There is a fine line, but a very important one, that these DJs were very careful not to cross. The difference between these guys and actual terrorists is that terrorists commit acts; bombings, lynchings, etc., to scare people into doing what they want them to do. In this country it is legal to threaten to kick someone's ass, but illegal to do it. Making speech, however objectionable, illegal starts us down a slippery slope. There are many in this country who would like to inhibit speech, both on the extreme right and the left. Would you also call Alec Baldwin a terrorist for publicly stating that Jesse Helms' family should be murdered? Where would you draw the line? One man's "satire" is anther man's "hate speech."

Having said that, though, I would probably sock these guys in the gut if I ever ran across them.

At the risk of beating this dead horse further, here's my take.

I don't think I'm willing to go that far. While I found their behavior reprehensible, and irresponsible, there is one major difference I see between these "shock jocks" and the organizations you list. Those organizations advocate violence purely out of hate. These disc jockeys, while very irresponsible, were just doing a show, trying to be funny and/or controversial, and to get better ratings.

I think if you ask any of these shock jocks, they would probably say that they don't really hate cyclists (unless, of course you ask them on the air, and then they have to be in character...). They may be annoyed with us for some of the adverse effects we can have on traffic, but I doubt they hate us. I would even go so far as to say that most of the idiots who called in to express their enthusiasm for assaulting cyclist, probably don't really hate cyclists. Their anti-social behavior probably stems from some other cause (I've had psych 101, so I must be an expert ;) ).

Let's be careful of lumping people into extreme categories like terrorists, the KKK and Nazis/Neo-Nazis. Those are what I consider to be the really bad, really evil, hate mongering groups. Shock jocks looking for ratings may be inconsiderate buffoons with about as much sense as a sack of hair, but I don't think they are hate mongers.

That being said, I do think every one of those shock jocks who did a bit on assaulting cyclists should have, at a minimum, been suspended for several weeks without pay. You simply can't be that socially irresponsible without serious consequences.

> In this country it is legal to threaten to kick someone's ass, but illegal to do it.

Not quite true. The person who threatens "your money or your life" has already committed a crime, even if he does not end up having actually to stab me in the course of obtaining my wallet. The anti-cyclist DJs may not present that imminent a threat, but I think it might be argued that they are endangering the rights of others in a manner similar in kind to the alley thief. Just as I cannot afford simply to ignore the thief's threat, cyclists in Raleigh may perhaps, as a consequence of that broadcast, no longer be free to participate in their sport without fear of violent reprisals. I agree with you, however, that we have to be very cautious about proposed restrictions that might endanger legitimate freedom of speech.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

In this country it is legal to threaten to kick someone's ass, but illegal to do it.

"Not quite true. The person who threatens "your money or your life" has already committed a crime, even if he does not end up having actually to stab me in the course of obtaining my wallet. "

What you are talking about is strong arm robbery. What I am talking about is just making a threatening statement. Ask any cop (and I have) and they will tell you they can't arrest someone for that. These DJs even removed themselves further from legal peril in that they, themselves, were not directing a specific threat at anyone. IMO, they knew/know exactly what they can and cannot legally get away with. Of course, their employer can still fire them, but DJs change jobs as often as some of us change our bike shorts, so no BFD to them.

I would like to put the dj's who did this on a bike on a busy road at rush hour and make them ride home. I would sure be hoping that someone who had heard them on the air might let them have it with a budweiser can or something!

"What you are talking about is strong arm robbery. What I am talking about is just making a threatening statement. Ask any cop (and I have) and they will tell you they can't arrest someone for that."

You are completely wrong on this. I believe that cops told you this but that only shows how little some of the people charged with enforcing the law actually know about it (ask your cop friends to explain the holding of Tuberville v. Savage to you). Saying "I am going to kick your ass." is assault. It is against the law. I believe that they might not be willing to but cops certainly can arrest someone for it.

The issue is that I don't think the DJs were saying "on the way home tonight I'm going to run over Joe Schmoe cyclist with my car." That would definitely be assault. I doubt they even said "I'm going to run over the next random cyclist I see." which probably isn't assault. It was probably something more like "cyclists don't belong on the road. It would be funny if someone ran some over." This is very different. It is definitely not assault, it is probably not illegal and the supreme court has said things that suggest that it might even be speech protected by the first amendment.

Does this make them terrorists? I don't know but I don't think so. Just because people talk about violence as a means of achieving wierd, quasi-political ends doesn't make them terrorists. People who go around branding anyone they don't like with the derrogatory term of the era, whether its "nazis" "commies" "fags" or "terrorists" don't do anything good for anyone.

---

________________________________________________

Anyone who tells you they're as fast now as they were when they were 18...
sure wasn't very fast when they were 18.

Okay, I read up on this and I'll admit I'm half wrong, but not completely. According to what I read; "P (plaintiff) must actually believe the threat is about to be carried out in circumstances where a reasonable man would have that same belief." Therefore, there are some circumstances where a verbal threat may be considered assault and other cases where it may not. In the case of the DJs, they did not pose any imminent threat to any specific, reasonable person, so therefore, I think what they did was legal, but certainly not ethical or moral.

Ahhhh!! Nightmares of first year torts and criminal law. Ahhhhhhhh!