Thread: Are Online Death Threats Protected Free Speech

Deus makes an important point. Democracies and representative republics are the most egalitarian forms of government, but they are not without their faults. These forms of government share an ironic weakness. Their greatest virtue is also their Achilles's heel. Popular participation drives these governments, but when the population doesn't fully comprehend their various responsibilities, tyranny lurks in the shadows. Of all the unalienable rights, free speech is arguably the most important. Free expression empowers the population to challenge improper governmental authority. When the government can be challenged, it may also be held accountable. However, with liberty comes responsibility. Each right is coupled with a duty, and the population has the duty to maintain their rights. I believe that the current population's lack of understanding contributes to many of the concerted efforts to abridge our fundamental rights. Lack of understanding leads to fear, and fear leads to oppression. Yet, we still face the troubling question of who determines what speech enjoys protection, and what speech doesn't? Should such decisions be left to legislative bodies? In the United States, the Bill of Rights forbids the Legislature from enacting laws abridging free speech. Perhaps the Judiciary should be tasked with such important decisions. As my previous posts demonstrate, that's been the traditional approach. Nevertheless, it has left much to be desired. The answer must be difficult. Free speech is the greatest right we have, and arbitrary regulation is the biggest threat it faces. The solution calls for a multifaceted approach. Local legislatures can regulate certain speech, pursuant to their police power. Both state and federal courts can overturn such regulations if they encroach upon free speech. In addition, local populations can overturn local legislatures through the referendum process. But, we encounter the same problem we started with. If the population lacks an understanding of their role in the process, the delicate balance is lost. Tyranny is so powerful because it plays on emotions. The unwary are its greatest victims. I fear far too many average people have grown unwary today. Life has become more complicated. Educational facilities have failed to keep pace, and corruption has set in. Each of these circumstances exacerbates the original problem. Knowledge is key to finding a solution. However, expanding knowledge takes time, and for the ex-wife in this case, the issue is time sensitive. On the other hand, knee-jerk reactions will cause more harm than good. Crisis situations lead to rapid-fire responses. Unfortunately, rapid-fire responses come with horrific and unintended consequences. Therefore, a measured and continuous process is needed. This will allow for those in eminent danger of death or bodily injury to be protected, while also maintaining safeguards against government encroachment. The analysis should be conducted on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, we must seriously focus on improving education. There is no excuse for people to not understand their rights and responsibilities in the Twenty-first Century. What we are witnessing is an utter failure by our educational institutions to instill the basics of our fundamental rights. I don't know whether this is due to the core focus of our schools, or a lack of knowledge with respect to the different ways we all learn. Whatever the reason, it must be improved. Liberty is only healthy when its beneficiaries understand its functions and safeguards. Everyone should know their rights, and we must do a better job of informing them. Moreover, we must reform our criminal justice system. Now that we possess a better understanding of mental illness, I'm baffled as to why a majority of American courts rely on a test developed in 1843 to determine insanity. The McNaughton case went before the Supreme Court in 1843. The test developed by the court examines sanity on the determination of whether the accused is able to distinguish between right and wrong. Therefore, even if suffering from severe mental illness, the accused is presumed sane, unless he or she can prove that he or she was unable to distinguish between right and wrong. This test remains the standard applied by the vast majority of courts in the United States. I believe outdated legal mechanisms cause the issue to be examined in a criminal light, as opposed to a mental health light. That, in turn, jeopardizes free speech, while the courts seek to criminalize certain forms of speech. Rather, they should address and treat the root cause of the defendant's reckless behavior. A fixed standard, or bright line rule is inadequate to accomplish this. I think a case-by-case analysis is necessary. Otherwise, we will criminalize free speech, and not address the underlying threat. That helps neither the victims nor the accused.