"A judge dismissed an injunction today against Angel Dillard, stating that her letter to Dr. Mila Means was an attempt at intimidation but not a "true threat," as it couldn't be proven that Dillard intended to commit violence against the doctor personally. The letter, according to U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten, was a means of intimidation, yes, but still covered under freedom of speech.

“They will know your habits and routines. They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live,” the letter said. “You will be checking under your car everyday — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.”

is a known friend of Scott Roeder, who is currently serving a life sentence for the premeditated murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, shooting him while he attended a Sunday service at his church. "Dillard told AP "With one move, (Roeder) was able...to accomplish what we had not been able to do...So he followed his convictions and I admire that."

Please let me point out that I am looking at this NOT as a discussion about abortion, but as question of free speech versus the right to feel safe from persecution.

I note that intimidating, according to this judge, is covered by freedom of speech.

I note that because the intent to stalk the doc does not mention any names, it is ok to not only threaten to stalk, but to state an intent to do so.

I also note that just because she doesn't say that she herself will place a bomb under the car, it is not a threat, despite her being friends with a murderer, and publicly acclaiming his deed.

I wonder if this was a different area, like a minority fighting for civil rights, whether it would be looked on differently. In other words, if the limits of freedom of speech are born out of the present political climate.

As I see this, there is a clash between freedom of speech and the right not to be persecuted, and if freedom of speech wins, then where are we?