That ruling was a modification of the ruling in Schenck v. United States which established the "clear and present danger" standard. That standard was set in 1919, and removed constitutional protections of free speech for those who spoke out during war time. The ruling is as follows:
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
See kids ... we have more freedom of speech now than ever before in our history.
This brings me to a case over the weekend here in Las Vegas.
We all know that we can't yell fire in a theater, or threaten the life of the President of the United States. Nor can we threaten to hijack an airplane, or a whole host of other things. So why would a man who threatens to blow up a major casino in Las Vegas be allowed to return to his native country with no punishment?
The large man of Middle Eastern descent took a seat next to the buxom woman in the low-cut blouse. Between deals, he made sexual suggestions.
Three seats away, the woman's husband spoke up.
"She's married," he said.
This is actually pretty important to the case ... not just because this led to the guy going off, but because of his hypocritical comments. He is hitting on an American woman who is wearing a low-cut top, but when he gets shot down he goes all "Muslim" on everyone.
The dealer said to the new player, "You're going to have to curtail your dialogue."
"What did I do wrong?" the disgruntled player asked, according to one source. "Something I said? In my country, women should not be seen in public without a burqa or a veil."
The husband snarled, "Then why don't you go back to your (expletive) country?"
It should be noted that HIS country is supposed to be Canada. Yes, he's an Iranian who is a Canadian citizen. Last I checked ... Canada didn't require women to wear burqas. This goes to show that the radical Muslims are purposefully migrating to western countries in order to change our way of life. He's a citizen of Canada yet he sees Iran as HIS country.
The floor supervisor then ushered the man, identified as Reza Nazarinia, away from the table before a fight broke out between him and the woman's husband. It's when the supervisor attempted to remove Reza that he threatened to blow up the Mandalay Bay.
"You don't know who I am," he said, according to one source. "I'm from the Middle East. When I come back, I'm going to blow this place down."
So we have an Iranian who is upset that women don't have to wear a burka, and he threatened to blow up a major casino. I wonder if this falls into that category of "likely to incite imminent lawless action" that is forbidden under current US law.
The belligerence continued. So did the threats.
"When Nazarinia would lose a hand of blackjack, he would become violent and punch the gaming table," the Las Vegas police arrest report written by Detective Richard Umberger states. "Tell became fearful for herself and the other customers' safety. She asked Nazarinia to calm down and watch his language. He replied, 'Go (expletive) yourself.' Tell stated that Nazarinia then stated he could bring the entire hotel down. Tell states that Nazarinia indicated to her that he knew how to do it, too."
Now he's made multiple threats to blow up the Mandalay Bay, and that's also when security, Metro (police), and the FBI got involved.
Nazarinia was arrested on charges of making threats or conveying false information concerning an act of terrorism and making a bomb threat. He was booked on May 19 at the Clark County Detention Center. I am informed he later returned to Canada.
He returned to Canada? Why was a man who made multiple terrorist threats allowed to leave the US? What if he is who he says he is? Is that really a risk this country can afford to take given the recent terrorist plots we've uncovered? There was a murder (not terrorist related) recently in which a person was killed with a car bomb at one of our casino parking lots as well, and that is still on everyone's mind.
Remember Allen Lee? He's the student from Illinois who was given a creative writing assignment in which he eluded to a possible future shooting at his school. He was arrested, and faces two felony charges of disorderly conduct. At least Lee was just doing an assignment in which he was encouraged to exaggerate, and was told there was no censorship.
I contacted the journalist who wrote the story, John L. Smith, and asked what punishment this guy will face. He wrote back that he faces two state felony charges related to making terrorist threats and bomb threats. Mr. Smith also mentioned to me that he hasn't received any response from the feds and DA handling the case.
It seems to me that any terrorist threat uttered in the US should carry a federal charge as well as the state charges. That doesn't seem to be the case here. While I'm glad that there are some charges being considered (nothing is final) ... why was he allowed to return to Canada? I'm not saying he needs to be whisked off to Gitmo just yet, but it would be nice to know that the United States government would not allow people who make terrorist threats against us to go free ... especially if they are allowed to return to their native country where we may face extradition problems.
John L. Smith concludes his article with some thought provoking points.
That kind of talk, right in the heart of our tourism corridor, is arguably more egregious than shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and worse than joking at an airport about hijacking a commercial jet liner.
The investigative question is whether Reza Nazarinia has the contacts and capability to make good on his threat.
But threatening terrorism is a form of terrorism, and the jerk should pay a heavy price.
I couldn't agree more ... how about you?