No, he did not threaten the judge, but that's not I'm as worried about. That is within the law at question here, which, by the way, is unconstitutional, but is not the part I'm concerned with. I'm concerned - like the article, like many around here - with the wording: "expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule." Why is it illegal to subject someone to ridicule? Why is it illegal to criticize someone for their actions, right or wrong?

I blog on occasion and it is extremely worrying for me to know that all of a sudden criticism - no matter how strong - of a judicial decision can get me thrown in prison for two years in this state. That's really scary.

The article is mostly comprehensive and covers everything in the case file (can google it) that is relevant to the point they are putting forward. You really don't need to see what he said to question the law itself. His case, like has been the case in the past, is simply used as the precedence for some kind of legal change. Hopefully it'll happen.

I agree, bo. And if that is all they have, then he should win it if he gets a State appeal. If he doesn't get the appeal, then he can appeal to Federal court (and you know he will) which will hear it at the District level and probably swat the State around a bit for stifling free speech.

Which would be quite welcome.

What he said is certainly not right - the article does say that he put the judge (victim in the case) in "fear" that he'd never encountered before. In any case, that's not right. However, there was nothing that would pass the "clear and present danger test" (originally from World War I and the Espionage Act, made relevant after "Brandenburg" I believe), and the federal court has bashed states for failing to judge individuals to this level in the past. Hopefully they can do that again.