Expatriate discusses online petition to indict Sarah Palin for inciting violence

On Tuesday, we reported that Dr. Stuart Jeanne Bramhall, an American expatriate now living in New Zealand, has started an online petition to indict Sarah Palin.

Since that report, Dr. Bramhall has responded to questions put to her in an email regarding the petition.

What follows is the full text of questions related to the petition with her responses:

SCE:  What laws, specifically, do you allege she (Palin) violated?

DR. BRAMHALL:  There are federal statutes against incitement to riot, incitement to violence and incitement to murder - in which the Supreme Court has ruled that First Amendment protections do not apply. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really give an opinion whether Sarah Palin violated any of them. However I am very concerned about inflammatory statements she has made over the past 12 mos. related to gun violence against people whose politics she opposes - especially when I read and heard the reaction of her supporters - many of whom heard her say these people should be shot. In this context identifying specific congressmen with gun sites could be construed as sending a message that she is condoning violent retaliation against them. I am also aware that animal rights activists and Muslims and other minority activists have been indicted under incitement to violence statutes for very vague threats that weren't directed against specific individuals.

SCE:  What, specifically, do you want the DOJ to do to her?

DR. BRAMHALL:  I am aware that Palin is not the only one urging violent retaliation against political opponents - that a lot of it is coming from talk show hosts and commentators - and people tell me from KOS and the DNC. The reason I identified Palin specifically is because as a former state official and federal candidate, she has the most prominent public platform and needs to be mindful of the responsibility that goes along with having that public access.

What I intend to ask for when I present my petition is a clear statement from the DOJ the type of violent rhetoric that does violate the federal law and how bad it would have to get before they would prosecute. As an American citizen living overseas, I am aware that our country has really loss respect in the world for allowing this type of violent provocation to go on unchecked.

SCE:  Are you considering a similar petition for similar graphics used by the DNC?

DR. BRAMHALL:  Not at present.

SCE:  Are you not concerned about the impact on free speech such an indictment might have?

DR. BRAMHALL:  The Supreme Court rule in 1919 that the First Amendment doesn't protect someone who yells fire in a crowded theater. Historically incitement to violence is treated according to this precedent. However at the moment it doesn't seem to applied equally - as I mentioned above. Minority groups are held to a much lower standard.

One of my specific concerns right now is the death threats against Palin. People somehow think that's okay because the violent rhetoric has been going on so long. And this is one of the principal reasons we try to run society by rule of law - to keep fanatics from taking matters into their own hands. That's why I feel it's so essential for the DOJ to make a statement on the legality of inflammatory speech.

SCE:  Have you heard from any authority that anyone is considering such an indictment?

DR. BRAMHALL:  No.

Several follow-up questions have been asked regarding some of her responses.  So far, she has not responded to those inquiries.

Dr. Bramhall is a medical doctor who graduated from Mount Sinai in 1973.  She did post graduate training in psychiatry and practice in Chico, California between 1978 and 1983 and in Seattle between 1983 and 2002. Since then, she has been doing child and adolescent psychiatry in New Zealand.

She considers herself a libertarian who supports Ron Paul, calling him a "voice in the wilderness" on issues like the Middle East and banking.  She expressed hope that Paul would run for President again as a Republican, but believes a third party run might be a worthwhile endeavor, noting that Ross Perot captured 19 percent of the vote in 1992.