Reply #22: Coercion & Intimidation

[Turborama]

Are these "ridiculous interpretations"?

If you don't agree with these definitions you can take it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coercion

Predatory
The purely selfish kinds of coercion are a form of predatory behaviour by the coercing party, whose aim is to narrow down the scope of other people’s actions so as to make them instrumental to its own personal interests. According to many social philosophers, this sort of predatory behaviour will become the prevailing one.

Religious
The most ancient, extensive and durable kind of thought coercion has concerned religion. Religious coercion is a subset of predatory coercion, in which the selfish entity is a supernatural one.

"Terrorizing" generally means to cause alarm, fright, or dread in another person or inducing apprehension of violence from a hostile or threatening event, person or object. “It is not requisite, in order to constitute this crime, that personal violence should be committed.”
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t021.htm

Again:
appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

It's not good enough to say that the "freedom of speech allows this sort of behavior" when we're talking about threats to our President's life, are you saying we have to wait until an assassination actually occurs before "inciting" can be proved? Pre-emptively arresting this lunatic to set a precedent in the law would help define the above quote from the Patriot Act. You do know that one of his parishoners went to Obama's town hall the next day armed with an assault rifle, don't you? Not in itself illegal, but it definitely caused alarm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4-JieEI-0Q">Wingnut With Assault Rifle At Obama's Town Hall Linked To Lunatic Pastor Calling For Obama's Death