rgr22j

To be honest, I don't think it's illegal; the Supreme Court decision (as in the "FIRE" in a crowded theater scenario) is supposed to limit free speech that would directly injure (or cause mass panic, leading to possible injury) another person. Wishing someone would kill the president probably wouldn't raise too many eyebrows over at the Secret Service, I have a feeling they're more concerned over direct threats to the president.

Just to set the record straight, the PATRIOT Act does not limit free speech. If it did, you can be sure that the ACLU would be all over it. Instead, the ACLU filed its lawsuit against (particularly), sections 213 and 215. 215 expands the federal government's power to inspect business records from stuff like to library books. Previously the government could only inspect a narrower range of things like hotel bills. 213 allows the federal government to inspect a citizen's home and delay notification. This does NOT allow the government to "sneak-and-peek" without a warrant. In both cases, 213 and 215, the government is required to get a judge's approval, a fact that the ACLU somehow missed. The ACLU (and know-nothings in the major media) are so clueless about the PATRIOT Act that they even object to section 216, which empowers the government to use the Internet (and check e-mail headers, but not content) with, again, a judge's approval. 216 merely updates it so the government can check a terrorist's "e-mail records," similar to how it can already check his/her phone records.

-- Alvin

EDIT: I discovered that the government only needs a court order (with judge approval) to "sneak-and-peek." A warrant is not needed. Legally speaking there's a difference, but the main point remains: the feds still need to go before a judge. My apologies for the error.