onegoodmove

Not that the nice doggie has ever been mistaken for a nice doggie but his implied threats to Eric would quite possibly qualify as violating many states hate speech laws or laws against terroristic threats. The doggie says:

Here's a hint to you, Eric: The gov't can't do anything to you over that ad, but that's the extent of your protection under the First Amendment.

The rest of us, however, aren't the gov't, in case you've forgotten, and quite few of us would be more than happy to wipe that nervous little grin off your traitorous mug - with a belt sander.

Not saying anything in specific, mind you, but we'd be damn careful about showing our face in public if we were you. You just never know who that perfect stranger behind you in that alleyway might be. Could be a sibling or other relative of one of the fallen soldiers that you just took a dump on the grave of, and G-d only knows what might happen then.

Eric may not be famous enough to be a pick for the 2004 Dead Pool, but there's another signed Imperial Mug for the first LC to inform me that Eric Blumrich has died in a "tragic" accident.

Accidents DO happen, you know, and that's the kind of news that would definitely make my entire day.

This is pretty typical of the language in hate crime and terroristic threat statutes.

* A person intimidates or interferes with another person if the act of the person results in any of the following:
o a. Physical injury to the other person.
o b. Physical damage to or destruction of the other person's property.
o c. Communication in a manner, or action in a manner, intended to result in either of the following:
+ (1) To place the other person in fear of physical contact which will be injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.
+ (2) To place the other person in fear of harm to the other person's property, or harm to the person or property of a third person.

What do you think, should they put the doggie in the pound? Would anybody claim him?