As a free speech absolutist, I couldn’t help but notice the Daily Sentinel’s use of an Associated Press story instead of risking the credibility of one of their own local reporters to tell this story. It is quite apparent that, per Internet buzz, the duopoly establishment is “all in” on Obama’s plan to destroy the U.S. Constitution, particularly the 2nd Amendment.
The article is obviously intended to demonize Wheeler and convict him in the press prior to trial. The picture of Wheeler makes him look evil. The story has been worded very strategically to achieve a conviction without presenting any really useful information.
The story said, “he said his threats”. I’m curious if Wheeler actually used the word “threats” in referring to his Facebook posts.
The story conspicuously used only the snippets “kill cops” and “drown them in the blood of thier (sic) children” totally devoid of sufficient context to inform the reader as to whether or not any violation of specific law actually occurred. Why not include Wheeler’s entire alleged threat verbatim? Why is there not one word about who is making the charges? Is it the federal government? Local prosecutors? Why is such information strategically omitted?
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions which would be controlling in political speech cases are Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court), & Meyer v Grant, 486 US 414 (1988) (unanimous court). As a matter of fact, the decision of Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 (1957) holds that “advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow of government AS ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE is immune from prosecution.” Interested persons can read the relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions at http://bit.ly/aFCjoe and http://bit.ly/9bRHsU Just type in the case cite numbers & click “search”.
My understanding of the law regarding political speech is that for a person to say “the king is a tyrant and should be drowned in the blood of his children” is protected speech. What is not protected speech are specific plans to implement violence. A person may not say, for example, “Let’s meet over at Guy Fawkes’ house Tuesday night at midnight, drive over to Mr. Policeman X’s house, shoot him, and drown him in the blood of his children.”
The AP’s propagandistic hit piece, so conveniently used by the Sentinel in one of the first towns in America to be given surveillance drones by the feds, gives the reader no factual information relevant to whether or not Wheeler’s speech might have been protected. That’s not what most people would call responsible journalism.

UPDATE: In contrast to the AP’s anonymous hit piece, the Denver Post ran a version of the story which contained it’s reporter’s name and more information. See http://bit.ly/TN1cTQ. Upon reading the Denver Post’s version of the story, the reason for the AP’s strategically selective editing becomes more clear. The question remains, why did the Sentinel choose to run the AP’s version instead of the Denver Post’s version?