Honus wrote:
"Honus" wrote in message
news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06...

Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did
and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for
making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true
threat".

Therein lie your answers.

Oh, nuts...here's an article with examples for you. Don't say I never did
you guys any favors.

I can't promise to never say it (I can be forgetfull) but if I should
do so in the future do remind me and I promise to apologize sir

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=556
form the above link quote

On appeal, the defendants argued that the content of the posters and
Web site were protected speech under the First Amendment. But the full
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ACLA's liability, finding that
the content on the posters and Web site constituted an unprotected true
threat.

The court defined a true threat as a statement made when a "reasonable
person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those
to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of
intent to harm." [See Planned Parenthood, 290 f.3d at 1074, 1088.] The
test is an objective one; the defendant does not have to actually
intend to, or be able to, carry out the threat. [Id. at 1076.] In the
Planned Parenthood case, the Ninth Circuit found that it was reasonable
for ACLA members to foresee that the named abortion providers would
interpret the posters and Web site postings as a serious expression of
ACLA members' intent to harm them.

unquote