A retired teacher was sentenced on Wednesday to five years in prison after admitting that his angry voicemails to U.S. District Judge and Federalist Society member Wendy Berger amounted to threats. Berger, appointed by then-president Trump, had dismissed a challenge to Florida's ban on encouraging discussion of sexuality in schools—the law derided as the "Don't Say Gay" law by opponents.
In his voicemails, Thorn, who is gay, said the judge had no idea what LGBTQ children go through and was "basically giving a green light for them to be thought of as second-class citizens and bullied."
Thorn said he had looked up where the judge, her husband and two children lived and said the judge was "very easy to track."
"Let's see how you would like it if somebody endangered your children in school or your grandchildren in school," Thorn said. "You are an embarrassment to the judicial system."
He admitted this was a true threat; they were going to nail him no matter how much he groveled.
U.S. District Judge William Jung in Tampa sentenced Stephen Thorn, 66, to the maximum sentence possible after he pleaded guilty in May to a single threat charge. The sentence was twice as long as prosecutors had sought.
People who aren't right wing may watch the news and see people who attack cops or threaten officials being treated with some leniency by the courts, and to see that leniency encouraged and demanded by right-wing media. They may then be tempted to do something stupid, thinking the playing field is equal. Not only might you not be treated with leniency, everything you say may be interpreted in the worst possible light, punished to the maximum possible extent, and reported without sympathy.
Here is how Reuters described Florida's law, by the way: as a "law that grants teachers freedom to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity while also shielding the youngest students from those topics."
This is a very media-brained description of the law, which "grants" no such freedom. It's like saying that the 18th Amendment granted Americans the freedom to drink alcohol while shielding them from dangerous beverages. Sure, Jan. They're likely trying to incorporate the thrust of a later settlement but are not even right about that. The relevant freedom is granted elsewhere.
Here's the relevant section of the law: "A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students."
The political context was always clear, and in early drafts was made explicit: "the bill's authors write that their aim is to prohibit 'classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.'"
