人兽性交

A federal judge was unequivocal in his ruling that the government has no case against the neo-Nazi leader it accused of encouraging violence against a jury foreman.

In a decision that will likely influence similar cases, the judge ruled that the free speech protections of the First Amendment allowed Bill White to post the foreman鈥檚 personal information on his blog. The foreman had served on the federal jury that in 2004 convicted white supremacist Matt Hale of seeking the murder of a federal judge.

, 32, heads the American National Socialist Workers Party, which the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a neo-Nazi hate group. He had been scheduled for trial in Chicago next month, but U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman this week the indictment charging White with soliciting harm against the juror. White still faces other federal charges in Virginia in connection with threats he allegedly made against other people.

鈥淭he posting of personal information about an individual involved in a judicial proceeding, even under circumstances that are intimidating or unsettling, cannot, absent a true threat or an incitement to imminent lawless action, be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment,鈥� wrote Adelman in the 35-page decision.

White posted the birth date, address and phone numbers of the 鈥済ay anti-racist juror鈥� and wrote that the juror 鈥減layed a key role in convicting Matt Hale.鈥� But Adelman noted that White in his posts never directly calls for violence against the juror. He also asserted that the First Amendment protects 鈥渟crutiny and criticism鈥� of people involved in legal cases, including the publication of personal information.

鈥淭he decision is not surprising,鈥� said 人兽性交 President Richard Cohen. 鈥淏ut I don鈥檛 think that White is out of the woods yet. He鈥檚 posted a number of other things that probably go over the First Amendment line.鈥�

In making their case against White, the government had alleged that he knew his website was frequented by white supremacists who sometimes harm people they view as traitors to the white race. But the fact that his audience included (potentially dangerous) white supremacists isn鈥檛 enough to conclude that the First Amendment doesn鈥檛 apply, Adelman said. 鈥淜nowledge or belief that one鈥檚 speech, even speech advocating law breaking, may cause others to act does not remove the speech from the protection of the First Amendment, unless the speech is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action,鈥� he wrote.

The government also contended that, months before White wrote about the jury foreman, he posted personal information about other people he hoped would be harmed. But again, Adelman found that those posts don鈥檛 make his writings about the juror unlawful; in fact, they appeared to have no connection to the juror.

(Although not mentioned in Adelman鈥檚 decision, Dr. James Corcoran, a psychiatrist for the defense, testified at a detention hearing in December that he did not believe White was a danger to the community. However, he said he thought White suffered from a personality disorder. He said White exhibited 鈥渉istrionic and narcissistic鈥� behaviors such as his 鈥渆xcessive need of approval from other people鈥� and 鈥減ervasive pattern or need for grandiosity.鈥�)

Adelman discussed several past court decisions that support the right to reveal personal information, 鈥渆ven under threatening or intimidating circumstances.鈥� Among them was a Supreme Court ruling that organizers of a boycott of white-owned businesses in Claiborne County, Miss., could not be held liable for publicizing the names of those who did not take part. Even making generalized threats against the non-participants was protected, so long as they didn鈥檛 lead to criminal action, the court ruled. 鈥淭he fact that I might regard as noble the struggle of Mississippi blacks for equal treatment, and defendant鈥檚 views as reprehensible, is irrelevant to the constitutional analysis,鈥� Adelman wrote. 鈥淣evertheless, there is irony in the fact that defendant鈥檚 right to spread a message of white supremacy has, in large part, been secured by the efforts of African-Americans to obtain civil rights.鈥�