Big Ed Gets Letters

Vincent Lee Stone, Jr., of Tyrone, PA - a lovely, warm, Christian individual - sent Gov. Ed Rendell the following email:

Dear Big Ed, I pray every night that a Christian or Arab puts a bullet through your corrupt jewish skull. Jews are the SLIME of the earth. Your friends on wall st. have manipulated this well programed melt down. I.E. the thievery of good peoples life time savings. The 1858-1929 and the current depression are all caused by Jewish money manipulators. Historically, Jews are known as the the destroyers of nations due to usery and thievery habits. Crooks at large, sponsered by Israel. The world at large wants Israel bulldozed into the sea. Your smug demenor will not protect you ,nor your smile. Recall history,niether the Senate or public stood in the way of the praetorian guard setting Julius Ceasar straight.. Put your ego aside because you are not imune to public outrage. And when the s*** hits the fan and bullets are penatrating the egoes of corrupt officials we don't want to hear you WHINING while your bleeding to death. SIX MILLION MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Typos in the original; bowdlerization courtesy of the Pennsylvania State Police. I did not actually count the exclamation points.) Mr. Stone was interviewed by a state trooper and said:

I have been expecting you. I did send an email to the Governor. I dislike him and the government we have now both in Pennsylvania and the United States.I don't like Jewish people. I'm not going to harm the Governor. I don't care if someone else does or not.

Mr. Stone was charged with terroristic threatening under Pennsylvania law:

A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to ... otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

(18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(3).)

He was also charged with harassment:

A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person ... communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures ... .

(18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4).)

The third charge was ethnic intimidation:

A person commits the offense of ethnic intimidation if, with malicious intention toward the race, color, religion or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, he commits an offense under any other provision of this article ... with respect to such individual or his or her property or with respect to one or more members of such group or to their property.

(18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2710(a).)

The first two charges hinge on the existence of a threat having been made. The ethnic intimidation charge is just an add-on. So my question is, did Mr. Stone actually threaten the Governor? 

There are five sentences or sentence fragments that arguably could be interpreted as threatening:

1. I pray every night that a Christian or Arab puts a bullet through your corrupt jewish skull.
2. Your smug demenor will not protect you ,nor your smile.
3. Recall history,niether the Senate or public stood in the way of the praetorian guard setting Julius Ceasar straight.
4. And when the s*** hits the fan and bullets are penatrating the egoes of corrupt officials we don't want to hear you WHINING while your bleeding to death.
5. SIX MILLION MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The remainder of the email is just ranting about Jews in general and doesn't relate to Rendell in particular.

I don't think any of the sentences listed, taken separately or together, communicate a clear threat. Sentences one and probably three are the expression of a hope that someone else murder Rendell.  Sentences two and four are similar. Sentence five expresses a desire for a second Holocaust. Taken together, it's nasty and insane but not a statement of intent to carry out an attack himself. The statement Mr. Stone gave to the trooper pretty well sums it up:  He doesn't like the government, Jews or Ed Rendell personally. He doesn't plan to harm Rendell, but hopes someone else does.

If I received such an email, I would certainly be alarmed by the venom and vicious racism, and would report it to the police. I certainly understand the State Police checking this nutcase out. I just don't think it's a crime to be a hate-filled anti-Semite. I've read worse things posted in comments on rightwing blogs. If Mr. Stone had sent this email to someone he didn't know with less clout than a governor, I doubt he would be facing charges.

Comments

[Frank]

All I can think of the say is "Oh, Jesus."

[tomemos]

You're a lawyer, and I'm not, but at least in regards to the harassment charge I wonder if you're reading the law too narrowly here. For instance, in the statute you quoted, I take it that the "obscene" or "lascivious" forms of harassment don't have to indicate intent to perform lascivious acts on the person; they just have to be clearly intended to "harass, annoy, or alarm." It would be strange if graphically describing a desire to see someone having sex counted as harassment, but graphically describing a desire to see someone murdered didn't--it seems like the "intended to harass" is the marker there, not the narrow definition of "threat." (I also think that "threatening" can apply more generally to descriptions of violence like these, rather than just direct promises to do harm, but I may be on shakier ground there.) Anyway, like I say, you have the expertise and I don't, so I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

[Mithras]

I take it that the "obscene" or "lascivious" forms of harassment don't have to indicate intent to perform lascivious acts on the person; they just have to be clearly intended to "harass, annoy, or alarm."

The definition of a threat is "a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc." You're right that obscene or lascivious words don't require a statement of intention, but the plain meaning of "threatening" does.

If you broaden the meaning of "threaten" to include statements like, "I hope someone shoots that motherfucker", then I think you'd run up against the First Amendment pretty quickly. Advocating criminal acts is protected speech - ironically, only so long as there is no immediate risk that anyone will obey. Sending someone a message that says, "I hope they lynch you" is legal. Sending someone a message that says, "I have a bullet with your name on it" is not.

[Mithras]

I take it that the "obscene" or "lascivious" forms of harassment don't have to indicate intent to perform lascivious acts on the person; they just have to be clearly intended to "harass, annoy, or alarm."

The definition of a threat is "a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc." You're right that obscene or lascivious words don't require a statement of intention, but the plain meaning of "threatening" does.

If you broaden the meaning of "threaten" to include statements like, "I hope someone shoots that motherfucker", then I think you'd run up against the First Amendment pretty quickly. Advocating criminal acts is protected speech - ironically, only so long as there is no immediate risk that anyone will obey. Sending someone a message that says, "I hope they lynch you" is legal. Sending someone a message that says, "I have a bullet with your name on it" is not.