Facebook, ‘friends’ fair game of search in case of GJ man

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

I hope the public is following this story closely because it bears directly on government’s traditional efforts to narrow 1st Amendment right to free speech.
It should be obvious to all that the Sentinel is pulling out all the stops of wannabe-clever irresponsible journalism to convict Wheeler in the court of public opinion prior to trial.
Wheeler’s lawyer is faced with a serious dilemma: do we 1) go with a judge who we think will follow the law, or 2) do we go with a jury who has already been prejudiced in favor of guilt due to the obviously unlikeable looks and demeanor of the accused?
It’s easy for the judge, pursuant to the unspoken REAL rule of judicial procedure, “the judge can do whatever he pleases,” to, for now, pretend there was probable cause for a search because, from a generic point of view, it is clearly in the best interests of the public to allow the police to investigate a given situation to determine exactly what is going on. I’ve got no problem with that.
But the bottom line, which cannot be gleaned from the Sentinel’s transparently strategic efforts to convict the accused, is whether or not there was (or is) a specific plan to implement violence.
As I noted in a previous letter on this same story, “It’s always a difficult situation when an apparently unlikeable person is pitted against the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. When in doubt, it’s wise to check the instruction manual. In this case, it means reading U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
[http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html], Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) [http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/298/case.html] which make it crystal clear that calling for the violent overthrow of the government AS AN ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE is protected speech. Furthermore, Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) [http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/105/case.html] makes it clear that urging others to commit violent acts ‘at some indefinite future time’ is not actionable speech. The whole idea of the 1st Amendment is to be able to say ‘King George and his soldiers are tyrannical scum who need to be killed!’ without being persecuted for it by the government.”
After my last criticism did the Sentinel decide to write more responsibly? No way, Hosea! They doubled down on their manipulative writing. The public should take notice that, at NO time, has the Sentinel published Wheeler’s entire allegedly illegal post. That would allow the readers to compare it to controlling 1st Amendment law — and we can’t allow that, can we? It might create a REAL presumption of innocence, instead of just the fraudulent pretend one all prospective jurors (I have been one) hear about during the jury selection process.

Lest readers think I admire individuals of Wheeler’s ilk, rest assured that is not the case. To Wheeler, I would say, “There is such a think as karma, and such a thing as being stupid, dude. You acted stupidly and invoked the rule of karma. If you’re going to pull a tiger’s tail, you had better have a plan for dealing with the teeth.”
Having said that, I would refer Sentinel readers to the case of one Walter Edward Bagdasarian, who was accused and convicted of threatening Barack Obama. It’s a safe bet Bagdasarian said worse things about Obama than Wheeler said about three unnamed cops. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that conviction. Their 1st-Amendment-friendly decision can be read (or downloaded) at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/07/19/09-50529.pdf. I would hope all American citizens, especially Sentinel reporter Paul Shockley, would do themselves a favor and read it. Freedom of speech is worth fighting for, even if it happens to coincidentally benefit the manifestly undeserving.
Your constitutional rights — use them or lose them!

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy