Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Are_grits_groceries

(17,111 posts)
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 05:18 PM Aug 2013

Judge sides with abortion opponent over alleged threat:"Bomb threat is free speech"

WICHITA — An abortion opponent’s letter to a Wichita doctor saying someone might place an explosive under her car is constitutionally protected speech and not a “true threat” under existing law, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten summarily found in favor of Angel Dillard in the 2011 civil lawsuit brought by the Justice Department under a law aimed at protecting access to abortion services. The 25-page decision handed down comes after a flurry of sealed filings seeking summary judgment.

The judge wrote that the government supplied no evidence that actual violence against Dr. Mila Means was likely or imminent.
<snip>
Dillard wrote in her letter that thousands of people from across the nation were scrutinizing Means’ background and would know “your habits and routines.”

“They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live,” the letter said. “You will be checking under your car every day <0x2014> because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.”


The judge noted in his decision that Dillard sent the letter openly with her return address on it.
<snip>
The judge also rejected the government’s request for a permanent injunction prohibiting Dillard from again contacting Means. He was persuaded by the defense argument that she would have no reason to do so since Means no longer has any plans to offer abortion services in Kansas.

The court also noted the government’s argument that Means had refrained from contacting Means while the lawsuit was pending.

“If the glare of publicity and the prospect of additional government legal action are sufficient by themselves to prevent further communications by Dillard, they would remain even in the absence of separate injunction relief,” the judge wrote. “That is, the government effectively concedes that Dillard is a rational person, at least in sensing the folly of additional communications with Dr. Means.”
http://cjonline.com/news/2013-08-15/judge-sides-abortion-opponent-over-alleged-threat

The judge is as crazy as a s***house mouse.

32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judge sides with abortion opponent over alleged threat:"Bomb threat is free speech" (Original Post) Are_grits_groceries Aug 2013 OP
Uh, nowhere in this country except in that idiot's courtroom Warpy Aug 2013 #1
I would assume a similar statement about the judge's car would not be wise CBGLuthier Aug 2013 #2
i'd love to help you, ma'am Enrique Aug 2013 #3
A Clinton appointee, go figure.. n/t Fumesucker Aug 2013 #4
I was shocked when I saw that. niyad Aug 2013 #15
I'm not anymore Hydra Aug 2013 #22
Someone please post Dillard's info so we can spread it around the net with this story. PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #5
Well, here's her photo so let's start there. That look.. I've seen that before... CurtEastPoint Aug 2013 #7
What's the Matter with Kansas PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #9
YEAH VA_Jill Aug 2013 #19
And anybody can find her address here: lastlib Aug 2013 #25
That should have resulted in charges. Guess no one believes the inmate. That's conspiracy to commit. freshwest Aug 2013 #32
so that means dr. means can now send letters to ms. dillard that she okieinpain Aug 2013 #6
"Kansas" Fire Walk With Me Aug 2013 #8
This decision needs to be appealed. n/t kiranon Aug 2013 #10
Yes, judge just gave a green light to terrorism. freshwest Aug 2013 #31
This is a VERY dangerous precedent... Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #11
What a hypocrite. Baitball Blogger Aug 2013 #12
That's insane. nt Robb Aug 2013 #13
It's clearly a threat of violence that if sent to a federal judge The Second Stone Aug 2013 #14
There was a case several years ago of a guy who posted a "threat" ET Awful Aug 2013 #16
because the threat is against an abortion provider, a WOMAN doctor, don't you know. niyad Aug 2013 #18
rec'ing for wider visibility. this judge, a CLINTON appointee, is clearly a reichwing stooge niyad Aug 2013 #17
OH YEAH???? cynzke Aug 2013 #20
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech KamaAina Aug 2013 #21
But only if you don't mention a pressure cooker. Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2013 #23
Now, if I go to Wichita Jack Rabbit Aug 2013 #24
So the fine Federal Judge has no problem with an actual/stochastic terrorist threat which is just indepat Aug 2013 #26
Tom Martin practiced law in my hometown for many years. 1KansasDem Aug 2013 #27
This is a hideously dangerous Jamastiene Aug 2013 #28
It wasn't a threat. Even considering its disgustingness, the language is protected. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #30
The judge actually made the correct decision. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #29

Warpy

(111,332 posts)
1. Uh, nowhere in this country except in that idiot's courtroom
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 05:30 PM
Aug 2013

can bomb threats be construed as free speech. They are illegal everywhere.

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
2. I would assume a similar statement about the judge's car would not be wise
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 05:30 PM
Aug 2013

Even if............. .... ..... .... .

Never mind.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
3. i'd love to help you, ma'am
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 05:31 PM
Aug 2013

Wiggum: I'd like to help you ma'am, but, heh heh, I'm afraid there's no law against mailing threatening letters.
Marge: I'm pretty sure there is.
Wiggum: Hah! The day I take cop lessons from Ma Kettle --

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
5. Someone please post Dillard's info so we can spread it around the net with this story.
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 05:36 PM
Aug 2013

Last edited Fri Aug 16, 2013, 06:42 PM - Edit history (2)

Kinda, sorta, maybe, ?

As a good Christian might say, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

edit-
Kansas Inmate Claims Anti-Choicer Asked Him to Firebomb the Home of Dr. Means

The Associated Press and The Wichita Eagle reported yesterday that Robert Campbell, an inmate in Sedgwick County, Kansas has asserted that domestic terrorist Angel Dillard asked him last year to firebomb the house of Dr. Mila Means, an abortion provider who sought to help fill the void in access to safe abortion care in Wichita, Kansas after the assassination of Dr. George Tiller.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/04/04/kansas-inmate-claims-anti-choicer-asked-him-to-firebomb-the-home-of-dr-means/

edit2-
supposedly this is her church. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F_%28film%29)

Immanuel Baptist Church
1415 S Topeka
Wichita, KS 67211
www.ibcwichita.com
316.262.1452

okieinpain

(9,397 posts)
6. so that means dr. means can now send letters to ms. dillard that she
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 05:38 PM
Aug 2013

knows where she lives, knows where she shops, knows where her family is and there is going to be a day when someone leaves explosives under her car. lol, rupugs are not the brightest people in the world.

 

Cooley Hurd

(26,877 posts)
11. This is a VERY dangerous precedent...
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 06:52 PM
Aug 2013

An abusive husband who threatens to blow his wife's brains out is now protected because he is exercizing his 1st Amendment rights.

This judge should be removed IMMEDIATELY.

ET Awful

(24,753 posts)
16. There was a case several years ago of a guy who posted a "threat"
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 07:27 PM
Aug 2013

against the "Church" of Scientology saying he'd launch a "Tom Cruise Missile" at them.

He was prosecuted for making terrorist threats and interfering with a religion. He was convicted.

Google "Keith Henson".

How is this a lesser offense?

cynzke

(1,254 posts)
20. OH YEAH????
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 07:49 PM
Aug 2013

Bet that judge would have a totally different opinion if that was someone commenting to the judge about decisions he made that might make enemies. Judges have been known to get killed from time to time by disgruntled parties who didn't agree with the rulings.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
21. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 07:49 PM
Aug 2013

no constitutional right is absolute. Not the First Amendment, not the Second, and so on.

P.S. I always wanted to be at the scene of a fire where people were gathering and run around yelling "Theater! Theater!"

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
24. Now, if I go to Wichita
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 08:05 PM
Aug 2013

... and suggest that a couple of fascist Kansas billionaires would be more useful to society as lamp post ornaments, would the judge consider that free speech? I don't suppose he would (or should).

That kind of free speech has been known to get people thrown off airplanes. That judge is just bats.

indepat

(20,899 posts)
26. So the fine Federal Judge has no problem with an actual/stochastic terrorist threat which is just
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 09:33 PM
Aug 2013

peachy. Who nominated this fine gentleman with a keen understanding of the First Amendment to the Federal bench? Shame, shame.

1KansasDem

(251 posts)
27. Tom Martin practiced law in my hometown for many years.
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 10:06 PM
Aug 2013

A lifelong democrat and a Clinton appointee. Clerked for Tom Clark (scotus) as a young man. He's no winger.
Might want to do a little research on his record before you condemn him.
The "pro-life" community in Kansas generally dislikes him,because of his ruling's on the issue.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
28. This is a hideously dangerous
Sat Aug 17, 2013, 03:14 AM
Aug 2013

precedent. That judge needs to be out of a job, pronto. I wonder how that judge would like to receive a note with the same exactly type of wording directed at him. What an asshole.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
30. It wasn't a threat. Even considering its disgustingness, the language is protected.
Sat Aug 17, 2013, 03:22 AM
Aug 2013

If the note read "I am going to place a bomb under your car" or "I have instructed _____ to place a bomb under your car," that would constitute an immanent threat and would be illegal.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
29. The judge actually made the correct decision.
Sat Aug 17, 2013, 03:20 AM
Aug 2013

While disgusting, what was said does not constitute an actual threat.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Judge sides with abortion...