Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

I don't know the specifics either, but from the sounds of it he wasn't jailed for his speech, but for his actions. It seems he was recruiting people to join the Taliban and actively fight the US. Sounds like treason to me. But, like you said, I don't know the specifics. Therefore I will hold off on making quick judgements without all of the facts in place.

Ok - I'm not opposed to the idea that it is against the law to try and raise an army to overthrow our country via force. I'm not sure free speech covers that - isn't there the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' arguement in there somewhere?

Well I am saying that "create an army" would be "action" but saying "I hate America lets create an army" and not doing it is not action but "speech".

Of course I would not be "opposed" to disallowing someone to take action against our government (or our citizens). I just dont think thats what has happened AT ALL, not EVEN CLOSE, in this case.

This guy is a religious ranting jackass and he told some of his followers to go to Afghanistan and take up arms against the US, NONE OF THEM DID IT, AND HE DID NOT DO IT HIMSELF. Do we put nutjob anti abortion protesters in jail for life when they say we should kill doctors? I will grant you hes guilty of being a jackass and guilty of terroristic threats, maybe (if he made DIRECT threats), but "treason" and or whatever else gets him life in prison, ridiculous.

It is an interesting question. If I am trying to recruit an army to go kill Americans and am unable to convince anyone to actually go do it am I less guilty than if I was successfull and got a bunch of people to act?
Of course I also think you can make a legitimate arguement that both in Iraq and Afghanistan the US is acting to overthrow the existing government (or has already overthrown) and it would seem to me people would have the right to help defend that country. After all, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. How is that different from an Englishman deciding to aid the Rebels in our own Revolutionary War?

I will bite on the "fire" analogy. In that case there is direct action and tangible harm (be it economic or physical from a stampeded, etc). This guy yelled fire and 2 people got up and walked out but never did anything. (Same "interesting question" that Shmooze poses, if I yell fire and nothing happens am I still guilty?)

What I am saying is that I guess I have a different view of free speech than others here in this thread, and than the US government officials that prosecuted this case. This guy SAID bad things about the US, he didnt DO anything.

Again, certainly I would condemn anyone that actually took any action against the US government or citizens, as I have stated, but at the same time, to me at least, the entire point of free speech is that you can say things that are controversial, unpopular, even downright offensive and repulsive, and our nation has the self esteem (as it were) and security to cope with that and recognize it as a healthy part of the process of democracy and freedom. (Rather than the direct opposite view of shutting it down because its not whats currently popular and what most people currently agree with, shutting it down by force at the barrel of a gun and off to jail - that to me demonstrates the insecurity and frailty of the entire actual system as opposed to what it says it is.)

The bottom line is that this guy is A.) incredibly stupid and B.) an asshole but he did not take any action other than speech. His timing was bad and his words offensive and our government has deemed that combination as worthy of life in prison. To me THAT is far more disconcerting than a citizen saying he wants to recruit an army (something again this guys says he did NOT do) to fight the government.

[And Gerry Adams is a great analogy, for that matter how about every damn crazy ass stateside homegrown "militia"? They take up arms and talk all sorts of shit about overthrowing the government all the time, we keep an eye on them but they are not carted off to jail before they actually DO SOMETHING?]

Just so we can be clear, I don't know if I disagree with you or not. My main point is that you and I both weren't sure what he had done.

And by the way, if I try to hire someone to commit a murder, but I'm unsuccessful, it is still illegal. This is definitely a gray area - were his rantings just an expression of free speech or were they an attempt to solicit murderous acts?