The following important public service bulletin appears on the Edina blog Conservative Cravings:
"Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Terroristic Speech Is Not Protected
The 1st Amendment's right to free speech has been debated and interpreted for generations. Topics like politics, religion and pornography have tried to restrict speech to appeal to the greater good. Most of these arguments have failed. Though political free speech through monetary contributions was severely restricted by McCain Feingold. Security came into play with the inability yell fire in a crowded room in incitement of a riot. We are now in the time of 9/11 and with that has brought the term terroristic threat. Can't we be progressive in our interpretation that security risks of mass terror outweigh some speech? One fellow blogger does not think so. Gavin Sullivan recently advocated for a man who was arrested at the Eden Prairie library for making terroristic threats. You can link to his post which describes the situation along with the police report. In a nut shell, the man entered the library on 3 different occasions and left notes written in Arabic and drew pictures of planes crashing into buildings. He did not speak to anyone to explain these actions. Librarians became concerned and an undercover police officer apprehended him the next time he visited for making terroristic threats. Gavin defends this as free speech that is protected. I would argue that individual liberties do not apply when the exercise of those liberties harms others. Being terrified is being harmed. I think the librarians and police took appropriate actions. Sitting in the Edina library this evening, I'm wondering if I drew pictures of someone assassinating President Obama and left these notes around the library, would anyone pay attention? Would Gavin protect my speech? This is probably not the best example, because threats on a President are handled much more severely than any other citizen. However, it also draws out the point that speech related to a President is restricted and that exceptions are made to the 1st Amendment. I use this example only to paint a picture abhorrent to most people, as the threat of another 9/11 should be. But, the left continues consistently takes the position of defending anyone who appears to be compromising the security of our country and citizens. Why is this a progressive idea? Why would Democrats purposely portray themselves as weak on homeland security, and show little regard for police authority and the military? This is not a hypothetical question, I really don't know. Why is the security of our citizens a political football? Why is the flag political or the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance? One thing that ties these altogether is the lack of a nationalistic pride. Add that to the elevation of the United Nationals in liberals' eyes and the desire to use international law to interpret our constitution and you have a bedrock of evidence that liberals may love the world more than they love our country."