What's the highest sentence the skinheads who planned to assassinate Obama receive?

"Crockett County police caught them driving around with swastikas and racial slurs painted on their car." Well its finally happened. They have banned our freedom of thought. Dont these people have a right to express there personal beliefs on there property in a way that is neither illegal or harmful? I admit that they may be believing in the wrong cause but they have just as much right to paint there cars as a democrat has to put up a yard sign that says "Obama 08"

dragon, they were not arrested because of what was written on their car. We still have freedom of speech, friend, but not freedom to murder or plan to murder.

Dragonfang - Hate speech that is intended to incite people to act IS harmful. There's plenty of legal precedent for that.

I have an idea for a market beginning to bubble up in my mind... something about the definition of "hate crimes" being somehow expanded to include things that might be done later, or are being considered, or can be inferred from a look on someone's face, or the way they dress...

@valornhonor, so you are supporting what these two people did? Are you advocating for two people who apparently planned to assassinate the President-elect of the United States? Do you think it is okay to plan to assassinate someone you don't like?

@emmag: You seem to be inserting words into valornhonor's mouth.

It doesnt really say if they actually intended to assasinate him. Just that they had "devised a plan".

No, I am not inserting words into his mouth. I am asking for clarification. I am asking "Are you supporting...", "Are you advocating...", and "Do you think...?" Not inserting.

Emmag... you said, and i quote "you are supporting what these two people did".You didnt ask if he did you just said you are supporting what these two people did. Also you said "you (are) advocating for two people who apparently planned to assassinate the President-elect of the United States". And heres one as well "you think it is okay to plan to assassinate someone you don't like". Those arent questions those are statements.

dragonfang, this might be the only time I agree with any comment you make here. Your above comment is spot on.

dragon, you are unbelievable. You totally misquoted me. Here. I will copy and past what I said. Do you see the words "so are you...?" or "Are you?" or "Do you think?" Do you see the question marks???? I am clearly asking questions. Please don't be a jerk.

"@valornhonor, so you are supporting what these two people did? Are you advocating for two people who apparently planned to assassinate the President-elect of the United States? Do you think it is okay to plan to assassinate someone you don't like?"

One slight correction: I did not say "so are you supporting..." I said "So you are supporting...?" All questions.

@ # 11 ....

No, for the record I'm not supporting these two fellows, certainly not. Granted, I have not studied THIS case in detail, but just going of the information in the background above, it appears that the CRIME was intent, I don't think "driving around with swastikas and racial slurs painted on their car". is in and of itself a crime commensurate with several years in jail. Despicable? Yes. Likely to incite trouble? Certainly. But a crime? I don't think so. Let's say Timothy McFay had been apprehended prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, he was driving around with a large bomb, but if it hadn't yet been detonated what would he have been charged with? Multiple counts of intended murder?

In our country a threat against a President, or pending President is an obvious and legitimate crime, just as bad mouthing the monarch in the UK will get you in trouble. What DOES trouble me though is a bit of a creeping idea that intent alone is considered criminal, prior to a specific tangible action occurring. I think that folks who do not look like the majority of citizens in a community, for whatever reason, are frequently the recipients of additional scrutiny, that often evolves into profiling. I heard a good proverb one time that goes like this.

Guard what you see...it becomes your thoughts...guard your thoughts they become your plans...guard your plans they become your actions...guard your actions they become your legacy. Or something like that. I just think that our liberties are precious and if we begin to incarcerate citizens for things that they haven't yet done, it will become a bit of a slippery slope. You look like a thug, thugs do bad things, so we'll just go ahead and hold onto you now, because you WILL be doing something bad at some point. Sounds a bit too Minority Report-esque to me, and NO, I'm not saying these particular two guys are not guilty. If we (society) get TOO skittish about security then soon our rights will be in peril, like freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

I don't know if the situation is the same in the States, but in Australia attempted murder is a very real crime with harsh penalties (I think the maximum jail term is close to that of an actual murder) - you can't plan a murder and then get off scott free just because you happened to be stopped by the police before you could carry it out? You don't have the liberty to take other people's live away

tisha et all...

I fear that I've muddled what I was trying to say. I'm merely trying to opine an extrapolated trend that if citizens are convicted of crimes prior to the actual act, then presumably persons could be rounded up and held and prosecuted for things they might have been contemplating, granted when actual steps are taken and it seems obvious to a judge or jury of peers that the commission of a crime was imminent, then yes, I think judgement should be swift and severe, but taken to a logical extreme, an otherwise moody person whose personal diary or journal is absconded and there are notations in it wishing for the demise of someone important could be considered a crime.

Like it or not, you can't have absolute security AND absolute liberty. As worrisome as it is, we all have to accept (with much deliberation and caution) some limitation on liberty if we want to be reasonably safe in our homes and streets. Hate crimes are real crimes, Hate speech leads to crime and must be curbed. Freedom of speech does not include freedom to incite violence or advocate reprehensible acts. Life is not simple, we must, very carefully, make some difficult choices. I was raised in a socialist country - trust me, I greatly value our liberty here. But there are reasonable limits on that liberty. Deal with it...
Great discussion, BTW, freedom of speech exemplified...