Federal Court, Washington, D.C., sometime the future: Judge: Mr.
Richman, you are charged with violation of U.S. Code Title 18,
Chapter 124, Paragraph 2841,
”
Uttering or Publishing a Perceived Threat Against a Public
Official.
”
This law was enacted in response to the terrible shootings in
Arizona. Specifically, you are accused of writing,
”
We should get rid of the City Dogcatcher.
”
A city employee filed the original complaint, how do you
plead?
Federal Court, Washington, D.C., sometime the future:
Judge: Mr. Richman, you are charged with violation of U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 124, Paragraph 2841, “Uttering or Publishing a Perceived Threat Against a Public Official.” This law was enacted in response to the terrible shootings in Arizona. Specifically, you are accused of writing, “We should get rid of the City Dogcatcher.” A city employee filed the original complaint, how do you plead?
Marty: Not guilty your honor and I waive my right to a jury trial; can we just get on with it?
Judge: No need to get snippy – the court will be glad to hear the case immediately. Now, did you write, “We should get rid of the City Dogcatcher” or not?
Marty: Yes, your honor, I wrote it, but I only meant it as a sarcastic metaphor. The city does not actually have a position called City Dogcatcher. The reference comes from the old saying, “He couldn’t get elected dogcatcher.”
Judge: But the complaint states you wrote, “the City Dogcatcher had no duties, makes $275,000 a year, $100,000 more in annual benefits and is eligible to retire at age 28 with 100-percen of his pay for life.”
Marty: It was sarcasm your honor. I thought the cost of city employees was too high and that the city must do something about that, we can’t afford it. They might even have to eliminate some positions if they do not do something about the benefit and retirement packages.
Judge: Did you just use the word “eliminate”?! Be very careful, I am a public official too and we take these threats very seriously; stop using that word or I will find you in contempt. Besides, the law does not require that the public official you threaten actually exist – only that your utterances or writings be perceived as a threat.
Marty: I don’t know how else to put it, your honor. I’m afraid that if I use the synonyms for “eliminate” such as get rid of, do away with, eradicate, abolish, remove, reduce or purge, I’ll get in even more trouble. I can only assure you that I did not mean anything violent.
Judge: Do expect this court to take your word for it? I have read some of your columns in preparation for this case and I believe it is safe to say that you are an anti-government zealot. I also believe the government is in a better position to determine what you are thinking than you are. Besides, the law is based on the perceptions of the public officials, the police, the prosecutors and the courts, not on the facts. In this case, a city employee perceived that you had bad intentions – that is all that counts.
Marty: But you honor, I’m an honorably discharged military veteran. I spent more than 22 years defending the nation and the freedom of its people. I have a spotless record as an enlisted man and as an officer. I’ve never been previously arrested or charged with any crime. My loyalty to the constitution is really beyond question.
Judge: Things have changed.
Marty: How did they change?
Judge: You harshly criticized the government and many of its elected officials at all levels and that makes you a radical, at least one city employee thinks so.
Marty: But doesn’t the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press?
Judge: As I said, things have changed; now it is all about perception.
Marty: Then, your honor, I have no choice but to change my plea to guilty.
Marty Richman is a Hollister resident.
