
But it’s become increasingly clear that there is a hate-filled, malignant zeitgeist taking hold of a significant percentage of the US population to the point where we are no longer dealing with simple (or complex) differences of opinion.
The Moral Injury of War has begun to manifest itself in the everyday discourse of our nation.
People I’ve never met want to see me dead for no other reason than my constitutionally protected political views, with leaders of the Democrat party egging them on.
Unfortunately there are also extreme voices on the right calling for equally abhorrent behavior.
As a war veteran, I can clearly see the mutual dehumanization taking hold and justifying the murderous intentions of true believers on both sides of the aisle.
I’m guessing that the sheriff knows the case will eventually be dismissed with the psycho released on the streets as the latest Martyr of The Left.
But meanwhile, this wacko is neutralized, even if only briefly “cooling his jets”, so to speak.
I understand that you are devoted to upholding this man’s (and all of our) rights, Professor, so in the end, I hope that you or someone else is successful in helping him IF the facts are as you’ve stated.
But till then, I don’t care.
Then, no, you don’t care about civil liberties and you do want to see authorities trample them.
Well you bring up Brandenburg and notification of the press and it matters, yes. The new advocacy journalism is fueling this and embedded algorithms everyone is unaware of in all digital word, press, media of every kind. Tik tok is notorious. It’s all bad, Gordy, it cause retardation. Just read George’s posts .
Face Booked
It seems anything mocking Charlie Kirk or celebrating his death is blasphemy according to MAGAs and conservatives alike. They’ve spent so much time lionizing and invoking Kirk to some sort of sainthood status that anything denigrating or deregatory about him is a crime and punishable by firing or suspension. Intolerance from the right is making them look like Democrats.
Anyone is free to consider anything blasphemy.
Mocking the dead or celebrating their death is generally vile.
But it is NOT illegal.
As you should not right HERE there are many voices from the right
criticizing the malign speech against Kirk but supporting the right to speak it.
When the shoe in on the other foot, find democrats who would thwart government seeking to ACTUALLY punish speech is near impossible.
YOU would be trying to explain to us in how in some pointless way the speach of whoever on the right who had offended you was not protected.
YOU sought to prosecute Trump for exhorting people to protest PEACEFULLY.
YOU do not have a leg to stand on commenting on what speech is permissible and what is not.
“ YOU would be trying to explain to us in how in some pointless way the speach of whoever on the right who had offended you was not protected.
YOU sought to prosecute Trump for exhorting people to protest PEACEFULLY.”
John, when have I said anything of that nature? You’re terribly confused.
I’ve never said speech from those on the right is not protected. Only speech that is clearly not protected such as inciting violence and and true threats. I’ve stated that speech is not protected when it involves private companies or organizations.
I sought to hold Trump accountable for his inciting speech. He called on his supporters to beat up protesters at his rallies, “rough them up a little”. That’s not peaceful.
On Jan 6 he told his supporters to “fight like hell.” That’s not a peaceful suggestion. I know Trump supporters like you like to leave that out.
“ YOU do not have a leg to stand on commenting on what speech is permissible and what is not.“
Sure I do. You just don’t like the fact that I often point out the hypocrisy of Turley’s free speech positions.
“ As you should not right HERE there are many voices from the right
criticizing the malign speech against Kirk but supporting the right to speak it.“
ROLF!
Riiiight. The majority of voices from the demand punishment of those criticizing Kirk. The cancel culture is alive and well on the right from firings to calls for severe punishment. You kid yourself if you think that is not true. Even professor Turley demands the harshest punishment for students who practice their free speech rights by claiming it’s conduct instead of speech.
On Jan 6 he told his supporters to “fight like hell.” That’s not a peaceful suggestion.
Yes, it is absolutely a peaceful call. And it’s no different from what literally every politician, from every party, routinely says all the time.
The context of Trump’s “fight like hell” was different. He had been stoking his supporters for months with talk of cheating and the need to oveturn the election. It doesn’t take much to link intent to his call to “fight like hell”. He’s called on supporters to “rough up protesters” at his rallies. That is encouragement of violence.
His intention was to let the crowds get riled up enough to start rioting on his behalf. That is why he did nothing for hours hoping the violence would produce the outcome he wanted. Even Republican legislators were begging him to stop and that is why Republicans are so intent on re-writing history to avoid the ugly thruth about what went on Jan 6.
“The context of Trump’s “fight like hell” was different.”
Lmao at your stupidity
This is just stupid and counterfactual.
Yup. The way the Republican lawmakers fled the chamber after the mob that Trump aimed at them forced their way into the Capitol building is all the proof required that Trump, having summoned the mob, intended them to invade the House Chamber in order to stop the acceptance of the election, which is exactly what they did. There are many Trumplicans who still believe the lies that failed in many election related lawsuits for lack of evidence and lack of standing.
No, Trump doesn’t fool around with silly words. Let us recall the Iran and bunker busters, blowing up cartel boats is business. He’s very serious about the Venezuelan abuse of western hemisphere.
Yes, just like ancient Greeks and burial rites.
These are brutes.
“We’re gonna fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country any more!”
That doesn’t sound peaceful to me.
It’s very peaceful — and it’s exactly what literally every politician says every time they seek support.
What do you think “campaign” means? Literally every politician has a campaign, and goes campaigning, and no one accuses them of using violent language, let alone of inciting violence.
This whole like of attack is stupid.
Read the comments here. Do you find any support for your claims in them?
Shut up , X, you’d leave Kirk on a hillside for the vultures to eat with a sign saying- this will happen to all Republicans.
“It seems anything mocking Charlie Kirk or celebrating his death is blasphemy according to MAGAs and conservatives alike.”
Apparently, you did not read JT’s post or any of the comments defending Bushart’s right to be an obnoxious jerk.
Problems with reading comprehension? Or just an urge to smear conservatives?
Charlie Kirk was their last, best hope to groom a new generation of conservative cult members. Those Young Republicans aren’t going to radicalize themselves.
What a conundrum for the pro-Charlie Kirk free speech advocate.
Not at all.
The speech in question is vile but legal.
Bushart should be released immediately.
/|\ THIS /|\
No conundrum whatsoever.
I’m almost certainly over generalizing when I say Bushart spends entirely too much time alone, possibly using social media as pseudo-social contacts, where just one or two “likes” can make your day. This “like” feedback in turn affects the messages sent, say from coarse to hate, to threats, and beyond. He wasn’t radicalized in the usual sense; more or less, he radicalized himself.
You are right.
He undoubtedly has absolutely no life outside of his online activities.
Kinda like the regulars here who are here obsessively commenting all day every day, and then congratulating each other about their “well said” comments.
Upstatefarmer, Dustoff, Floyd, James, John Say, Estovir, Thinkithrough, Young, Dianna Bec, whimsicalmama, Sam to just name a very few.
Unlike yourself Ano?
DustOff,
Check the time hacks of the annony moron vs ours. We all know who obsessively comments here all day, every day.
@Anonymous
Sigh. I guess your house doesn’t have mirrors. I actually know for a fact that engagement farms don’t, that tiny little box you live and work in. Hope it was worth it to you in ten years. Invest your money now, because there will not be an hourly wage for this kind of thing in the future, and you can count on it.
@gdonaldallen
This is what happened to my brother, he radicalized himself watching YouTube for eight hours a day, not consciously, but just letting the algorithm serve up content, for years, and is in a community where it is nurtured. If it isn’t straight up mental illness, it is still certainly unhealthy.
James
And a similar thing happened to you by spending your time here all day every day making stupid comments.
James,
And that is why I make a point of rarely watching YouTube. One of the reasons why I come to the good professor’s blog is to read what he says, and read the interesting comments from good people like yourself, GEB, OldManFromKS, HullBobby, TiT, Lin, WiseOldLawyer, Floyd, John Say to name just a few.
I haven’t seen OldmanfromKansas post recently. I hope he is OK.
He posted yesterday, I think.
@Upstate
It would be fine if there were any actual human intervention going on, but he just lets the algorithm blindly take him further and further down a rabbit hole.
And I love your comments, as I do those of your aforementioned; even if I don’t always reply, I read them, and I always find them salient and/or *legitimately* challenging (rather than simply inflammatory and idiotic), which I personally appreciate very much – I am happy to change my mind or consider another perspective if there is sanity involved. That is how it supposed to be.
You are a good man, Upstate.
What did he actually say?
Bizarre. So the Trump quote was the basis for the arrest? I can see a law suit in the future.
Even a**holes have free speech (as clearly displayed in numerous places). This isn’t Europe
We have witnessed the effects of delayed justice for decades now as the laws have become increasingly pretlezated by lawyers and judges.
We have seen what happens with activist judges and lawyers engaged in lawfare.
Free speech must be free.
Unfortunately, many can no longer discern the difference between words and actual threats.
How does one tell?
When actual punishment is openly and quickly carried out for acts of actual violence.
what it demonstrates are police can be thugs…former and current appear to match that, in this case.
I’m shocked the he was former law enforcement.
Nuts
As you note – being an A$$hole is not a crime.
Absent something much more substantial than is present here – this case should be dropped.
I totally agree. The irony is Turley doesn’t go out of his way to mention party affiliation this time.
Do you know george?
Since Prez Trump election All the threats of murder has been coming from the LEFT!
Bad bad Turley for allowing people to beleive that Bushart might be a right wing nut.
Well, he’s always pointing out party afiliation when the left is involved. When he leaves it out is when those on the right are involved. It’s pretty obvious.
Notice he does not even take the time to plug in his book as he always does with these kinds of articles. Turley always makes an effort to let everyone know party affiliation it’s politically convenient.
“I totally agree. The irony is Turley doesn’t go out of his way to mention party affiliation this time.”
Mad King GeorgeX: Not one day of his life has any meaning until he has visited Professor Turley’s blog posting for that day to yap and snarl at Professor Turley’s heels like a fat lady’s lap dog on the loose.
This is what he claims to be valuable constructive criticism. Mad King GeorgeX’s Delusions Of Adequacy continue.
Anonymous, what do YOU offer besides snide remarks?
BTW, thanks for being my No. 1 fan. Always look forward to your adoration and comments.