I would have to say that calling the police "Scum" and asking for the public have a public burning of police officers is quite a different thing. Here in the US, if you make any such seggestion it has to be taken seriously... too many times has it been played off as a "joke" only for it to then actually happen. This day and age, threatening the life of another individual is usually a bad idea.

Agreed. Calling for the public burning of police is so far from the titled "sentenced for calling police 'scum' " as to be laughable.
I read the article because that would indeed be a bit extreme. However, he frankly got off lucky given his comments.

Another agreement here. It's a bit of a disturbing trend on TGD, honestly. That said...

In America, you report on blog. In Soviet Russia, blog reports on YOU!!

Yes, In most countries you can call the police 'scum' all you want or any other name.

However, free speech ends when you start calling for violence against police officers or anyone else. That is far from calling them 'scum'.

The title of this article is more disturbing than the situation --- talk about yellow journalism.

It's unfortunate it was written by "Humphrey Cheung" who usually writes pretty good articles on TGdaily.

While recommending to "burn the police in the town square to clean up the force" MIGHT be taken seriously in the USA, it certainly would not have resulted in any prosecution. Recall the case of the gangbanger in Miami, Florida who recorded a YouTube video threatening the police while brandishing weapons:
http://tinyurl.com/5rwxjf

Rudy Villanueva plead guilty to being a
convicted felon in possession of a firearm, NOT to making threats against the police. I can't think of any case in the USA where a blogger has been convicted of making threats against the police. Now, if you did this in person, right to the officer's face, you might be arrested for "disorderly conduct" or "disturbing the peace." However, the 1st Amendment is simply too strong to allow any prosecution for speech, written or oral.

There is an exception to this: No one in the USA is allowed to make threats against the President, no matter how unpopular he is. In February, Southern Californian Charles Madrid was arrested by the Secret Service for making threats against the President. Even though Madrid owned no weapons, he was charged in Federal court anyway. While he did admit to making threats, owning no actual weapons works in his favor. He claims he was simply angry and didn't intend any harm. I find it hard to believe any jury will convict him. If he is convicted, I doubt he will serve any real time. He will probably be ordered to seek psychiatric care for his "anger management issues."