"I'm Gonna Kill You!"

Are threats permissible under freedom of speech? The law says they are not. Should they be, though?

Here is a quick anecdote to open up the debate. An upset customer calls into work and is extremely unhappy with the service he has received. In the midst of his anger, he threatens to shoot up the whole company. His threat is taken literally, the police are called, and the man is investigated by the authorities. The police find a semi-automatic pistol and a rifle and confiscate both as evidence.

Now, if someone makes a threat--especially against one's life--I think it should be taken seriously. But I don't think one should forfeit other rights they possess because a moment of anger overcame him. In the example above, should the man have to give up any guns he has because the language he used in the threat indicates he will use them? In America, we have the right to keep and bear arms. We also have the right to free speech. Is there a point at which one supersedes the other? If you use a gun to commit murder, that does not take away your right to free speech. So why should the reverse be true?

What if the threat did not involve the use of a weapon? Let's say our exemplar simply screams "I'm gonna kill you!" Is the threat treated the same way? Does the manner in which one threatens make a difference?

Here is another example, and this one is considered protected free speech under the 1st Amendment. A group of anti-war protesters are holding a rally in the capital. The leader of the country continues to fight a war that many feel is unjust. Some of the protesters have pictures of the leader with slashes through them, and others burn effigies of the leader.

The latter example is protected because a leader is considered a symbol of government. But in reality, what is the difference between an angry customer threatening the company he feels did a disservice to him and protesters acting out against a government of which they disapprove? I suppose it all just depends on the party being threatened.

I am more inclined to side with the 1st Amendment, which reads "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". Call me a traditionalist, but prosecuting threats or the yelling of "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (as the other typically unprotected speech example goes) is an infringement of the 1st Amendment, which clearly states NO LAW. I hope that we never live in the world envisioned in the movie Minority Report, where people are prosecuted for future crimes. Wait until they act, then prosecute the individual.

Speech cannot be a crime.

Open Letter to U.S. Senators - PATRIOT Act ed.

Dear Senator _________,

As we now know, despite losing a measure for immediate passage the PATRIOT Act extension has been approved by a majority of representatives. I find it appalling not only that so many congressmen would vote to continue such a horrid infringement on the rights of U.S. citizens, but that this has gone on now for 9 years. Is there no one in our government who is willing to stand up for the rights of the citizens they were elected to serve?

There is little to no evidence that our country is actually safer 9 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. However, there are ample amounts of evidence indicating that we are much less free now than we were 10 years ago. You have the power to change that. Vote NO on extending the PATRIOT Act provisions. Restore a small amount of liberty to the our nation.

With the government continually expanding under the guise of service, Americans lose more and more freedom everyday. First it started with warrantless wiretaps granted by the initial PATRIOT Act. Then the Department of Homeland Security was unconstitutionally created to oversee something... to this day no one really knows what their purpose is other than to gobble up insane amounts of tax dollars and produce nothing but frustration and torment for the people they are supposedly protecting. The Travel Security Administration continues to make travel less secure, more difficult, and overall is a horribly run organization that provides no amount of "security."

If you truly value the lives and rights of your constituents in Florida, you will vote NO on this bill when it comes to a vote in the Senate. Patrick Henry once famously said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" It has become obvious that Washington no longer wishes to give U.S. citizens back their liberty; I only hope that you do not then wish death upon us.

I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to consider what I had to say. I will anxiously await your reply.

Thank you,

Aaron Brand

[Feel free to use this letter, modify it, and send it to your Senator. It's time to get our freedom back!]

Don't Talk to Cops!!!

This may come as a surprise to everyone, but I don't exactly have a lot of respect for authority. To me, respect is something that has to be earned; it is not something I give because of the uniform you wear or the position you hold. Therefore, if I get pulled over or a police officer wants to "ask me a few questions" I am pretty hesitant to say anything. Because as we all know from any episode of Law & Order, anything we say can and will be used against us in a court of law.

That isn't just a line that Dick Wolf created for his hit crime and justice series. What is typically referred to as "Miranda rights" or "Miranda warning" is actually something that all of us have always had since our Constitution was drafted. It is a stated reminder of one of our 5th Amendment rights, which reads:

No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

So if we've always had the "right to remain silent," then why do cops tell us that upon arrest? Well, they didn't always have to tell the person they were arresting. The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona established that if a suspect was not told they have the right to an attorney any admission or evidence gathered in interrogation was not admissible in court. Therefore, the police are now required to read the Miranda warning when taking someone into custody.

Some of you are probably saying, "Well, if I'm never taken into custody, I won't have to worry about anything." WRONG. The Miranda warning is only read to those in police custody. You can still easily waive your 5th Amendment rights in something as simple as a traffic stop, or as innocent as a neighborhood inquiry.

Imagine you get pulled over. Perhaps you were speeding, perhaps not. The cop asks you if you know how fast you were going. To be safe, you reply "maybe a few miles over the speed limit" assuming the police don't care about anything 1-5 mph above the limit. Well, whether you were speeding or not, you've just admitted to the officer that you were speeding and can be held accountable for that.

Scenario 2: some police officers are canvasing the neighborhood looking for a burglar. They say a witness spotted someone who looked like your roommate outside the burgled residence earlier that night. You roommate was out that night, although you have no idea where. Not answering is the best thing you can do. If you lie to cover for your roommate, you can be charged with obstruction of justice, which is essentially misleading a police investigation. However, obstruction of justice doesn't apply to NOT SAYING ANYTHING. If you stay silent, you are simply utilizing you 5th Amendment rights, even if you are not considered a suspect in the investigation. Because, as the warning states: anything you say can be used against you. You may unwittingly release some information that the police could use to charge you with something. So, better to lock up the trap and throw away the key.

If the cops really need information out of you, they can lawfully obtain a subpoena for you to appear in court. You may still exercise your 5th amendment rights even in court if you are afraid you may incriminate yourself in some manner.

The most important thing is to be aware of your rights and to not be afraid. Whether they are aware that they do so or not, police officers can intimidate people into giving up information that they otherwise wouldn't, simply because they wear a badge and carry a gun. You don't have to be an asshole (something I constantly have to bite my tongue about), but you also don't have to kowtow to authority.

I strongly encourage you to watch this video, entitled "Don't Talk To Police." It is about 50 minutes long, but it provides a very easy-to-understand and entertaining explanation of your 5th Amendment rights by a Regent University School of Law professor and surprisingly by a Virginia Beach police officer as well.