At the American Bar Association's annual meeting last week in San Francisco, there was a panel of judges who had all been the target of threats after issuing controversial rulings. That panel included George Greer, the judge in the Terri Schiavo case; New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, who participated in that state court's ruling requiring civil unions for gay couples; and Eileen O'Neill, a former Texas judge who once found Randall Terry and other anti-abortion advocates in contempt of court for refusing to follow a court order not to harass doctors in Houston.
They could also have had Judge Jones from the Dover trial, who was subject to death threats as well. Here are some examples of what they went through. From Judge Greer:
More than two years after enraging right-wing groups by ordering Terry Schiavo's feeding tube removed, George Greer still peers over his shoulder nervously at times.In fact, the Florida judge told a rapt audience Friday at the American Bar Association's annual meeting, he even used an alias when he registered at his San Francisco hotel on this trip.
Two years ago, he said, someone in the Bay Area threatened to kill him over his decision to end life support for the brain-damaged Schiavo. And even though that person was prosecuted and jailed, Greer said, he's taking no chances.
"It is a little unnerving," he said. "I still can't see a strange car come down my street without wondering [who's behind the steering wheel]."...
Greer talked about he and his wife had to be placed under 24-hour watch after Operation Rescue posted their home address and phone number on its Web site. All of their mail was checked by authorities and on one occasion dead flowers were delivered to their condominium with a note reading, "No Food, No Water" -- a reference to Schiavo.
"It got to the point," Greer said, "that we felt a little trapped in our apartment."
From Judge Rivera-Soto:
Soon after the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its ruling on same-sex marriage -- which didn't fully appease parties on either side -- Rivera-Soto said he got a letter from a radio talk-show host announcing that his home address and phone number had been broadcast. The letter writer also advised the justice that the show's prime audience included white supremacists, skinheads and members of both the Aryan Nation and the Ku Klux Klan."I hope you have a good life," Rivera-Soto quoted from the letter. "However long that lasts now that people know how to find you."
From Judge O'Neill:
O'Neill said she "pretty much ... became the anti-Christ" after issuing an order preventing anti-abortion activists from harassing doctors. Her home address also was posted on Operation Rescue's Web site and both her office and cell phones were flooded with "hate messages."O'Neill said she was placed under 24-hour police protection too, but found out "only much later ... that there had been certain kinds of death threats against me."
Have you noticed a pattern here? All three situations involved upsetting the religious right, two of them specifically involving Operation Rescue publicizing phone numbers and addresses so their followers can threaten judges and their families. And judges are not the only ones threatened when there is a court case the religious right doesn't like; as I've written many times before, the plaintiffs in almost every prominent establishment clause case have been the victims of harassment, vandalism and death threats in their communities.
Now, this certainly does not mean that all or even most Christian conservatives would ever become violent toward their political opponents; I don't believe for a moment that the vast majority would do so. But just as certainly, given the patterns we see all around the country in such cases, there are enough whackos amongst them to insure that virtually every time there is a prominent court case that angers the religious right, threats of violence are an inevitability.

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 



Comments
In the Rivera-Soto case, was that radio talk-show host prosecuted?
Posted by: Taz | August 15, 2007 9:16 AM
Taz: Given that it was most likely Hal Turner, one time Anonymous raid victim, no, he wasn't prosecuted. He stays just barely on the side of what's legal. The most that he could be got for is incitement to violence, which I'm not even sure is actually a crime.
Also, in before "Christianity is a religion of peace."
Posted by: NinjaDebugger | August 15, 2007 9:25 AM
But I thought that only muslim extremists were violent.
Posted by: Cheeto | August 15, 2007 9:39 AM
But I thought that only muslim extremists were violent.
Posted by: Cheeto | August 15, 2007 9:39 AM
Silly Cheeto... If they're Christian, by definition they're not extremist. "Extremists" only exist in other religions, and of course those radical extremist atheist fundamentalists... Christians get a free pass.
Who would Jesus threaten?
Posted by: KCProgramr | August 15, 2007 9:44 AM
However, many do support and defend groups like Operation Rescue which encourage and enable such behavior. I have a number of relatives who fall in that category: they would never personally harm anyone, but they do defend the notion that the groups that encourage this stuff are acting out of concern for soctiety.
Posted by: Chuck C | August 15, 2007 9:46 AM
I often hear people on the Right ask, "Why don't Muslims take to the street to protest the extremists among them?" Couldn't one ask those people, "Why don't Right Wingers take to the streets to protest the extremists among them?"
Posted by: Paul Sunstone | August 15, 2007 1:28 PM
Ed, I am wondering if you have ever received any sort of threat from conservative crazies objecting to your work on this web site (or "blog", if you prefer)?
Posted by: Tom Kirkpatrick | August 15, 2007 7:49 PM
Tom Kirkpatrick wrote:
Nothing I took at all seriously. I've had semi-literate blowhards like Gribbit tell me he wants to kick my ass, but that's about it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 15, 2007 8:58 PM
[q]The most that he could be got for is incitement to violence, which I'm not even sure is actually a crime.[/q]
Probably not, although it's possible some state has a statute with that phrase. In general, speech is strongly protected by the First Amendment, and it has to rise to the stage of "speech plus action" to be prosecutable. For instance, if I said, "All abortion doctors should be executed," and you go out and execute one, my speech is probably protected. But if I say, "You should go out and execute Dr. X," and you do it, then my speech is no longer protected.
One of the more interesting cases concerned the website that listed abortion providers, and put an X over their faces when they were killed. I believe that one was shut down, on the basis that they were actually inciting people to specific acts. On First Amendment grounds it was a somewhat shaky decision, certainly not a slam dunk.
Moral of the story...you can be pretty damn vile and intimidating as long as you don't engage in specific threats.
Posted by: JamesH | August 15, 2007 10:38 PM