AHEM!!!! Get someone literate to read this to ya blown, so I don't have to explain it again:
"Bill Of Rights
Congress of the United States,
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
Article of the THIRD (my capitols) ....... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peacably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of greivances."
As a private citizen of the US, Pat Robertson is able to legally say ALMOST anything he wants to, whether you (or I) like it or not. I can legally say that Hugo Chavez ought to be assasinated. I can even say the govt ought to do it. I cannot threaten to do it myself, nor threaten to have it done at my command. I am ALLOWED TO HAVE AN OPINION, AND TO SPEAK IT. You have the same rights.
I can say, "My neighbor is a jacka$$, and I wish he was dead". I CANNOT SAY "I'm going to kill you." That is verbal assault, terroristic threatening, conspiracy to commit the crime, and several others.
Pat Robertson can say "The US military needs to assasinate (insert favorite foreign dictator here)". He can say "I am going to ask the govt to kill Chavez". He CANNOT SAY "I am going to have Chavez killed."
Now, just what part of PAT ROBERTSON'S LEGAL LIBERTY do you STILL fail to understand???????
I got that part what I am looking for is what did he do to bring this on him?