By reading this opinion, I still believe that it is highly favorable toward achieving more indictments for hate speech that can be interpeted as solicitation. If a prosecutor has enough evidence to indict, it should go to a jury to determine intent. If a prosecutor had to prove intent of speech before going forward with the indictment, as I interpret the district judge’s ruling vis-a-vis protected speech, then it makes the prosecutor’s job that much more difficult and puts it upon the judge and not the people to determine intent.

As long as it goes to a jury there is a chance of conviction. That alone should do something to reduce the worst of the worst in digital hate speech and intimidation.

This is not to say that I welcome any indictments for mere expressions of conscience (no matter how reprehensible I find them personally), but the willful disregard for the potential to harm others through speech and intentionally dancing close to that line should not go without notice by prosecutors.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fd.....it=showdkt

By the way I am opined that if this sets a precedent, then we might see more indictments for hate speech related crimes. The rationale is simply that, while as you point out a defense may have a better shot with a jury because they can select jurors while they can’t select a judge, it also seems that a jury may interpret a threat through nuances whereas a judge is conditioned and trained to be “blind” to such things and stick to the verbatim of the hate speech and the strict interpretation of the law. Juries do not necessarily do so, even if that is their purpose.

So, with KKK and rabid white supremacist type hate speech (which seems to be generally more unacceptable socially than legally), could a prosecutor not see more promise in getting a conviction with the guarantee it will go before a jury than trying to make the indictment stick on the sole opinion of the judge?

The Internet is used more and more to publish deeply personal information: Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home address and phone number were published on a bigot’s website and she received many threatening calls at home. The address of a member of Congress’ brother was published as being that of the member, and the brother’s home was dangerously vandalized. Other members of Congres had their offices in various parts of the country attacked when the addresses were published on a website.

I think there needs to be a law prohibiting Internet website publication of personal information, especially including purported home addresses and phone number, about anyone by a third-party. The Internet is becoming a dangerous place, largely because any mentally deranged person can use it to encourage harassment or actual harm against another person.

You’ll notice that in cases (let’s take pornography) where the case rested on a defining element, the Defense is always in a better position with a Jury than a judge.

Aside from that if we define something like Hate Speech to a fine level then the law can become meaningless because it’s not so much the specific slur or remark but the context, motivation, & impact that is important to take into account……….Just my opinion.

Again, this is what I see: I’m sure there is always more.

The CoA disagreed with district Judge Adelman, who stepped in after all the Chicago judges stepped aside from this case. Adelman dismissed the indictment, stating in the opinion:

“Knowledge or belief that one’s speech, even speech advocating law breaking, may cause others to act, does not remove the speech from the protection of the First Amendment unless the speech is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.”

But, the CoA sent it back to district court and ordered a jury to determine intent of the comments that the prosecutors obviously believed were threatening enough to bring forward an indictment.

So I am wondering why did the CoA rule that a jury must decide White’s intent, given that Adelman had already dismissed the indictment. What’s the rationale?

Did the CoA disagree with Adelman’s opinion that the knowledge or belief of what might occur from one’s speech is not sufficient to remove 1st Amd protections, if there is a not a direct incitement to violence, and that the indictment had merit?

Or are they saying that only a jury can determine that, and not the judge, which seems to be more likely?

Carter are you saying Adelman might have thrown out the indictment for fear that it would lead to a mistrial in the other cases where White was convicted?

I couldn’t find the text of Adelman’s opinion — United States v. White, 638 F. Supp. 2d 935 (N.D. Ill. 2009) — only parts of it in news articles. Nor could I find the CoA ruling to see what the nitty gritty of it was.

In very broad terms, if it means what I infer, then the CoA is saying the People (vis-a-vis a jury) should decide criminal intent in hate speech and not the Judiciary (vis-a-vis a judge). Since unlawful intent of hate speech can be difficult to prove (hate itself not being unlawful), it seems like a very relevant case.

Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides that

Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the jury’s deliberations, or on any juror’s mind or emotions or mental processes, as influencing any juror’s assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment. Nor may a juror’s affidavit or any statement by a juror concerning any matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be admitted in evidence for any of these purposes. However, a juror may testify: (1) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror; or (2) to rebut a claim that the juror was not qualified to serve.
——
Thus, the (supposedly attempted) intimidation of the Juror must maintain itself separate from the case unless the Judge believes this to be an impossibility.
You can find Federal rulings clearly outlined below:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rul.....tm#Rule606

http://howappealing.law.com/062810.html#038398

——
[We wonder if the Federal Judge was influenced by retaliation.]
Certainly the issue crossed his mind. As you pointed out, it happen quite often to both Judicial and LE officials.

Only opinion here but the White case is a forgone conclusion. The idiot posting the addresses is working for a mistrial. That’s the logic behind it (if you can call it that).
But the reality is that ruse is a well trodden road and I doubt that any mistrial will come of attempting intimidation via such buffoonery.
Likely as not, anyone attempting to actively confront a Juror will find themselves up a seriously nasty creek.

One also has to wonder if the federal judge in Chicago was influenced by his own fear of retaliation. I guess that’s something judges must contend with every day, but in a case like this that is in my mind a frontal assault on our very system of justice through intimidation tactics, it’s particularly relevant to think about.

I would also be curious to find out what the court of appeals based its arguments on. Is there a link to the ruling or a summary somewhere on why a jury is called for? Any legal experts able to clarify?