01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, November 9, 2004

Whoever knowingly and willfully delivers or conveys, directly or indirectly, a verbal or written threat to take the life of, or to inflict bodily harm upon, a public official or a member of his or her immediate family because of the performance or nonperformance of some public duty, because of hostility of the person making the threat toward the status or position of the public official, or because of some other factor related to the official's public existence, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned for not more than five (5) years, or fined not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or both.

Rhode Island General Laws, Title 11, Chapter 42

PAUL VALLETTA, head of the Cranston firefighters union, made precisely such a threat against Mayor Stephen Laffey at a City Council meeting on Aug. 23. It was captured on videotape for all to see.

During the meeting, Mr. Valletta walked menacingly toward Mayor Laffey, past a railing dividing the public from the City Council, shouting: "Don't you talk to the wife of my firefighter." (Mr. Laffey insists that he had been addressing a firefighter at the podium when he said, "Please stop this right now.")

Then, while two men restrained Mr. Valletta, one grabbing his shirt and another blocking him with his arms, he shouted: "Don't you ever talk to the wife of one of my guys like that again! I will knock you right out! Ever again . . . ever again!" Several people escorted him to the back of the public seating area, where he again stated: "Don't you . . . you ever talk to me like that! You talk to her like that, I'll knock you out!"

The room was packed with angry firefighters, and Mayor Laffey feared possible violence. He called police headquarters for extra assistance. Worrying about the safety of his wife and young children, he called home and asked his wife to be sure the doors were locked.

In early September, Cranston police filed a report with Rhode Island Atty. Gen. Patrick Lynch, asking him to prosecute Mr. Valletta under the law cited above. Mr. Lynch kept the matter in his hands for two months, until the day after the Nov. 2 election, and then responded in a fax Wednesday night to Cranston police.

In a strange 11-page document, Mr. Lynch's office twisted itself in knots arguing that the law did not apply to this case. Among the reasons: Mr. Laffey did not display sufficient fear; the City Council has met since Aug. 23 without incident; Mayor Laffey has "by all accounts, maintained a full public schedule, including an active political campaign for his re-election." Thus, "While his conduct was certainly disruptive, Valletta's words at that point can not be factually considered as 'true threats.' " The A.G.'s office recommended prosecution of Mr. Valletta on a misdemeanor charge, for "disruptive activity," rather than for making a threat.

In essence, Mr. Lynch, in a highly subjective ruling, nullified the law on making threats. But is Mr. Lynch truly fit to be the final word, to be judge and jury?

After all, Mr. Lynch is a Democratic politician, brother of the state party chairman. Since the spring, Patrick Lynch has received $450 from the Rhode Island State Association of Fire Fighters, run by labor boss Frank Montanaro. Such labor contributions are the lifeblood of Rhode Island Democrats -- a big reason they narrowly won a number of close legislative races on Nov. 2. They are key to Mr. Lynch's future in politics.

Should his office, then, be the sole arbiter, deciding that a member of organized labor may physically threaten a public official, treating the above law as if it did not exist? Especially since organized labor has made Mr. Laffey Public Enemy No. 1 in Rhode Island?

Shouldn't any matter requiring 11 pages of explication be referred to a judge, who presumably does not accept contributions from the parties involved?

Should Mr. Lynch's office, in this ruling, be making snide remarks about Mr. Laffey's re-election campaign, as if that had anything to do with the above law? (I see nothing in the law that states a target of threats must cower in fear, and cease his public service, before it can be enforced.)

Unfortunately, this is of a piece with Mr. Lynch's conduct since taking office. He found nothing amiss with government officials in West Warwick, and helped fight to keep basic information out of the public's hands, after the Station fire claimed 100 lives. He displayed brazen disregard for the First Amendment in seeking criminal action against The Journal for publishing a photo from its own files. He found nothing actionable when a powerful Democratic legislator, Rene Menard, urged police to commit a crime and erase from a public log the name of a Massachusetts official.

The evidence makes it obvious that Mr. Valletta threatened Mr. Laffey, though I did not wish to see criminal charges brought. Under the First Amendment, I believe, we should err on the side of giving individuals great leeway to criticize officials, even intemperately, in public meetings. But I was shocked by the attorney general's bizarre "reasoning."

Many thinking people cannot help but conclude that there are two sets of laws in Rhode Island: One for friends of the politically powerful, and another for those who dare challenge the political orthodoxy. That is a fair description of a lawless society, which can ultimately do nothing but terrible harm to the people of Rhode Island.

Edward Achorn is The Journal's deputy editorial-pages editor. His e-mail address is eachorn [at] projo.com.