Threatening President Bush

[CptColumbo]

A warning to people who threaten the President of the U.S. online.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/teen-questioned-over-bush-threats-on/20061014060009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Although, I'm sure it only applies to those living in the USA.

IMO it's never a good idea to threaten anyone with physical harm, anywhere in the world.

[Gravy]

Off to the FEMA camp with her!

[Oliver]

I agree. Even if this girl is 14 years old. It´s the job of the secret service to take a look where such threats come from.

[Dave1001]

A warning to people who threaten the President of the U.S. online.

Thanks for the tip.

[CptColumbo]

Thanks for the tip.

I posted it here, since some of our LC "friends" like to throw these types of threats around. I assume that they believe their annonymity will be protected since they are on the internet.

Also because they banned me from their site.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Wilson and her parents said the agents were justified in questioning her over her MySpace.com posting. But they said they believe agents went too far by not waiting until she was out of school.

Actually, public humiliation was the right thing to do. Given the disproportionately high representation of angry 14 year old know-it-alls among the twoofers, there is a need for those who commit major felonies to have examples made of them.

It might stop thier friends from acting equally retarded.

[Dog Town]

So maybe this could be handled as well. I would love them to knock on this kids door.

from LC
I agree. The American people have been brainwashed and lied to enough. It is time we listen to the words of Thomas Jefferson and take back what is ours. I don't know about anyone else but I would love to have Bush on his knees at the wrong end of my .38.

[Araneus]

Actually, public humiliation was the right thing to do. Given the disproportionately high representation of angry 14 year old know-it-alls among the twoofers, there is a need for those who commit major felonies to have examples made of them.

So a 14-year-old's scribbled drawing of "Kill President Bush" is a major felony in your opinion?

What is your view of a "minor felony" - just deciding that you don't like him?

[Dave1001]

So maybe this could be handled as well. I would love them to knock on this kids door.

from LC

well, he's accurately citing Jefferson.

[Dog Town]

well, he's accurately citing Jefferson.

Jefferson with a time machine , maybe. 38 special? I know the King G ref this is diff.

[Dave1001]

Jefferson with a time machine , maybe. 38 special? I know the King G ref this is diff.

I'm think about his advocacy for periodic (and I think bloody) rebellions.

[Dog Town]

This is a direct threat to the POTUS! Not the same. Nice try!

[alexg]

14 year olds are too young to prosecute for such a malicious prank but questioning her was corrct as was bringing national attention to the issue.

[Stellafane]

So a 14-year-old's scribbled drawing of "Kill President Bush" is a major felony in your opinion?

What is your view of a "minor felony" - just deciding that you don't like him?

Well, they hardly treated it like a major felony, did they? Spoke to her sternly for 15 minutes, then basically let her go. Most people who commit real major felonies go to prison and whatnot.

I have zero sympathy for this girl. At the age of 14, someone who describes themselves as peaceful should know a damn sight better than to write "Kill Bush" on some web site. And she has the nerve to complain that they were unnecessarily mean to her? I think it's about time she does a little growing up and learn that what you say and do has consequences.

[Dog Town]

I think it's about time she does a little growing up and learn that what you say and do has consequences.


Kinda like the entire CT crowd!

[Araneus]

I think it's about time she does a little growing up and learn that what you say and do has consequences.

I think it's about time the Bush administration did a little growing up and learned to distinguish between a credible threat and some random kid ranting on a web page.

I don't disagree that some action would have been appropriate, but in this case the appropriate action would be to contact the web host and ask that they remove the inappropriate content, with a warning for the user. Sending some agents to interview her is a complete waste of time and money, and demonstrates the insecurity and paranoia of an administration that will use all tools at its disposal to stamp out dissent.

And what is the connection with CTs that people seem to be drawing? I didn't notice any mention of them in the article.

[dirtywick]

I'm sure she didn't mean it in a malicious way, but it's good that she learned a lesson. I don't really have sympathy for a person who feels that being politically passionate and protesting a war is to make public death threats and gets upset that people are unnecessarily mean. It's a slap on the wrist to get yelled at for a few minutes, she should be thanking them for being unnecessarily generous.

She is just a kid that doesn't have any concept of reality.

[dirtywick]

I don't disagree that some action would have been appropriate, but in this case the appropriate action would be to contact the web host and ask that they remove the inappropriate content, with a warning for the user. Sending some agents to interview her is a complete waste of time and money, and demonstrates the insecurity and paranoia of an administration that will use all tools at its disposal to stamp out dissent.


I thought of that originally. However, just because it's a white suburban 14 year old girl doesn't mean it's not worth investigating. The only difference between a 14 year old suicide bomber in Iraq, which happens, and her is a bomb on the chest. Some of the most widely publicized terrorist attacks in the US came from people who didn't meet the now expected profile, like Tim McVeigh or the Unabomber.

Plus, if there's one thing the Bush admin learned from 9/11 it's that investigating more is good.

Who knows anyway. I have no idea how many people the SS talks to about this kind of stuff, but odds are you don't hear about most of them, only the ones that investigate the sweet, innocent 14 year old blonde girl that couldn't harm a fly.

[Araneus]

The only difference between a 14 year old suicide bomber in Iraq, which happens, and her is a bomb on the chest.

And of course the fact the real suicide bombers don't publically announce their intentions on a teen social website, since unlike the girl in this story, they actually have a clue that this sort of thing tends to draw the government's attention.

She is just a kid that doesn't have any concept of reality.

Well, who can blame her, when in the US reality is defined as "whatever the President says it is".

[Skibum]

I think it's about time the Bush administration did a little growing up and learned to distinguish between a credible threat and some random kid ranting on a web page.

Oh sure, I guess in the future when some 40 y/o dude ,living in his moms basement, that thinks its a kick to post on myspace as a 14 year old girl ,actually follows through with his threat, we can all say oops I guess it wasn't just a "random kid ranting on a web page".

You apparently haven't been paying attention to the news recently, its not at all uncommon for people to at least give clues to future actions on blogs like myspace. Take the recent college rampage in Canada, while I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but this guy had issues and may have been stopped if someone had been able to put 2 and 2 together while reading his web page rants.

Another school shooter (a year or two ago)left clues on websites before doing his deed as well.

I don't find it at all unreasonable to go question her, if at least to make sure if she really is just a "random kid ranting on a web page". Anything else would be irresponsible.

[Stellafane]

And of course the fact the real suicide bombers don't publically announce their intentions on a teen social website, since unlike the girl in this story, they actually have a clue that this sort of thing tends to draw the government's attention.

...and Klebold and Harris talked about killing their classmates and no one took them seriously. What the hell is your point? That some death threats should be ignored and others paid attention to? What if she had posted a picture of you and wrote "Kill"? Would you just ignore it, figuring hey, she's just a 14 year old girl?


Well, who can blame her, when in the US reality is defined as "whatever the President says it is".

Now you're just being an idiot. There is no justification for threatening murder of the president, no matter how much you disagree with his politics. If you can't control your political feelings any better than that, you don't belong on a forum where adult converse.

[dirtywick]

And of course the fact the real suicide bombers don't publically announce their intentions on a teen social website, since unlike the girl in this story, they actually have a clue that this sort of thing tends to draw the government's attention.

No, a majority of them don't own computers. They go out in the streets and burn flags and pictures publicly hang and burn lifesized likenesses of him and other political figures. If she were doing that instead would you be saying the same thing?


Well, who can blame her, when in the US reality is defined as "whatever the President says it is".

Death threats against anyone aren't OK. If it was a student instead of Bush it would be a different reaction and she probably would have gotten more than a scolding. The fact that she thinks it's OK to do that isn't a good thing.

[Skibum]

If it was a student instead of Bush it would be a different reaction and she probably would have gotten more than a scolding.

True.

All she got was a 15 minute lecture. Whoop de doo.
15 minutes for making a threat on someones life, my kids get worse than that for much less.

[dirtywick]

True.

All she got was a 15 minute lecture. Whoop de doo.
15 minutes for making a threat on someones life, my kids get worse than that for much less.

For real. When I was 14 I was getting in a lot more trouble than that for smoking cigarettes in the cemetary at lunch time.

[kevin]

For real. When I was 14 I was getting in a lot more trouble than that for smoking cigarettes in the cemetary at lunch time.

well grave robbing is a serious offense.

[kevin]

anyone know what section of the US Code makes threats against the president illegal. I know if reported the secret service checks out all threats, no matter how innocous, but I didn't think making comments of this sort was actually illegal. seems like freedom of speech would still apply and that generally many of these comments would be covered.

[Skibum]

anyone know what section of the US Code makes threats against the president illegal.

Title 18 part 1 chapter 41
§ 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html

Google is your friend.

[kevin]

Title 18 part 1 chapter 41
§ 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States,

This only makes it illegal to use the US mail for this purpose. MySpace isn't exactly the US Postal Service.

There are several laws like this, especially the mail fraud ones. Many people committing fraud these days use FedEx or UPS just to avoid those laws.

[alexg]

I thought of that originally. However, just because it's a white suburban 14 year old girl doesn't mean it's not worth investigating. The only difference between a 14 year old suicide bomber in Iraq, which happens, and her is a bomb on the chest. Some of the most widely publicized terrorist attacks in the US came from people who didn't meet the now expected profile, like Tim McVeigh or the Unabomber.

Plus, if there's one thing the Bush admin learned from 9/11 it's that investigating more is good.

Who knows anyway. I have no idea how many people the SS talks to about this kind of stuff, but odds are you don't hear about most of them, only the ones that investigate the sweet, innocent 14 year old blonde girl that couldn't harm a fly.

I'm gonna allow a little profiling on this one. US teeny female boppers don't often blow themselves up. But let me say again they were correct to look into it and give her a warning.

[Shrinker]

This only makes it illegal to use the US mail for this purpose. MySpace isn't exactly the US Postal Service.

There are several laws like this, especially the mail fraud ones. Many people committing fraud these days use FedEx or UPS just to avoid those laws.

Not so. Just read the bold parts...

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

[Skibum]

This only makes it illegal to use the US mail for this purpose. MySpace isn't exactly the US Postal Service.

There are several laws like this, especially the mail fraud ones. Many people committing fraud these days use FedEx or UPS just to avoid those laws.

This one oughta cover it then.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+506+28++%28879%2 9%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

[Axiom_Blade]

Do you think that if someone was planning to actually assassinate the president, they would just announce it on MySpace?

Do you think that federal agents trolling MySpace for threats is an adequate use of our tax dollars?

This is just as dumb as an anti-flag-burning amendment. This type of speech shouldn't be regulated any differently just because he's the president. Has anybody challenged this? What if she had refused to take the pic down? And then they put her away for 5 years?

I seem to remember a Flash game a few years ago where you could punch various celebrities in the face. One of them was Bush. According to this law, the creator of that game would be just as guilty as this girl. I don't know if that one ever caused a visit from special agents, though.

[dirtywick]

I'm gonna allow a little profiling on this one. US teeny female boppers don't often blow themselves up. But let me say again they were correct to look into it and give her a warning.

Yes, I agree completely. That's why, in my opinion, most of the upset people are upset (if it was a 40 year old Pakistani Muslim immigrant would a 15 minute conversation have gotten press at all?), and also why she probably got off with little more than a small public embarassment and a slap on the wrist, but her white suburbian girl profile doesn't automatically excuse her from any reprocussions.

[CptColumbo]

Do you think that if someone was planning to actually assassinate the president, they would just announce it on MySpace?

Do you think that federal agents trolling MySpace for threats is an adequate use of our tax dollars?

This is just as dumb as an anti-flag-burning amendment. This type of speech shouldn't be regulated any differently just because he's the president. Has anybody challenged this? What if she had refused to take the pic down? And then they put her away for 5 years?

I seem to remember a Flash game a few years ago where you could punch various celebrities in the face. One of them was Bush. According to this law, the creator of that game would be just as guilty as this girl. I don't know if that one ever caused a visit from special agents, though.

I don't believe the Secret Service patrols the internet looking for this type of thing. I think if someone calls it to their attention they look into it, otherwise it probably would have been unnoticed. That is an opinion, and I have no knowledge of how the USTD operates in such cases. Keep in mind the picture was posted several months ago, and they just got around to investigating it.

IMO Burning a piece of cloth is not the same as threatening the life of another human being.

[MarkyX]

I love how some people who are protecting the 14-year old girl doesn't seem to think they are a threat.

Guns and other weapon don't have an age requirement to use them. A 14-year old girl holding a gun is just as bad as an 60 old man with a gun.

[zigaretten]

I think it's about time the Bush administration did a little growing up and learned to distinguish between a credible threat and some random kid ranting on a web page.

From an interview with Dan Brown, author of Digital Fortress:

A few years ago, I was teaching on the campus of Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire. One Spring day, unannounced, the U.S. Secret Service showed up and detained one of our students claiming he was a threat to national security. As it turned out, the kid had sent private E-mail to a friend saying how much he hated President Clinton and how he thought the president should be shot. The Secret Service came to campus to make sure the kid wasn't serious. After some interrogation the agents decided the student was harmless, and not much came of it.

This is hardly something unigue to the Bush administration. In fact, I remember one kid who did go to jail for threatening Clinton and when he was released he promptly threatened Bush and went straight back.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There are practical and pragmatic reasons for outlawing threats against the life of the President.

If there were no disincentive against threatening POTUS, you can garantee that every one of the loose screws over at the Dylhole fan club would be doing it constantly. So to would every ding bat and halfwit on the net or even those close to a mailbox.

Cyberspace and even more traditional means of communication would fill up with so much noise that the real threats would be all but impossible to filter out. The USSS threat assesment efforts would be effectively paralyzed.

Laying the smack down on a 14 year old teeny bopper sends a powerful message that helps keep the semi-retarded quiet so that it's easier to hear the trluy demented, those who really are planning an attack.

[Mince]

I think it's about time the Bush administration did a little growing up and learned to distinguish between a credible threat and some random kid ranting on a web page.


I think they did make that distinction.

[negativ]

Although, I'm sure it only applies to those living in the USA.

I wouldn't be so sure...

seriously.

[Rob Lister]

I just wanna know why threads like this, especially in the CT forum, bring out so many newbe posters. Its almost as if they post haphzardly for a while waiting in the wings to spring.

Hmmmph.

Perhaps I've started a CT of my own! :)

I'm sure a little data mining and selective recording could prove my suspicion...were I not so lazy or uncaring.

[kevin]

I think they did make that distinction.

yeah each threat must be examined, I just don't think it's illegal to make such a threat on a web page. The secret service should still check it out but the original article linked to presumed the action was illegal. I don't think it is.

[kevin]

I don't disagree that some action would have been appropriate, but in this case the appropriate action would be to contact the web host and ask that they remove the inappropriate content, with a warning for the user. Sending some agents to interview her is a complete waste of time and money, and demonstrates the insecurity and paranoia of an administration that will use all tools at its disposal to stamp out dissent.

Censorship is NEVER the appropriate action. The interview is the correct action here. A face to face interview allows you to examine the person in detail and evaluate the real possibility of the threat.

[kevin]

This one oughta cover it then.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+506+28++%28879%2 9%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

hmmm, i bet you could fight that one on free speech grounds. Not that I'm volunteering to try.

What's interesting is that from the title it seems to cover only former presidents but the actual text includes anyone protected by the secret service by another section which includes the current president.

Wonder why they have 2 laws on this. Oh wait I know, it's congress.

I find this one easier to read:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000879----000-.html

[Dave1001]

Censorship is NEVER the appropriate action. The interview is the correct action here. A face to face interview allows you to examine the person in detail and evaluate the real possibility of the threat.

I agree.

[LashL]

yeah each threat must be examined, I just don't think it's illegal to make such a threat on a web page. The secret service should still check it out but the original article linked to presumed the action was illegal. I don't think it is.

The language of Title 18, ss 871 is very broad, deliberately so. The words "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President..." cover a lot of ground, and does not limit this section to threats issued by mail.

The Secret Service gets a lot of latitude from this section.

[LashL]

hmmm, i bet you could fight that one on free speech grounds. Not that I'm volunteering to try.

What's interesting is that from the title it seems to cover only former presidents but the actual text includes anyone protected by the secret service by another section which includes the current president.

Wonder why they have 2 laws on this. Oh wait I know, it's congress.

I find this one easier to read:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000879----000-.html


I don't think that s. 879 actually covers a current president. It covers those listed in 879 and those protected by the Secret Service pursuant to section 3056(a)(6). 3056(a)(6) refers only to "other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad when the President directs that such protection be provided."

[kevin]

The language of Title 18, ss 871 is very broad, deliberately so. The words "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President..." cover a lot of ground, and does not limit this section to threats issued by mail.

The Secret Service gets a lot of latitude from this section.

I really wish congress would learn to use periods in their damn laws. Yeah, I see that segment now. I still think you could fight it on freedom of speech grounds, but I also think the SS is smart enough (so far, who knows with this administration) to only apply it when there are real threats.

[Axiom_Blade]

I love how some people who are protecting the 14-year old girl doesn't seem to think they are a threat.

Guns and other weapon don't have an age requirement to use them. A 14-year old girl holding a gun is just as bad as an 60 old man with a gun.

Yes, of course.
But where was the gun in this story??

I just remembered I have a copy of the Offspring's first album (self-titled). It has a song on it called "Kill the President." They don't name a specific president in the song.
SO, the question is...does being in possession of this CD make me a threat?

Don't laugh. Think about the law you're defending here.

[LashL]

SO, the question is...does being in possession of this CD make me a threat?

No, it does not.

[Axiom_Blade]

No, it does not.

What if I'm driving down the street, blasting it out my speakers?

[Morrigan]

I think it's about time the Bush administration did a little growing up and learned to distinguish between a credible threat and some random kid ranting on a web page.

Indeed.
Sending some agents to interview her is a complete waste of time and money, and demonstrates the insecurity and paranoia of an administration that will use all tools at its disposal to stamp out dissent.

Do you think that federal agents trolling MySpace for threats is an adequate use of our tax dollars?
No dudes! They're just doing their job! We all know a ranting teenage girl is a serious threat, screw Free Speech (tm)!

...and Klebold and Harris talked about killing their classmates and no one took them seriously. What the hell is your point? That some death threats should be ignored and others paid attention to? What if she had posted a picture of you and wrote "Kill"? Would you just ignore it, figuring hey, she's just a 14 year old girl?

First, writing "kill" on a picture isn't a threat per se. It could be interpreted in many ways. Frustration, a fantasy, a desire that this person gets killed... but it's not a threat.
Second, the Colombine kids made actual threats, against CLASSMATES, not the presidents. If you can't tell which "threat" is more believable, you need to check inside your skull because your brain is missing.


Now you're just being an idiot. There is no justification for threatening murder of the president, no matter how much you disagree with his politics. If you can't control your political feelings any better than that, you don't belong on a forum where adult converse.
Assuming the "you" is impersonal and refers to the girl; MySpace isn't for adults and neither is she. If you didn't refer to her, please point where anyone here made any threats.

I think they did make that distinction.
If they did, they would have ignored it.

[Stellafane]

Indeed.


No dudes! They're just doing their job! We all know a ranting teenage girl is a serious threat, screw Free Speech (tm)!

It always makes me laugh when someone tries to apply free speech to cover areas it simply does not apply. So I'm free to advocate the murder of the president? How about my next door neighbor, or my kids, or you for that matter? Is it all just "free speech"? Bullcrap, and if you can't see the difference, you're being willfully thick.

First, writing "kill" on a picture isn't a threat per se. It could be interpreted in many ways. Frustration, a fantasy, a desire that this person gets killed... but it's not a threat.

Yes, it can be interpreted many ways...including literally. Consider the relative downsides -- if you take a frivilous threat seriously, some girl gets a 15 minute lecture that she heartily deserves. If you ignore a threat that turns out to be genuine, the president gets shot. Weighing the relative risks involved, it would be stupid not to at least check out every threat.

Second, the Colombine kids made actual threats, against CLASSMATES, not the presidents. If you can't tell which "threat" is more believable, you need to check inside your skull because your brain is missing.

Let's see...appoximately one in every 11 presidents have been assassinated in office, while about one in 5 have been killed, shot, or shot at. So who's a more likely target, the president or some school kids somewhere? Sure, maybe a 14 year old girl doesn't fit your profile of the typical assassin, but neither does a famous actor, a middle-aged female accountant, or Jodie Foster's stalker. And anyway, how do you know the person threatening the president is in fact the person they claim to be on a website? All things considered, what the hell is the harm in checking it out?

Assuming the "you" is impersonal and refers to the girl; MySpace isn't for adults and neither is she. If you didn't refer to her, please point where anyone here made any threats.

No one here has made any direct threats. But when someone threatens to kill the president, and someone else here says "who can blame her," then the latter is at a minimum condoning the threat -- which in my view is highly irresponsible.

[LashL]

What if I'm driving down the street, blasting it out my speakers?

You'd still be safe.

[slingblade]

It always makes me laugh when someone tries to apply free speech to cover areas it simply does not apply. So I'm free to advocate the murder of the president? How about my next door neighbor, or my kids, or you for that matter? Is it all just "free speech"? Bullcrap, and if you can't see the difference, you're being willfully thick.

Yes, if your speech is really free, you may advocate anything you like, since advocating is not the same as acting.

I can wish you dead. I can hope someone kills you. I can even say you ought to be killed. None of that results in anyone's death.

Now, can you say "chilling effect?"

Yes, it can be interpreted many ways...including literally. Consider the relative downsides -- if you take a frivilous threat seriously, some girl gets a 15 minute lecture that she heartily deserves. If you ignore a threat that turns out to be genuine, the president gets shot. Weighing the relative risks involved, it would be stupid not to at least check out every threat.

Considering that most threats are frivilous, you're proposing spending a great deal of money and time on frivolity.

Ignore a threat = President gets shot. How many of the people who shot presidents in history made open threats beforehand?

Let's see...appoximately one in every 11 presidents have been assassinated in office, while about one in 5 have been killed, shot, or shot at. So who's a more likely target, the president or some school kids somewhere?

Easy. School kids. That number is somewhere around 170-ish, isn't it? We've had only 43 presidents, most of whom were not shot at or assassinated.

By the way....43 presidents....1 in 11 would be 4. And 1 in 5 would be 8. 12 total.
Yes, you're more likely to get shot at school than as president.


Sure, maybe a 14 year old girl doesn't fit your profile of the typical assassin, but neither does a famous actor, a middle-aged female accountant, or Jodie Foster's stalker. And anyway, how do you know the person threatening the president is in fact the person they claim to be on a website? All things considered, what the hell is the harm in checking it out?

The chilling effect on speech.


No one here has made any direct threats. But when someone threatens to kill the president, and someone else here says "who can blame her," then the latter is at a minimum condoning the threat -- which in my view is highly irresponsible.

At best, what you're proposing are Thought Police. Free speech is not limited to speech we find acceptable. Acceptable speech needs no First Amendment guarantee. The First Amendment protects unacceptable speech. We have created exceptions, but doing so opens the gate to creating even more exceptions.

Be careful what you wish for. The words we censor next may be your own.....

[Axiom_Blade]

You'd still be safe.

But why?
I'm still threatening the president. It hardly matters that I didn't write or perform the song: I'm still broadcasting it.
It'd be like wearing a shirt that said "Kill the President." Sure, I could protest that I didn't MAKE the shirt, I'm only WEARING it. How well would that go over? Do you think the agents would buy it?

It always makes me laugh when someone tries to apply free speech to cover areas it simply does not apply. So I'm free to advocate the murder of the president? How about my next door neighbor, or my kids, or you for that matter? Is it all just "free speech"? Bullcrap, and if you can't see the difference, you're being willfully thick.

OK, when does it stop being free speech?
Besides, threats to the President ARE NOT treated the same as your next door neighbor, or your kids, etc. They are a special crime, with special penalties.

I'll admit that the job of president is SOOPER SPESHUL and all that, but considering someone MS-Painting the word "KILL" on your photo as a "credible threat" is just freaking retarded.

Face it: the secret service LOVED putting the fear into this girl and making her cry 'cause she was getting a little uppity. It's psychological warfare: make an example out of silly little things like this, to send a message to the people who really might be thinking about an assassination.

And...they gotta have something to do, because they sure aren't finding any terrorists. Again, your tax dollars at work, gentlemen.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Can someone please list the jurisdictions in the free world where death threats against anybody are 100% legal?

[dirtywick]

At best, what you're proposing are Thought Police. Free speech is not limited to speech we find acceptable. Acceptable speech needs no First Amendment guarantee. The First Amendment protects unacceptable speech. We have created exceptions, but doing so opens the gate to creating even more exceptions.

Be careful what you wish for. The words we censor next may be your own.....

They didn't censor her. They didn't arrest her. They didn't even charge her with anything. They were, in her own words, mean to her for a few minutes, and then let her go.

OK, when does it stop being free speech?
Besides, threats to the President ARE NOT treated the same as your next door neighbor, or your kids, etc. They are a special crime, with special penalties.

I'll admit that the job of president is SOOPER SPESHUL and all that, but considering someone MS-Painting the word "KILL" on your photo as a "credible threat" is just freaking retarded.

Face it: the secret service LOVED putting the fear into this girl and making her cry 'cause she was getting a little uppity. It's psychological warfare: make an example out of silly little things like this, to send a message to the people who really might be thinking about an assassination.

And...they gotta have something to do, because they sure aren't finding any terrorists. Again, your tax dollars at work, gentlemen.

As it turns out it wasn't a credible threat because no further action was taken.

[Brainster]

Do you think that if someone was planning to actually assassinate the president, they would just announce it on MySpace?

Do you think that federal agents trolling MySpace for threats is an adequate use of our tax dollars?

This is just as dumb as an anti-flag-burning amendment. This type of speech shouldn't be regulated any differently just because he's the president. Has anybody challenged this? What if she had refused to take the pic down? And then they put her away for 5 years?

First, I doubt very strongly that federal agents were trolling MySpace; in all probability they were alerted by somebody who saw the picture. And I would have no trouble at all with her being prosecuted under the law, especially if she refused to take the picture down. Assassination is not something to joke about. In my lifetime one president has been assassinated and there were three other attempts that came very close to succeeding (Fromme, Moore and Hinckley).

[mrfreeze]

Who knows anyway. I have no idea how many people the SS talks to about this kind of stuff, but odds are you don't hear about most of them, only the ones that investigate the sweet, innocent 14 year old blonde girl that couldn't harm a fly.

Apparently if they see you make even a vague threat against the president, they check you out and make sure you are just some random retard. Happened to Seanbaby for far less. http://www.seanbaby.com/cleveland/part3.html

My parents told me early on what happens if you write a threat in some form to the President. Thankfully out of all the stupid things I did as a teenager, that wasn't one of them.

[Donal]

Yes, if your speech is really free, you may advocate anything you like, since advocating is not the same as acting.

No, but it is provoking action. Mafia Dons only "advocate" hits. Do you think they shouldn't be prosecuted?

I can wish you dead. I can hope someone kills you. I can even say you ought to be killed. None of that results in anyone's death.

Unless you are in a position of authority.

Considering that most threats are frivilous, you're proposing spending a great deal of money and time on frivolity.

So are smoke alarms a waste of money? The only time they ever went off where I've lived is because because dinner was making a lot of smoke. I guess I don't really need them.

Ignore a threat = President gets shot. How many of the people who shot presidents in history made open threats beforehand?

How many had access to the internet? And didn't Hinckley write a bunch of crazy stuff to Jodie Foster?

And Unibomber did have a manifesto.

Easy. School kids. That number is somewhere around 170-ish, isn't it? We've had only 43 presidents, most of whom were not shot at or assassinated.

By the way....43 presidents....1 in 11 would be 4. And 1 in 5 would be 8. 12 total.
Yes, you're more likely to get shot at school than as president.

170 out of how many millions? You must be a lousy gambler.



At best, what you're proposing are Thought Police.

NO! This girl was not questioned because she said "Bush sucks" or anything like that. She depicted violence.

Free speech is not limited to speech we find acceptable. Acceptable speech needs no First Amendment guarantee. The First Amendment protects unacceptable speech. We have created exceptions, but doing so opens the gate to creating even more exceptions.

So, yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is OK?

Be careful what you wish for. The words we censor next may be your own.....

Or the next dope to make death threats.

[Donal]

OK, when does it stop being free speech?

When you advocate violence.


Besides, threats to the President ARE NOT treated the same as your next door neighbor, or your kids, etc. They are a special crime, with special penalties.

Greater impact on the nation as a whole.

I'll admit that the job of president is SOOPER SPESHUL and all that, but considering someone MS-Painting the word "KILL" on your photo as a "credible threat" is just freaking retarded.

They don't consider her a credible threat. Thats what they were doing during the interview. Myspace doesn't do an ID check, so she could have just been pretending to be a teenage girl. Seriously, you've never heard the stories about that sort of thing?

You didn't realize that people can have fake identities over the internet?

Face it: the secret service LOVED putting the fear into this girl and making her cry 'cause she was getting a little uppity. It's psychological warfare: make an example out of silly little things like this, to send a message to the people who really might be thinking about an assassination.

Ya? And? Thats one reason why police officers where uniforms with nice shiny badges and guns. A very announced presence to discourage would-be trouble makers.

And...they gotta have something to do, because they sure aren't finding any terrorists. Again, your tax dollars at work, gentlemen.

the Secret Service's primary job is to provide security for the President, not hunt terrorists. Thats why we have the CIA, NSA, DoD, FBI etc etc.

So, yes, they used tax dollars properly.


The one big problem I have with this is the Secret Service questioned her without her parents. They should have pulled her out of class, sat her in the principal's office and waited until her folks arrived.

[rwp]

Do you remember the movie, The Client? I don't know how much of the legal advice is factual but in the film a young boy is wanted for questioning by the FBI. The FBI agents tell him he does not need a laywer and that his parents don't need to be there for questioning. This is against the law (in the movie).

If that is true, the girl in this case should have been advised to have a lawyer present and they should not have questioned her without her parents present.

[I less than three logic]

First, I’d agree that questioning the girl was the correct course of action. However, I disagree with how they went about it. She was not attempting to elude them in anyway, and they knew she would be home later. I think it was inappropriate to pull her out of class to question her, even if for just 15 minutes.

Second, I don’t agree with laws censoring the freedom of speech, even if that speech is threatening. While I don’t think that sort of speech is appropriate, I don’t believe it should be illegal. One should be allowed to say whatever they like, but to do so at their own risk. If you make threatening remarks, you should expect to be questioned to find out if you pose any serious risk, and second you should be held accountable if you or anyone else actually acts on what you said. If she wants to post the picture on myspace, let her, but if or when any attempts or plots to actually kill the president are discovered that can be linked back to her, she should be sitting right next to them in court facing the same charges.

[Dazed]

Yes, it can be interpreted many ways...including literally. Consider the relative downsides -- if you take a frivilous threat seriously, some girl gets a 15 minute lecture that she heartily deserves. If you ignore a threat that turns out to be genuine, the president gets shot. Weighing the relative risks involved, it would be stupid not to at least check out every threat.


This is BS. Its not even possible for this to happen anymore. You don't think they made any changes after Kennedy? There's no chance anyone could kill him, especially not a little girl. This was a huge waste of time and money.

The correct course of action is not questioning the girl, its not even contacting myspace and removing the content.
The correct course of action would be to get the hell off myspace and go to http://www.killbush.net :\

[jhunter1163]

I'm all for freedom of speech, but this girl got what she deserved. If she had written "Kill the principal" instead of "Kill the president" on her MySpace, I bet the local police would have been a LOT meaner to her than the Secret Service was, especially considering recent events.

Even in a free society, some things are just wrong. Advocating violence is one of them.

[delphi_ote]

This is BS. Its not even possible for this to happen anymore. You don't think they made any changes after Kennedy? There's no chance anyone could kill him, especially not a little girl. This was a huge waste of time and money.

The correct course of action is not questioning the girl, its not even contacting myspace and removing the content.
The correct course of action would be to get the hell off myspace and go to http://www.killbush.net :\
Apparently the president is now royalty. None of us seem to care that we're setting up a new king.

[Dazed]

I'm glad I'm in Canada. Stephen Harper's not our king till he gets a majority in the next rigged election.

A good protest would be for everyone on myspace to take that girl's "threatening" picture and make it their avatar. This kind of crap is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.

The government is supposed to be afraid of its people, not vice versa.

All you here who are defending the actions of the SS, I hope your kid gets grilled by cops at school, without your presence or a lawyer, for making a joke on the internet. When she comes home in tears you can tell her how she deserved it for having her own thoughts. "Now shut up and watch some CNN."

[Axiom_Blade]

When you advocate violence.


OK, so....
"We should invade Iran"
"Alex Jones needs to have the crap beaten out of him"
"What that guy needs is a good punch in the eye"

Those previous sentences were NOT free speech, then.

The correct course of action would be to get the hell off myspace and go to http://www.killbush.net :\

HAHAHA
I'm gonna get one of those shirts and when the SS tracks me down, I'll say: "No, no, you guys got me all wrong! I LOVE the president! I hate Gavin Rossdale..."

ETA:
They don't consider her a credible threat. Thats what they were doing during the interview. Myspace doesn't do an ID check, so she could have just been pretending to be a teenage girl. Seriously, you've never heard the stories about that sort of thing?

You didn't realize that people can have fake identities over the internet?

It doesn't matter whether she's a teen girl, or someone pretending to be a teen girl.
It's not a credible threat.

They didn't censor her. They didn't arrest her. They didn't even charge her with anything. They were, in her own words, mean to her for a few minutes, and then let her go.

YES....because SHE TOOK THE PICTURE DOWN.
If I make a statement, and you threaten me with 5 years in prison for it, and I take it down afterwards---yes, I would call that censorship.

[delphi_ote]

The government is supposed to be afraid of its people, not vice versa.
Well, I don't think they should live in constant fear, but they should respect the people. This little girl's threat was nothing serious. To treat her the way she was treated is absurd.

[Pardalis]

I'm glad I'm in Canada. Stephen Harper's not our king till he gets a majority in the next rigged election.

Remember Queen Elisabeth II is our Head of State... Canada is not even a federation, it's a constitutional monarchy.

:boggled:

The government is supposed to be afraid of its people, not vice versa.

You got that from "V for Vandetta" right? ;)

All you here who are defending the actions of the SS

What are you talking about?

[Dazed]

All you here who are defending the actions of the SS
What are you talking about?

Sword of truth: public humiliation was the right thing to do

alexg: questioning her was corrct

Stellafane: I have zero sympathy for this girl.

Skibum: I don't find it at all unreasonable to go question her

jhunter1163: this girl got what she deserved

[Donal]

This is BS. Its not even possible for this to happen anymore. You don't think they made any changes after Kennedy? There's no chance anyone could kill him, especially not a little girl. This was a huge waste of time and money.

You'd be right if the facts didn't completly contradict you.

We have had a president shot since then. Clinton was fired at at least once that I can remember.

Not to mention, that the President, or any politician, has to go out into the open and be amongst the public. His job by its very nature is a security risk.

The correct course of action is not questioning the girl, its not even contacting myspace and removing the content.
The correct course of action would be to get the hell off myspace and go to http://www.killbush.net :\

They weren't trolling myspace. Someone called in a tip.

Why is it so hard to understand that the people in charge of the President's security asked some questions regarding a perceived threat to that security?

[Pardalis]

Sword of truth: public humiliation was the right thing to do

alexg: questioning her was corrct

Stellafane: I have zero sympathy for this girl.

Skibum: I don't find it at all unreasonable to go question her

jhunter1163: this girl got what she deserved

How does that answer my question?

These are people giving their opinion. Where do you see anyone defending the SS? What SS by the way?

[Hellbound]

How does that answer my question?

These are people giving their opinion. Where do you see anyone defending the SS? What SS by the way?

Pardalis:

SS=Secret Service, the people who investigate threats to the President.

[Pardalis]

Pardalis:

SS=Secret Service, the people who investigate threats to the President.

Ahhhh. I thought it was another attempt to draw parallels with Nazi Germany.

Sorry about that Dazed.

[Donal]

OK, so....
"We should invade Iran"

No. National policy regarding military action between 2 nations. Saying, "We need to go in there and kill some Iranians" would cross the line.

Besides, you have no influence over such a desiscion.

"Alex Jones needs to have the crap beaten out of him"

Yes. Someone can take your advice and do so. you targetyed a speciffic person. While most people, myself included, realize you're just playung Internet Tough Guy, you may have influence over someone who will actually do it.

"What that guy needs is a good punch in the eye"

Yes, see above

Those previous sentences were NOT free speech, then.

Correct on 2 out of 3



It doesn't matter whether she's a teen girl, or someone pretending to be a teen girl.
It's not a credible threat.

And how do you know this? Because the Secret Service went and spoke to her.


YES....because SHE TOOK THE PICTURE DOWN.

Good thing, too.


If I make a statement, and you threaten me with 5 years in prison for it, and I take it down afterwards---yes, I would call that censorship.

So, I can yell fire in a crowded theater?

[Dazed]

You'd be right if the facts didn't completly contradict you.

We have had a president shot since then. Clinton was fired at at least once that I can remember.

Not to mention, that the President, or any politician, has to go out into the open and be amongst the public. His job by its very nature is a security risk.



They weren't trolling myspace. Someone called in a tip.

Why is it so hard to understand that the people in charge of the President's security asked some questions regarding a perceived threat to that security?

Why don't you check out what preparations the SS makes for any public appearance by the president? Let me give you a hint, it involves snipers and a huge list.

[Oliver]

Ahhhh. I thought it was another attempt to draw parallels with Nazi Germany.

Sorry about that Dazed.

You definitively watched too much WW2 movies, Pardalis. :D

[jhunter1163]

This girl should have practiced self-censorship. Sure, she's entitled to her opinion, as we all are. But when, in one's opinion, the President of the of the United States should be killed, and one puts up a picture with a statement to that effect on the Internet, one should not be surprised to find unsmiling men in suits at one's door.

Could it have been handled better? Certainly. Should it have been ignored? No.

[Donal]

I'm glad I'm in Canada.

I'm glad you're in Canada, too.

A good protest would be for everyone on myspace to take that girl's "threatening" picture and make it their avatar.

You don't like myspace?

This kind of crap is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.

Ya, we really don't need violent threats looked into.

The government is supposed to be afraid of its people, not vice versa.

Oh, thats just so edgy and cool.

By the way, V for Vendetta sucked. And people like you taught me to hate Fight Club.

All you here who are defending the actions of the SS, I hope your kid gets grilled by cops at school, without your presence or a lawyer, for making a joke on the internet.

I said it was wrong to question her without her parents. Thats the beef this girl's parents have.

When she comes home in tears you can tell her how she deserved it for having her own thoughts.

By having her own thoughts, you must mean threatening other people's lives.

But then again, my kid had better be smarter than that and I'd better be more vigilent about her activities.

"Now shut up and watch some CNN."

I know this other forum where you'd be right at home. They even have a mod shortge if you want to apply.

[Donal]

Why don't you check out what preparations the SS makes for any public appearance by the president? Let me give you a hint, it involves snipers and a huge list.

And how do those lists get made? Oh ya, by investigating leads.

And if they follow through on those leads and intercept a threat before he or she can show up at a public appearance, they won't need those snipers to FIRE INTO A CROWD OF CIVILIANS!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sword of truth: public humiliation was the right thing to do

alexg: questioning her was corrct

Stellafane: I have zero sympathy for this girl.

Skibum: I don't find it at all unreasonable to go question her

jhunter1163: this girl got what she deserved

And what was it exactly that all us neanderthals are defending?

A 15 minute chat in the hallway with a couple of law enforcement officers out of earshot of her friends and classmates.

You need to get some perspective, Dazed.

[Dazed]

Yeah, fine, you're right. This nazi **** is great. No one even appreciates the irony that pardalis thought THE WAY THINGS ACTUALLY ARE is a parallel of nazi germany.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm glad I'm in Canada. Stephen Harper's not our king till he gets a majority in the next rigged election.

Are elections only legitimate when the people vote your way, Dazed?

[Brainster]

This is BS. Its not even possible for this to happen anymore. You don't think they made any changes after Kennedy? There's no chance anyone could kill him, especially not a little girl. This was a huge waste of time and money.\

Sarah Jane Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jane_Moore)
Squeaky Fromme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynette_%22Squeaky%22_Fromme)
John Hinckley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley%2C_Jr.)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yeah, fine, you're right. This nazi **** is great. No one even appreciates the irony that pardalis thought THE WAY THINGS ACTUALLY ARE is a parallel of nazi germany.

You're absoluetely right.

How dare law enforcement officers talk to teenagers. It's the frigging kristallnacht all over again. :p

ETA: Still waiting for that list of places where death threats against anyone are 100% legal.

[Dazed]

Are elections only legitimate when the people vote your way, Dazed?

VAPERS? WHERE ARE YOUR VAPERS?

[Morrigan]

No one even appreciates the irony that pardalis thought THE WAY THINGS ACTUALLY ARE is a parallel of nazi germany.
I do!

Anyway, anyone who thinks someone ranting on MySpace is a "threat" worth "looking into" obviously has no brains. Perhaps we should unplug them. (Wait, that's merely a suggestion, not a threat! Please don't send the SS after me! :rolleyes:)

[Hellbound]

Actually, Dazed, Pardalis thoguht you were using the term SS to refer to Hitler's SS, and trying to draw parallels to Nazi Germany, which he was disagreeing with.

[Dazed]

Perhaps we should unplug them.

:drool:

Someone call homeland security, we got a live one!

[Donal]

I do!

Anyway, anyone who thinks someone ranting on MySpace is a "threat" worth "looking into" obviously has no brains. Perhaps we should unplug them. (Wait, that's merely a suggestion, not a threat! Please don't send the SS after me! :rolleyes:)


How about when teenager make a video depicting shooting up their school? Would that be worth looking into?

[Pardalis]

Yeah, fine, you're right. This nazi **** is great. No one even appreciates the irony that pardalis thought THE WAY THINGS ACTUALLY ARE is a parallel of nazi germany.

Wait a second. I never said that.

I misread your post thinking you were one of those idiots who try to make parallels between the US and Nazi Germany, don't make me think you are one of them.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Actually, Dazed, Pardalis thoguht you were using the term SS to refer to Hitler's SS, and trying to draw parallels to Nazi Germany, which he was disagreeing with.

Yes, could we please use "USSS" when referring to the United States Secret Service?

It's less confusing that way and doesn't dishonor (accidentally or otherwise) the "bullet-catchers" (USSS agents on protective detail are expected to block bullets with thier bodies as did Agent Timothy McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McCarthy)).

[MarkyX]

The government is supposed to be afraid of its people, not vice versa.


Just to tell my fellow Americans and other non-Canadians...this idiot does not represent us.

Nice to see another moron quote an overrated film. Besides, what kind of ********** up society do you want to live in where people are afraid of other people?

No one should be afraid of anyone. I will go so far as saying that only anarchists would tout those words (ironically enough, since V is supposed to be an anarchist)

[Dazed]

How about when teenager make a video depicting shooting up their school? Would that be worth looking into?

No. Freedom of expression. Freedom of speech. You can make a video about whatever you want, as long as you dont hurt anybody.

What about the Manchurian candidate? Denzel Washington's character assasinates the president in that movie. Should the secret service be keeping an eye on him?

[Dazed]

Just to tell my fellow Americans and other non-Canadians...this idiot does not represent us.

Nice to see another moron quote an overrated film. Besides, what kind of ********** up society do you want to live in where people are afraid of other people?

No one should be afraid of anyone. I will go so far as saying that only anarchists would tout those words (ironically enough, since V is supposed to be an anarchist)

Except little girls. They should fear the secret service right?

[Pardalis]

What about the Manchurian candidate? Denzel Washington's character assasinates the president in that movie. Should the secret service be keeping an eye on him?

Or Laurence Harvey...

They are movies, remember?

[Dazed]

Or Laurence Harvey...

They are movies, remember?

Exactly, thank you for making my point obvious in response to this post:

How about when teenager make a video depicting shooting up their school? Would that be worth looking into?

[MarkyX]

Except little girls. They should fear the secret service right?

No, they only fear the secret service when they do something wrong, like threatening the president. All she got was a 15 minute lecture.

[Donal]

No. Freedom of expression. Freedom of speech.

Fire in a crowded theater.

You can make a video about whatever you want, as long as you dont hurt anybody.

Except that is what the Colombine shooters did before they actually shot up their school.

No one is saying the girl needs to go to jail, but there is nothing wrong with the USSS determining whether or not she would be capable in attacking the President. In fact, I'm pretty sure its in the job description.

What about the Manchurian candidate? Denzel Washington's character assasinates the president in that movie. Should the secret service be keeping an eye on him?

Thanks, I haven't seen it.

But, that was the plot of the bad guys. The act wasn't advocated. It was presented in a negative light.

[Axiom_Blade]

Just to tell my fellow Americans and other non-Canadians...this idiot does not represent us.

Nice to see another moron quote an overrated film. Besides, what kind of ********** up society do you want to live in where people are afraid of other people?

No one should be afraid of anyone. I will go so far as saying that only anarchists would tout those words (ironically enough, since V is supposed to be an anarchist)

Here's another "idiot" and "anarchist" who agrees:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff169586.html)

I don't know if this Jefferson fellow has seen V for Vendetta or not.

[Pardalis]

Teenagers making such a film could be cause for concern, for the parents and teachers, but obviously not enough for government agencies to worry about, you're right.

Maybe the US security agencies should have dealt with local people before they got to the girl herself.

[Donal]

Way to misapply a quote.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Be afraid, Dazed.

Be very afraid. (http://www.defencelaw.com/utter-threats.html)

[Dazed]

No, they only fear the secret service when they do something wrong, like threatening the president. All she got was a 15 minute lecture.

Granted. I'm not trying to blow it too far out of proportion, I don't think a 15 minute lecture is so bad, but in my convoluted little reality, freedom of speech still exists. Judging by the 150,000 + google hits for "kill bush" the SS is gonna be busy for a while. Good thing you're funding this.

Just to tell my fellow Americans and other non-Canadians...this idiot does not represent us.

You must be an idiot to think harrassing little girls at school over frivolous matters is unacceptable.

And if you think a stock photo with "kill" added in mspaint is not frivolous, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

And as well all know, disagreeing with anyone here instantly makes you a retard, so...

http://www.geocities.com/aniupload/retard.jpg

[Dazed]

Way to misapply a quote.

How did he misapply it?

[Pardalis]

Here's another "idiot" and "anarchist" who agrees:

I don't know if this Jefferson fellow has seen V for Vendetta or not.

Oh right, now I remember. It still don't know what the hell that means, but then again, I'm not an American. ;)

[Donal]

Because threats of violence are not protected speech.

[delphi_ote]

This girl should have practiced self-censorship. Sure, she's entitled to her opinion, as we all are
First Amendment
But when, in one's opinion, the President of the of the United States should be killed, and one puts up a picture with a statement to that effect on the Internet, one should not be surprised to find unsmiling men in suits at one's door.
I don't know about you, but I think the Secret Service probably has more important things to do than monitor images on Myspace. Do you realize what an enormous waste of time and money that is?
Could it have been handled better? Certainly. Should it have been ignored? No.
Why? Have we ever caught a potential assassin this way?

[delphi_ote]

Because threats of violence are not protected speech.
Did she say "I will kill President Bush?" Or even "I want to kill President Bush?" Did she put the threat to the person in question? Was she planning to? Was there anything indicating she would actually follow through on this?

She didn't threaten anyone. Kids make doodles like this all the time in their notebooks. Should the Secret Service be investigating them as well?

[Donal]

Granted. I'm not trying to blow it too far out of proportion, I don't think a 15 minute lecture is so bad, but in my convoluted little reality, freedom of speech still exists.

As it does here in the US.

However, in this country, just like everywhere, it has limits.

Judging by the 150,000 + google hits for "kill bush" the SS is gonna be busy for a while. Good thing you're funding this.

Yes, I'm glad the USSS gets paid for doing their job.



You must be an idiot to think harrassing little girls at school over frivolous matters is unacceptable.

No, but you're an idiot if you equate the Secret Service for asking someone about a supposed threat with fascism.

And if you think a stock photo with "kill" added in mspaint is not frivolous, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

When is it not frivilous? After she takes a shot at the President?

The only way to determine she is not a threat is to actually speak to her. Again, I think they should have waited until her parents were there, but just asking questions isn't Naziism.

And as well all know, disagreeing with anyone here instantly makes you a retard, so...

http://www.geocities.com/aniupload/retard.jpg

And you're here anyway because.....

[delphi_ote]

Yes, I'm glad the USSS gets paid for doing their job.
That wasn't what you were asked. Should the Secret Service's job involve monitoring Myspace profiles?

[Donal]

Did she say "I will kill President Bush?" Or even "I want to kill President Bush?"

Did John Gotti say "I will kill Paulie C"?

Did she put the threat to the person in question?

So, I can make threats on a person if they aren't in the room to here me?

I can go to a rally and say "Kill some Arabs!" if there aren't any Arabs in the room?

Was she planning to? Was there anything indicating she would actually follow through on this?

The only way to know this is to investigate.

She didn't threaten anyone. Kids make doodles like this all the time in their notebooks. Should the Secret Service be investigating them as well?

If they adevertise it, ya.

[Pardalis]

Did she say "I will kill President Bush?" Or even "I want to kill President Bush?" Did she put the threat to the person in question? Was she planning to? Was there anything indicating she would actually follow through on this?

She didn't threaten anyone. Kids make doodles like this all the time in their notebooks. Should the Secret Service be investigating them as well?

Does anyone know exactly what she wrote? It does seem strange, considering all the people out there who hate Bush, that this one kid got the attention of the Secret Services.

[rwguinn]

Did she say "I will kill President Bush?" Or even "I want to kill President Bush?" Did she put the threat to the person in question? Was she planning to? Was there anything indicating she would actually follow through on this?

She didn't threaten anyone. Kids make doodles like this all the time in their notebooks. Should the Secret Service be investigating them as well?


I would be willing to bet a cup of coffee that this was a tip.
Now, myspace is made up entirely of people who are actually who and what they say they are, right?
Riiiigggghhhttt.
So, SS investigates the tip, tracks the ISP to a certain town, sends a couple of guys to investigate. They track the address to an actual 14 year old girl. At this point, they were probably pretty well convinced that there was no harm, but they need to verify. They contact the parents, discover that, yea, verily, this is a 14 year old girl, so they go to the school to make sure she is the one actually made the post.
She confirms, and they rconfirm there is no real threat, but such stuff causes their job to be harder, and wastes money, so they give her a talking to--much as the cops in my hometown did me the last time I was really naughty.
And yes, my dad did more than talk to me later...

[Donal]

That wasn't what you were asked. Should the Secret Service's job involve monitoring Myspace profiles?


1) They weren't monitoring myspace. Someone called in the tip.

2) Yes, the Secret Service's job should (and does) include following leads.

[Dazed]

They can track more than the town you're from. Your ISP will reveal your name, address, phone number, any details they want. They could have confirmed this girl was no threat from across the country, there was no need for them to show up, and PULL HER OUT OF CLASS. That's what I think is dumb. If they wanted to look into her fine, but these intimidation tactics were completely pointless.

[Pardalis]

They can track more than the town you're from. Your ISP will reveal your name, address, phone number, any details they want. They could have confirmed this girl was no threat from across the country, there was no need for them to show up, and PULL HER OUT OF CLASS. That's what I think is dumb. If they wanted to look into her fine, but these intimidation tactics were completely pointless.

Yes, they could have at least checked with the local authorities. Really strange.

[Dazed]

1) They weren't monitoring myspace. Someone called in the tip.


Your source?

[Donal]

They can track more than the town you're from. Your ISP will reveal your name, address, phone number, any details they want. They could have confirmed this girl was no threat from across the country, there was no need for them to show up, and PULL HER OUT OF CLASS. That's what I think is dumb. If they wanted to look into her fine, but these intimidation tactics were completely pointless.


So, you have no problem with some clandestine searches and companies handing over your personal info, but a face to face talk is fascism?

What if she got her ideas from her dad and he has the means to follow through? A face to face also gives you an insight of her life that isn't on some customer information sheet.

[Overman]

She should have just said something about killing bush on a private phone call....

errrr....

[Pardalis]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I'm sure there's more to this story. I mean, doesn't the anti-terrorism agencies have more important things to do than to go physically question a little girl?

Or maybe it's one of those aberrations that happen from time to time.

[Dazed]

What if she's actually an evil decepticon in human form? What if she can will the moon to crash into the white house with her mind?

Lets make up unfounded speculations to justify domestic spying and harrassment. :)

[Donal]

Your source?


D'Oh, it was an assumption by another poster that got stuck in my head. My bad.

However, I do doubt they were. And even if they did, that would be investigating, which is what law enforcement agencies do.

Is your big concern really that she was uncomfortable or that this was a waste of many?

[Dazed]

Neither really. My big concern is that this whole "terrists gon git us!" attitude is being played out so far the children are now suffering.

[Donal]

What if she's actually an evil decepticon in human form? What if she can will the moon to crash into the white house with her mind?

Lets make up unfounded speculations to justify domestic spying and harrassment. :)

Following leads is not harrassment. And its not that silly to think that kids get ideas from their folks.

She and her parents admit she was wrong and don't have problems with her being ivestigated. they disagree with they way she was questioned.

My big concern is that this whole "terrists gon git us!" attitude is being played out

Which is a lot different from crying "fascism!" when law enforcement officials do their job.

so far the children are now suffering.

You call that suffering?

[Pardalis]

Lets make up unfounded speculations to justify domestic spying and harrassment. :)

That's not what I meant. There must be facts in this story that we don't know about that lead the agencies to actually act on this "tip".

There's no reason, not even in a "fascist state", for a government to spy on 14 year old girls.

[delphi_ote]

Does anyone know exactly what she wrote? It does seem strange, considering all the people out there who hate Bush, that this one kid got the attention of the Secret Services.
READ the ARTICLE you're DISCUSSING for crying out loud people. YES, WE KNOW WHAT SHE WROTE!
She posted a picture of the president, scrawled "Kill Bush" across the top and drew a dagger stabbing his outstretched hand.
Also, according to the article THEY WERE NOT ACTING ON A TIP.
Federal authorities had found the page and placed Wilson on their checklist.
As they say on Fark, RTFA!

[Pardalis]

Neither really. My big concern is that this whole "terrists gon git us!" attitude is being played out so far the children are now suffering.

Oh, spare me the tears...

[dirtywick]

Just to put things into perspective, that news snippet doesn't tell how or why the USSS was informed of that picture. Does anyone think it's possible that it was brought to the USSS's attention by someone else, who, like many high schoolers, perhaps had some kind of grudge against this girl?

Secondly, it doesn't inform us of whether or not the USSS made it a point to go visit this girl, or just happened to make a stop while in the area on other business. We know the picture was up for quite a while, so clearly it wasn't a very high priority. A short car ride from a local airport is only an hour spent to investigate a possible crime, not some gigantic strain on the budget.

And finally, the USSS didn't arrest, detain, or charge her with a crime. Somehow they were informed of a possible threat to the President, investigated it accordingly and apparently at a low priority, and determined it is no threat at all and left, in the span of a few minutes.

While it would have been nice if they'd have waited until after school and with her parents and a lawyer, in my opinion, they probably knew going in that it's a waste of time. However, they have a job to do, so they went to ensure she learned that death threats, even if not malicious in intent, are taken seriously.

Does anyone know exactly what she wrote? It does seem strange, considering all the people out there who hate Bush, that this one kid got the attention of the Secret Services.

It's probably just that it got the attention of the media. Like I said earlier, if she wasn't a white 14 year old blonde girl, but rather a 40 year old Pakistani Muslim immigrant there's not many people that would care.

[Dazed]

Oh, spare me the tears...

No tears, just dissapointment. I dunno about you but it makes me feel lousy to read stuff like this.

[Brainster]

While looking up some info on presidential assassin wannabe Squeaky Fromme, I found this on Sandra Good (http://www.cielodrive.com/family/good/), another Manson Family nut:

In December of 1975, Sandra was arrested along with Susan Murphy for conspiracy to send threatening letters in the mail. She was later convicted on all five counts, and served 10 years in prison.

[Pardalis]

READ the ARTICLE you're DISCUSSING for crying out loud people. YES, WE KNOW WHAT SHE WROTE!

I did read the article. That's what is odd, there must be thousands of such images and rants against Bush on the internet.

Also, according to the article THEY WERE NOT ACTING ON A TIP.

The article doesn't clearly say how they discovered her page.

[Pardalis]

No tears, just dissapointment. I dunno about you but it makes me feel lousy to read stuff like this.

I understand. But these kinds of aberrations happen sometimes. Intelligence agencies can make mistakes.

ETA: this is often the problem I see when people try too hard to demonise the US government, they cherry pick these trivial events, add them up and say: "see, we're in 1933 all over again!"

[wipeout]

Can someone please list the jurisdictions in the free world where death threats against anybody are 100% legal?

Apparently, for the USA government, it's fine to threaten and attempt "decapitation strikes" of other people's presidents, even if their reasons for doing so are later found to be imaginary. :)

[Pardalis]

Apparently, for the USA government, it's fine to threaten and attempt "decapitation strikes" of other people's presidents, even if their reasons for doing so are later found to be imaginary. :)

Wow, just wow. :boggled:

:rolleyes:

[wipeout]

Facts, just facts.

An amusing irony thrown in to highlight who gets to threaten presidents and who doesn't.

Not worth derailing a thread over. :)

[Morrigan]

How about when teenager make a video depicting shooting up their school? Would that be worth looking into?

Is the video fiction? Or is it clearly showing their intentions? If the latter, it might be worth "looking into", seeing as there is predecent of kids shooting other kids. I don't believe there is such a case of a kid stabbing the president.

BUT HEY IT COULD HAPPEN BETTER MAKE SURE LAWL!!1@

[Skibum]

Is the video fiction? Or is it clearly showing their intentions? If the latter, it might be worth "looking into", seeing as there is predecent of kids shooting other kids. I don't believe there is such a case of a kid stabbing the president.

BUT HEY IT COULD HAPPEN BETTER MAKE SURE LAWL!!1@

So exactly how do you tell if it's fiction or clearly showing their intentions without actually looking into it?
Do you hire a psychic mind reader or do you go ask them a few questions?

[I less than three logic]

“Looking into it” by law enforcement agencies, or by counselors and perhaps referral to mental health professionals? You know, there are more ways to take a serious look at these kinds of things besides treating them like a crime. They may just turn out to be useful as well.

Perhaps a more appropriate course of action could have been for the USSS just to have contacted the school’s guidance counselor (unless you think they were in on it). The counselor could have spoken with the student, informed her that the USSS had contacted the school because her actions were potentially illegal, and got an assessment as to whether the student may have been serious. A couple of simple phone calls would have been all that was needed; thus, saving their time and money for use in more effective matters.

[slingblade]

No, but it is provoking action. Mafia Dons only "advocate" hits. Do you think they shouldn't be prosecuted?

You watch a lot of media, don't you? TV, movies? The Godfather, perhaps?

I will let Justice Douglas answer you from Brandenburg v. Ohio:
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

You need to invest in a good dictionary, and you need to know how to do research on the law. You also need to form the good mental habit of not seeing your personal opinion as being the same as fact.

"To advocate" is very different from "to incite" or "to order."

I am a great proponent of personal responsibility. What follows is an anecdote, and is not meant to function as or to replace evidence: I happen to know a man who was ordered to kill another, by the Greek mafia. He agreed to do it, and then ran right to the FBI, got a wire, and helped put the man who ordered this into prison for 5 years. And no one died. Thus, an example of your scenario which didn't work the way you thought it should, the way it does "in the movies."


Unless you are in a position of authority.

Sorry, I don't see those words in the Bill of Rights.


So are smoke alarms a waste of money? The only time they ever went off where I've lived is because because dinner was making a lot of smoke. I guess I don't really need them.

This is called a "strawman argument." From Wiki:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Smoke alarms do not speak, and cannot, as such, be censored. Try again, but this time, speak to my argument. Don't create strawmen--we have plenty to discuss without that.


How many had access to the internet? And didn't Hinckley write a bunch of crazy stuff to Jodie Foster?

One doesn't have to have an Internet to make threats public. Believe it or not, we knew how to make words public for a long time before the advent of the World Wide Web.

And Unibomber did have a manifesto.

Did he kill a president? Did he send a bomb to the White House? No? Then he has no place in this argument.

170 out of how many millions? You must be a lousy gambler.

From SkepDic:
Gambler's Fallacy
The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken notion that the odds for something with a fixed probability increase or decrease depending upon recent occurrences.

I'm not the lousy gambler, here.

The fact that one group is statistically much, much smaller than another group, and experiences a certain number of violent deaths which are statistically higher than the larger group's, does not indicate, in and of itself, that the smaller group is the more dangerous to be in. Nor does it indicate the larger group is safer. You are comparing statistics, without looking at other pertinent factors. Because you are skewing your data, you are getting skewed results.


NO! This girl was not questioned because she said "Bush sucks" or anything like that. She depicted violence.

Right. Did she actually commit violence? Did anyone commit violence directly attributable to what this child did write? She was questioned based on a possibility, not a probability. IOW, Thought Police.

So, yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is OK?

If there actually is a fire in the crowded theatre, yes.

At any rate, this is an old argument which does not try to address the difference between expressing opinion, advocacy, and incitement. It's an easy catch-all which exempts you from actually thinking. I'm asking you to stop relying on the platitudes and actually think. Take the hard way.

Or the next dope to make death threats.

Again, acceptable speech needs no protection. Whenever you tell someone they can't say something, you have censored them. This girl's little MySpace posting did not create a clear and present danger to the president, or to anyone. It did, however, create a chilling effect.

[VBU2C5]

OK, she is a 14 year old girl trying to be cool by posting an inflammatory pic, she knew she was harmless, did the USSS know, I don't think so. So should the USSS investigate by phone to the parents or teachers or friends, maybe, but to be there in person gives you a better understanding of said person and ultimately confirms whether there was actually a threat or not.

If all this girl got out of this was a stern 15 minute lecture from a couple of USSS, then I think everyone comes out OK, the POTUS didn't get shot by a crazed gunman posing as a 14yo, and I don't think she will scarred for life by being sternly interviewed. Come on guys she is now probably a celebrity in her school, we are reading way to much into this, kind of reminds of another forum.

[delphi_ote]

The article doesn't clearly say how they discovered her page.
It does not state that they were acting on a tip, which has been repeated here several times as fact!

[delphi_ote]

...the POTUS didn't get shot by a crazed gunman posing as a 14yo...
"Ha ha! I'll fake my name and age to post my secret plan to assasinate the president on Myspace!" Even Cobra Commander and Skeletor combined couldn't come up with a plan that stupid. Hell, I've read more realistic theories on the Loose Change forum!

[Pardalis]

It does not state that they were acting on a tip, which has been repeated here several times as fact!

Correct. But it's one probable assumption, since we have no information as to how they noticed the girl's webpage.

[VBU2C5]

Del you are using a LC tactic by taking one phrase out of context, it was just a general statement, our civil liberties are still intact, chill out.

[delphi_ote]

Correct. But it's one probable assumption, since we have no information as to how they noticed the girl's webpage.
It's just that. An assumption. There are other possible disturbing (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/21/att_nsa/index_np.html) and absurd (http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.asp) explainations. Never underestimate the mad results of giving the Keystone Kops a series of tubes.

And one more time if you think the SS should've taken this seriously. Myspace. Five minutes is all it would've taken to read her friends' Myspace pages or maybe track down the girl's livejournal. "Oh. This is a teenager venting. Investigating it anymore is completely stupid. Tracking down a 14 year old at her school to scare her in person is a pointless waste of tax dollars."

[Donal]

You watch a lot of media, don't you? TV, movies? The Godfather, perhaps?

Newspapers actually. There was a fellow here in New york by the name of John Gotti. Look into him.

I will let Justice Douglas answer you from Brandenburg v. Ohio:
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

And you know that without investigating how.....?

You need to invest in a good dictionary, and you need to know how to do research on the law. You also need to form the good mental habit of not seeing your personal opinion as being the same as fact.

You need to cut the rhetoric and personal attacks when you can't carry an argument.

"To advocate" is very different from "to incite" or "to order."

Only when it comes to the position of the person speaking.

I am a great proponent of personal responsibility. What follows is an anecdote, and is not meant to function as or to replace evidence: I happen to know a man who was ordered to kill another, by the Greek mafia. He agreed to do it, and then ran right to the FBI, got a wire, and helped put the man who ordered this into prison for 5 years. And no one died. Thus, an example of your scenario which didn't work the way you thought it should, the way it does "in the movies."

Thats a very lovely story which has no real place here. I have no idea what your point is in this context.




Sorry, I don't see those words in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, but there is wondeful called practicality. Your rights end where the next man's begins.

This is called a "strawman argument." From Wiki:



Smoke alarms do not speak, and cannot, as such, be censored. Try again, but this time, speak to my argument. Don't create strawmen--we have plenty to discuss without that.

Wow. You completly missed the point.

That was in response to the "waste of money" argument. Some people said that it was foolish to go after every little tip or lead because it hardly ever paid off. The exact same thing can be said of smoke detectors. This wasn't in reference to any moral or ethical arguments.




One doesn't have to have an Internet to make threats public. Believe it or not, we knew how to make words public for a long time before the advent of the World Wide Web.

Again, missed the point.

Someone pointed out that other famous killers hadn't published their ideas so publically.

That person was mistaken and I pointed out how.

Did he kill a president? Did he send a bomb to the White House? No? Then he has no place in this argument.

did he publish his desires to kkill people? Yes. He has more place here than your buddy the would be Greek hitman.



I'm not the lousy gambler, here.

Bet you are.

The fact that one group is statistically much, much smaller than another group, and experiences a certain number of violent deaths which are statistically higher than the larger group's, does not indicate, in and of itself, that the smaller group is the more dangerous to be in. Nor does it indicate the larger group is safer. You are comparing statistics, without looking at other pertinent factors. Because you are skewing your data, you are getting skewed results.

Yes, there are many more factors. Like the sheer number of people who would go after that smnaller group. Suddenly puts things a lot less skewed.




Right. Did she actually commit violence? Did anyone commit violence directly attributable to what this child did write? she was questioned based on a possibility, not a probability. IOW, Thought Police.

Was she arrested? No. She was asked a few questions. Not thought police. Why is it so hard to understand that the agency charged with the President's security took a peek at a person that made a threatening comment?

If there actually is a fire in the crowded theatre, yes.

But what if I just feel like "excersising my right"?

At any rate, this is an old argument which does not try to address the difference between expressing opinion, advocacy, and incitement.

t addresses the posters that mistaken believe Free Speech is absolute. It points out how wrong that can be.

It's an easy catch-all which exempts you from actually thinking.

Ooooo, nice dig. Too bad it is wrong.

I'm asking you to stop relying on the platitudes and actually think. Take the hard way.

No problem. Just as soon as you actually read the thread and make a post with the proper context.

Again, acceptable speech needs no protection.

Of course not. But death threats aren't acceptable.

Whenever you tell someone thay can't say something, you have censored them.

By the most base defenition. Of course, there are a very few acceptable reasons for censorship.

Death threats being among them.

This girl's little MySpace posting did not create a clear and present danger to the president, or to anyone. It did, however, create a chilling effect.

Of course she didn't. However, the people who are in charge of his security decided they wanted to make sure. After all, what do we really know about the people on the internet?

And if this "chills" death threats, thats a good thing.

[delphi_ote]

Del you are using a LC tactic by taking one phrase out of context, it was just a general statement, our civil liberties are still intact, chill out.
One very, very silly phrase. And the Secret Service doesn't seem to be too big on civil liberties lately (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4436043).

[Pardalis]

It's just that. An assumption. There are other possible disturbing (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/21/att_nsa/index_np.html) and absurd (http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.asp) explainations. Never underestimate the mad results of giving the Keystone Kops a series of tubes.

And one more time if you think the SS should've taken this seriously. Myspace. Five minutes is all it would've taken to read her friends' Myspace pages or maybe track down the girl's livejournal. "Oh. This is a teenager venting. Investigating it anymore is completely stupid. Tracking down a 14 year old at her school to scare her in person is a pointless waste of tax dollars."

You are perfectly right, Delphi. I'm not disagreeing with you, that's exactly why it baffles me that they would actually go there physically and question the girl.

That's why I'm saying that there could be some information about the story that we don't know about, maybe a tip, maybe something else, that could explain this aberrant behaviour from the Secret Services.

Stupidity? Incompetence? False information?

Who knows? ;)

[slingblade]

It's just that. An assumption. There are other possible disturbing (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/21/att_nsa/index_np.html) and absurd (http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.asp) explainations. Never underestimate the mad results of giving the Keystone Kops a series of tubes.

And this, in my always 'umble opinion, is where most CTers go wrong. They believe or have convinced themselves that in the absence of a credible explanation, a possible or probable assumption is just as good. After a while of spreading their assumptions, they start to come back as "fact" simply through repetition. Surprise, surprise.

And one more time if you think the SS should've taken this seriously. Myspace. Five minutes is all it would've taken to read her friends' Myspace pages or maybe track down the girl's livejournal. "Oh. This is a teenager venting. Investigating it anymore is completely stupid. Tracking down a 14 year old at her school to scare her in person is a pointless waste of tax dollars."

Agree.

[kevin]

I don't know about you, but I think the Secret Service probably has more important things to do than monitor images on Myspace. Do you realize what an enormous waste of time and money that is?

they may monitor myspace now and I agree that would be a waste of time and money, but typically they investigate when someone sees the threat and reports it to them.

most likely someone at the school doesn't like this girl and ratted her out.

[VBU2C5]

The collaspe of the US because a 14 YO girl got interviewed, that is quite a bit sillier, but Del what I was really trying to say is, in light of the state of todays youth it isn't all that incomprensible that a threat could have been plausible. Now would they have advertised it on myspace, uh, probably not, I would say that the SS is taking the better safe than sorry approach, PEACE BROTHER, just opinions here, agree to disagree.

[Pardalis]

And the Secret Service doesn't seem to be too big on civil liberties lately (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4436043).

This seems extremely anecdotal. In this story, again, we don't have all the facts in order to accuse the Secret Services of any wrong doing. In fact, we only have one side of the story. It's the same thing in the 14 year old girl's story.

The Secret Services don't arrest people just for the fun of it.

Maybe they acted on bad intelligence
Maybe they acted out of stupidity or incompetence
Maybe they acted out of spite or malignancy

In both cases, I think there is not enough information to make an accusation.

[delphi_ote]

they may monitor myspace now and I agree that would be a waste of time and money, but typically they investigate when someone sees the threat and reports it to them.

most likely someone at the school doesn't like this girl and ratted her out.
Which would also be a waste of time and money.

[Donal]

Which would also be a waste of time and money.

Not the fault of the USSS. the fault of whoever called it in, which is why that sort of thing is also a crime.

[Pardalis]

The thing is, we can't attribute fault to anyone as of yet.

[VBU2C5]

Del, I read the infringement of civil liberties by the SS link you provided, pretty interesting, seems like maybe a bit of over reaction by both parties. One thing that I did notice was the article stated that Howards may have put his hand on Cheney as were other people, except the other people weren't berating Cheney, so it makes sense that after he returned they may have been keeping a closer eye on him. Here's they part I don't like though " The lawsuit ask for money attorneys fees and damages that include LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE". I guess the 14 yo girl will be next.

[Mince]

Originally Posted by Mince http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2003315#post2003315)
I think they did make that distinction






If they did, they would have ignored it.



Incorrect. They made the distinction after investigating the incident. That is why the girl is not in jail, and never was. Would you want someone who's, on a web page, seemingly solicited to kill you, at least investigated, regardless of age or gender?

[Stellafane]

I...Anyway, anyone who thinks someone ranting on MySpace is a "threat" worth "looking into" obviously has no brains...)

That's not true. You see, I have a brain, and I would expect that anything that even remotely resembles a threat ought to be looked into by the Secret Service...that's their jobs, after all. OK, she's a 14 year old girl. Who knows what "Bush is a murderer!" crap she's being fed by her parents, teachers, schoolmates, Dylan Avery, ad nauseum? And anyone who thinks it's even mildly difficult for a kid to get a handgun dosn't live in the U.S. Getting a clear shot at Bush would be the hard part -- but even if there's only a one percent chance, why risk it? We're only three presidents removed from an assassination attempt that hit the president, nearly killed an agent, and left the press secretary permanently disabled. And Ford was shot at twice within two weeks, once by a young women who probably had no more mental wherewithal that a typical 14 year old.

I think I see a lot of anti-Bush feelings clouding people's judgements here. For crying out loud, all she got was a goddamned 15 minute lecture. It wasn't like they threw her down and cuffed her. And she has the nerve to complain afterwards? "Ooo, they were sooo mean to me! And what for -- it wasn't like I did anything really bad. All I said was that the president should be killed. I didn't do anything...mommy, mom-meee!!!

Spare me.

[slingblade]

Newspapers actually. There was a fellow here in New york by the name of John Gotti. Look into him.

Why? Did he threaten the president?

And you know that without investigating how.....?

I did investigate. This was published as the opinion of the court. You, too, can look it up, just as I did.

You need to cut the rhetoric and personal attacks when you can't carry an argument.

I'm carrying my half of the argument just fine, thanks.

Only when it comes to the position of the person speaking.

No. Words have meanings. They are attached to concepts. You are not Humpty Dumpty, and words cannot mean whatever you want them to mean.

Thats a very lovely story which has no real place here. I have no idea what your point is in this context.

It has a place as anecdote, which I clearly identified from the outset, for your benefit. And the point of the anecdote is to respond to your own anecdotal argument about "mafia dons." You were aware that your statement was also anecdotal, were you not?

I can tell you all day long that you should go kill the president. It is for you, and you alone, to make the choice to do so, regardless of what I have said. If you do make that choice, it is not because I told you to, but because you made that choice. Period. Mafia "dons" can tell people to kill others, and those people can and have decided not to do so.

Yes, but there is wondeful called practicality. Your rights end where the next man's begins.

That works in reverse, as well, you know. I'd say it's more a case of Bush stepping on her rights, than of her stepping on his. I fail to see how what she said caused any demonstrable harm to him, or deprived him of his rights.

Wow. You completly missed the point.

No, I didn't. I get the point.

That was in response to the "waste of money" argument. Some people said that it was foolish to go after every little tip or lead because it hardly ever paid off. The exact same thing can be said of smoke detectors. This wasn't in reference to any moral or ethical arguments.

No, it is not the "exact" same thing. A smoke detector is an inanimate object that reacts to certain signals which trigger a warning sound. It is smart to check it no matter how many times it sounds, in case there really is a fire. If it issues frequent false alarms, it is defective and should be replaced.

A little girl expressing a stupid opinion is not the same as a smoke detector.
People all over this country express, in writing, every day, the desire to see this president dead. No, the Government should not investigate every single one of them, or any of them. This is a clear waste of government resources for which the people pay far too much already.


Again, missed the point.

Someone pointed out that other famous killers hadn't published their ideas so publically.

That person was mistaken and I pointed out how.

Bully for you. Did you label it anecdotal? Because it is. It doesn't really prove much. It doesn't begin to address how many people may have written the same kinds of sentiments, and yet never killed anyone, much less a president. That you know after the fact that Hinkley wrote about killing before he actually killed doesn't mean we could know he would indeed kill if we had known about his writings before he killed, nor that we would have been justified in punishing or censoring him in some way before he killed because of his writings . It means only that causally we can tie them together after the fact.

We call that "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Another fallacy.

did he publish his desires to kkill people? Yes. He has more place here than your buddy the would be Greek hitman.

Aren't you cute? The man I spoke of in the anecdote was not Greek. And he was not my buddy. And it was only an anecdote, not evidence. You said Mafia Dons tell hitmen to kill people, and the hitmen do. And I countered with "Not all of them." All this should tell you is that your anecdotal evidence is worth no more than mine, which is to say, "nothing at all."


Bet you are.

I don't gamble. I'm smart enough to know cards, dice, and slot machines are losing propositions, and exist to make money for the house, not the patron.

Yes, there are many more factors. Like the sheer number of people who would go after that smnaller group. Suddenly puts things a lot less skewed.

No.
How many attempts have actually been made on W's life?
And how many of them came from disgruntled Internet posters?

Being president is one of the safest jobs in the world.

Was she arrested? No. She was asked a few questions. Not thought police. Why is it so hard to understand that the agency charged with the President's security took a peek at a person that made a threatening comment?

Hard to understand? Not at all. Impossible to agree with--yes. The child was hardly a credible threat under any circumstances you'd care to imagine.

But what if I just feel like "excersising my right"?

What about it? (http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-575/02-575.mer.ami.mslf.pdf)

The fellow who brings on a riot by falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is,necessarily, either the owner of the theater (or the owner’s agent), [or] a paying patron, [or a trespasser]. If he is the owner, then he has committed fraud on his customers . . . Suppose, on the other hand, that the shouter is a patron and not the owner. In that case, he is violating the property right of the owner as well as the other guests to their paid-for performance. As a guest, he has gained access to the property on certain terms, including an obligation not to violate the owner’s property or to disrupt the performance the owner is putting on . . . The fellow who maliciously yelled fire in a crowded theater is indeed a criminal but not because his so-called “right of free speech” must be pragmatically restricted on behalf of the “public good"; he is a criminal because he has clearly and obviously violated the property rights of another person. "

Emphasis mine.

It addresses the posters that mistaken believe Free Speech is absolute. It points out how wrong that can be.

From the same source as above:

In the wake of Justice Holmes’ regrettable theater analogy and its unfortunate blow to individual liberty and property rights, a persistent chipping away at the “absoluteness” of the First Amendment has ensued in the name of various criminal and commercial justifications despite the absolute nature of the Amendment’s language: “Congress shall pass no law . . .abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”4

If freedom of speech was not meant to be absolute, then why was it framed in absolute language? There is no mention in there of "except," or "unless," or "but not in this or that case." It says "Shall make NO LAW." That we have been chipping away at it indicates we do not understand it, and probably do not really deserve it.

Of course not. But death threats aren't acceptable.

Now who's missing the point? Unacceptable speech must be vigorously defended. Acceptable speech needs no First Amendment guarantee, because we accept it.

By the most base defenition. Of course, there are a very few acceptable reasons for censorship.

Death threats being among them.

You accept it. I do not. I can threaten all day long. It doesn't harm a soul. I don't commit a wrong until I do kill or try to kill someone.

Of course she didn't. However, the people who are in charge of his security decided they wanted to make sure. After all, what do we really know about the people on the internet?

And if this "chills" death threats, thats a good thing.

No, dear. Again, you miss the point. When you stifle one form of speech, all other forms are then at risk of also being stifled at some point. As soon as someone with the power to do so decides he doesn't like what you say, you could lose the ability to say it freely.

The office of president does not render its holder a sacred being. Maybe knowing people hate your policies enough to wish you dead is a good thing, if you are wise enough to listen to them. If you stifle their speech, you can delude yourself into thinking everything you do is not only good, but accepted by the citizenry you swore to serve.

That's a far more clear and present danger than some child making vague statements on a web page.

[VBU2C5]

Actually ( and since I am not a lawyer I could be wrong ) I don't think you can make threats all day long against someone, especially death threats, which would probably considered terroristic threats, which I think are against the law. Maybe someone with more expertise could chime in.

[VBU2C5]

I do not agree that freedom of speech should be absolute, with our freedoms comes a responsibity, and not everyone accepts those responsibilities, much like the right to bear arms, we must use judgment as when and where to fire weapons. Abuse either one of these rights and someone will get hurt eventually.

[Donal]

OK, slingblade, I'll do this one more time and hope it gets through. If not, well, there is little more I can do.

I brought up the subject of John Gotti and the mob to point out how a person of influence can use his "freedom of speech" to harm others. Your anecdote actually backed that up. The boss that ordered the hit went to prison.

People are responsible for the influence they wield.


Granted, all of this is theory and anectdotal because this was just a 14 year old girl making a dumb statement. USSS made sure of that.

[Rasmus]

Actually ( and since I am not a lawyer I could be wrong ) I don't think you can make threats all day long against someone, especially death threats, which would probably considered terroristic threats, which I think are against the law. Maybe someone with more expertise could chime in.

If I could make threats all day long, I would be in the blackmailing-business...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How many attempts have actually been made on W's life?
And how many of them came from disgruntled Internet posters?

Being president is one of the safest jobs in the world.

Of the last ten presidents, one has been killed within 4 years of taking office.

Three that I am aware of, have been shot at, one seriously wounded.

One has had a hand grenade thrown at him, another had a light plane smashed into the side of his house by a suicidal assailant. Another was specifically targeted for assasination AFTER he left office by a hostile foreign power.

What parallel universe do you live in where a 10% mortality rate is "safe"?

[Stellafane]

...Being president is one of the safest jobs in the world...

I'm sorry, but that's just plain nuts. About one in 11 presidents have been killed in office. Two others have been seriously wounded. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 11 serious attempts on the lives of presidents. Starting with the Kennedy assassination, there's been at least five, one every eight years or so. If that's the "safest job in the world," I must really lead a sheltered life, because no one has tried to kill me yet and I've been a professional for over 25 years now.

I suspect that vastly more people want to kill the US preseident than probably any other single person in the world, and it only takes one of them getting off a lucky shot to succeed. The people responsible for his security would be wise to take every even remotely credible threat seriously.

[Axiom_Blade]

I do not agree that freedom of speech should be absolute, with our freedoms comes a responsibity, and not everyone accepts those responsibilities, much like the right to bear arms, we must use judgment as when and where to fire weapons. Abuse either one of these rights and someone will get hurt eventually.

Free speech is...SPEECH that is FREE. Period. Full stop.
If you still have to "mind what you say", it is no longer free...by definition.
Therefore, free speech with restrictions is an oxymoron.

[dirtywick]

OK, slingblade, I'll do this one more time and hope it gets through. If not, well, there is little more I can do.

I brought up the subject of John Gotti and the mob to point out how a person of influence can use his "freedom of speech" to harm others. Your anecdote actually backed that up. The boss that ordered the hit went to prison.

People are responsible for the influence they wield.


Granted, all of this is theory and anectdotal because this was just a 14 year old girl making a dumb statement. USSS made sure of that.

Plus, didn't Charles Manson go to prison for influencing a mass murder?

[slingblade]

Actually ( and since I am not a lawyer I could be wrong ) I don't think you can make threats all day long against someone, especially death threats, which would probably considered terroristic threats, which I think are against the law. Maybe someone with more expertise could chime in.

No, I didn't say I could do it legally, I said I could do it without causing anyone any actual harm. The harm, if any, is in your perception. You don't die because of what I say. You only die if I take action. Therefore, since you don't know if I will ever act on my words or not, you ought not be able to either punish or censor me for my words alone.


I really do get it that most young people really believe that if you can prevent the words, you can prevent the deed.

This is not so. There is no way to prevent crime save by removing all of our rights. I take it you have not thought it out that far, and that's fine. That's what youth is for: to learn. So learn this, please.

You cannot prevent evil and still have rights. You cannot prevent harm and still have your rights. You cannot stop what has not yet happened by censoring words. Censor all the words you like, but you cannot stifle the thoughts that produced the words. And there's jack squat you can do about those thoughts, and rightfully so, until whoever's thinking them acts on them. Would you really have it another way? Future Crime, maybe?

Do you think this kid now fully respects the office of president? Or does she hate him even more now? We can't know, but I have serious doubts that she stepped away from that "meeting" with a rosy glow on her apple cheeks and a hearty "Gosh golly gee whiz, thanks for setting me straight!"

Axiom_Blade has it right: speech with restrictions is not free speech. The framers of the Constitution knew this, and forbade restrictions on speech or press. We still made some anyway, which helps us justify making more. That's bad, mmmkay?

Oh, and @ Donal, about this:
OK, slingblade, I'll do this one more time and hope it gets through. If not, well, there is little more I can do.

I'm not a project you took on, and I don't need "fixing" in any way. No one asked you to do anything. You made a choice, and you are as free to abandon your choice as you were to make it. No skin off my nose, sweetheart.

[VBU2C5]

Let's see where do I start, OK Sling you said you don't commit a wrong ( your words not mine ) until you hurt someone, and as I said, i don't think that is right, you cannot go around threatening people, (I guess breaking a law is not a wrong by your definition), that is why there are restraining orders. I guess by actual harm you mean physical harm, well I guess all slander suits that are going on right now in the USA should be thrown out of court, right? As for the rest of your post, I won't even adress it as it is a bit out there for me "You cannot prevent evil and still have rights" wow, I'm going to have to think about that one, I am a little slow, de de dee!

" Free speech is...SPEECH that is FREE. Period. Full stop." Hmmm what to say about that, I think that already has been covered in this thread, but I will say this, oxymoron or not, it just doesn't work that way. I sure you are smart enough to know that. RESPONSIBILITY...... CIVILIZATION, we live in a civilized state, rules apply, laws apply, live by them or suffer the consequences, it really is very simple. Hell,even I understand it!

I don't like the govt. beauracracy as much as the next guy, but come on, this is still the greatest place to live in the world, and yes I have been to Canada, socialized medicine, uhh not for me! Oh well, just registered a few weeks ago, I guess it was time i had a disagreement with some people. Oh well I guess we can all agree on one thing, those LCeer's are crazeeee! Can we all still be friends, puleeeeaaaze!

[slingblade]

Let's see where do I start, OK Sling you said you don't commit a wrong ( your words not mine ) until you hurt someone, and as I said, i don't think that is right,

I'm aware of my words, thanks. Not sure why you felt the need to remind me of them.

you cannot go around threatening people, (I guess breaking a law is not a wrong by your definition)

You'd be guessing wrong, and you'd know that if you had read: "No, I didn't say I could do it legally," which I posted earlier.

Also, you'd be doing yourself a disservice to choose to believe that all laws, because they are laws, are necessary and correct. Laws do get overturned. Not all laws are good.


that is why there are restraining orders.

A restraining order isn't as easy to get as one might, apparently, think. Let's say it takes a little more than just a threat.

I guess by actual harm you mean physical harm, well I guess all slander suits that are going on right now in the USA should be thrown out of court, right?

Why do you keep using the "I guess your position must be some outrageous exaggeration I just now made up because I disagree with you" type of dialogue? I usually state what I mean, and if anyone is unclear, they can ask me to restate it for clarity's sake. "Guessing" is not necessary, and so far, you haven't guessed right even one time. Might try asking me, if you need clarification. I'm happy to oblige those who aren't being deliberately obtuse just for the fun of it.

Now then.
"Harm" can be physical or monetary. In libel and slander suits, the harm is usually monetary, in one form or another. One can rarely claim "emotional distress," unless one demonstrates that the distress resulted in physical or monetary harm as well. [EDIT: or, vice-versa, that the harm resulted in distress.] Courts usually aren't interested in a person's hurt feelings alone.

As for the answer to your exaggeration: Slander is verbal, libel is written. In order to be found libelous, a written statement should meet this test: The normal libel test is that a statement be "false, published (or public), and damaging."

This means I can publish something about you that is false, but if it caused you no demonstrable harm, it isn't libel. You must prove harm. Or, if I publish something about you that is true, even if it harms you, it isn't libel. Or, if I write something about you that is false and might harm you, but I never publish it or make it public, it isn't libel. It has to meet all three standards of the test.

So, in sum, some of those libel and slander suits you speak of are going to be dismissed because they don't meet all three aspects of the test. And yes, I think they should be, whenever that is the case.

As for the rest of your post, I won't even adress it as it is a bit out there for me "You cannot prevent evil and still have rights" wow, I'm going to have to think about that one, I am a little slow, de de dee!

Well, gee, you didn't have to come right out and confess it. We'd have picked up on it sooner or later. ;)

At any rate, I'm not sure what clever little dig you're trying to make here. To prevent people from doing harmful things is to stop them before they have a chance to do it, whatever it is. Are you saying laws prevent crime? Because if that's so, we've had laws against murder and rape for a long, long time. Yet people still get murdered and raped. Many of those who commit the crimes don't get even get caught, and so are never punished. So tell me exactly how laws prevent crime, because I'm not seeing it.


I agree laws delineate what is considered acceptable and what is not in a given society, and that laws provide part of a mechanism to punish those who act in unacceptable ways, after the fact.

I agree a civilized society needs this mechanism in order to function well.

I do not agree that every law we invent is just, fair, or necessary.
I do not agree that all laws ought to be blindly obeyed and never questioned or challenged.
I do not agree that challenging a law automatically makes you less patriotic, or less American. Indeed, the nation was founded on challenging the status quo, and challenging laws which the colonists found unfair and unjust.


" Free speech is...SPEECH that is FREE. Period. Full stop." Hmmm what to say about that, I think that already has been covered in this thread, but I will say this, oxymoron or not, it just doesn't work that way. I sure you are smart enough to know that. RESPONSIBILITY...... CIVILIZATION, we live in a civilized state, rules apply, laws apply, live by them or suffer the consequences, it really is very simple. Hell,even I understand it!

So you think it's proper to follow every law, no matter what? Or can you think of some laws, past or present, that you might find unfair, or which violate your rights?

I don't like the govt. beauracracy as much as the next guy, but come on, this is still the greatest place to live in the world, and yes I have been to Canada, socialized medicine, uhh not for me!

And socialized medicine has what to do with....anything? (If something is not part of the discussion, it's poor argumentative form to bring it up as if it's relevant.)

Now then: What makes America great is our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If it's okay with you when those rights are threatened or removed from us in the name of "making us safer," then you're missing something fundamental about rights.

Oh well, just registered a few weeks ago, I guess it was time i had a disagreement with some people. Oh well I guess we can all agree on one thing, those LCeer's are crazeeee! Can we all still be friends, puleeeeaaaze!

That must be some kind of joke or sarcasm. I'm sure you can't be suggesting we all pretend to agree with any faulty argument which arises among JREF members, because you surely know that's not what this forum does, right? We don't pretend to agree and "all be friends" so as to present some false front of solidarity to Wooists and CTers. We speak openly, and one hopes with some command of logical argument and reasoning, in order to advance critical thinking.

I hope that's the first lesson anyone here is learning from debunking CT.

Question your assumptions. Make them prove themselves, and if they can't, abandon them in favor of facts and accuracy.

[VBU2C5]

Sling, I am only going to adress a few things in this post simply because I think I see where you are coming from, I could be wrong, I don't have all the answers and don't pretend that I do.

"I am not committing a wrong" " I didn't say I could do it legally" Which is it?
I pointed those statements out because they obviously contradicting.

One simple statement, never mentioned the word libel, fair enough? ( By the way I saw Spiderman also);)

EVIL? Where did that come from? I speed from time to time, yes I broke the law, I assure you I am not evil, a bit devilish now and then, but not evil, not even close! I agree not all laws are fair, but we are supposed to follow them until we get them changed through whatever means you choose to. Doesn't matter what laws I think are proper or not, if they are in place I am obligated to follow them, do I always? Ummm, probably not, that is not the point here.

As to why I am here on this forum, I joined to learn more about CTeer's, I have a friend who is convinced that the Govt. is behind 9/11 and I thought this would be a great place to learn about facts concerning that event. I was right. This forum gave me the ability to argue coherently without conjecture and to use my head and not my heart when debating 9/11.

This thread started because a 14 yo girl got her hand slapped by the SS because she did something stupid, I just happen to agree with that. I am starting to see from your posts that you may have an aversion to authority type figures, ( simply a deduction, not neccessarily true ) no problem as I said before, agree to disagree, there is no right or wrong answer here. If I implied something or put words in your mouth I do apologize sincerely, and yes I was using a bit of levity in some of my statements, if it came across too sarcastic I apologize for that also. Have a good day!

[slingblade]

Sling, I am only going to adress a few things in this post simply because I think I see where you are coming from, I could be wrong, I don't have all the answers and don't pretend that I do.

That's cool--I can be and have been wrong, too.

"I am not committing a wrong" " I didn't say I could do it legally" Which is it?
I pointed those statements out because they obviously contradicting.

Not exactly contradictory, but I get the confusion. I'll try to be more clear.
An act can be morally wrong, and still be legal. By the same token, an act could be illegal, but morally correct (or morally neutral). For instance, we know at one time slavery was perfectly legal, yet morally wrong. Some people think smoking marijuana is morally neutral, or even morally correct, but it's still illegal. Does that make more sense? I apologize if I was needlessly unclear. Thank you for asking me to clarify, and giving me a chance to explain it better.

Now, as a matter of opinion, while I know some kinds of threats are illegal to make, I don't necessarily agree I'm actually doing something that's wrong. It doesn't mean I'll willfully break the law and do it anyway; I respect the law in general, and have no need to be a jerk about it. But if I had been alive when America still had legal slavery, it would be illegal to set slaves free, [edit: by helping them escape, I mean] and yet I don't think I would be wrong, morally wrong, to do so.

The fact you are breaking the law doesn't always mean you are doing anything that should be wrong. It could be that the law is wrong.

I don't think what this kid did really constitutes a serious threat. I remember an incident in which a college student had some poster of Bush on the wall of her dorm room, and in it I think he was depicted as being hanged. IIRC, the Secret Service came to her dorm room and questioned her about it. One reference (http://www.oaklandnews.com/archives/000002.html) I found for it said:
* Secret Service Agents, and a local police officer questioned A.J. Brown, a college student in North Carolina, in the doorway of her home, in response to a report she had displayed "un-American material" in her dorm room, in this case a poster critical of President Bush's stance on the death penalty.

"Un-American material?" And just how is that defined, and should such a term (or concept) even exist?

Anyway, that would be a case of something being legal (the Secret Service can, legally, check out threats) but it doesn't mean it was an act of which I'd approve or think was morally right. I don't think she did anything wrong by having and displaying that poster in her "house," her residence. The Secret Service evidently thought she was doing wrong. I disagree strongly with that.

Okay, from the article about the girl, linked in the OP:
She posted a picture of the president, scrawled "Kill Bush" across the top and drew a dagger stabbing his outstretched hand. She later replaced her page on the social-networking site after learning in her eighth-grade history class that such threats are a federal offense.

Sorry, but I simply do not consider that a serious threat, especially considering the source. She's a kid. She's hardly likely to go gunning for Bush. I don't agree she did anything wrong, even though she did apparently break a federal law.

I'm questioning my assumption that because a law does exist, it is a good and necessary law. I don't agree that this one is, although I remain open to counter-arguments. I think protecting the president from mere words violates our right to criticize our government. Was her "expression" a bit extreme? Maybe. But it was also typical of a 14-year-old kid. And if I read the article correctly, she corrected her mistake when she learned it was illegal.


One simple statement, never mentioned the word libel, fair enough? ( By the way I saw Spiderman also);)

Someone did, and I was answering him. And I didn't learn about libel from Spiderman. ;) I happen to be in a Media Law and Ethics class right now, and libel is one of the BIG things we're studying. I've been writing legal briefs on the topic.

EVIL? Where did that come from? I speed from time to time, yes I broke the law, I assure you I am not evil, a bit devilish now and then, but not evil, not even close! I agree not all laws are fair, but we are supposed to follow them until we get them changed through whatever means you choose to. Doesn't matter what laws I think are proper or not, if they are in place I am obligated to follow them, do I always? Ummm, probably not, that is not the point here.

I question whether we are, indeed, obligated to follow every law just because it is a law. The Civil Rights Movement broke many laws, repeatedly, to show they were unjust and unfair. That's one thing protest is for. It is just as bad to be willing to agree with everything the government does as it is to be willing to disagree with everything.

I think I was the one who used "evil" and other similar words in another post. If read in context, it might make more sense.

Laws are made by people, and people make mistakes. Sometimes laws are mistakes and should be overturned or rescinded. We've done it before, and we'll do it again.

As to why I am here on this forum, I joined to learn more about CTeer's, I have a friend who is convinced that the Govt. is behind 9/11 and I thought this would be a great place to learn about facts concerning that event. I was right. This forum gave me the ability to argue coherently without conjecture and to use my head and not my heart when debating 9/11

And that's really good, and I'm pleased you've done so. Just remember that what you're learning is handy to apply to all areas of life, not just 9/11.

This thread started because a 14 yo girl got her hand slapped by the SS because she did something stupid, I just happen to agree with that.

Okay. I happen to disagree with it, and am trying to explain why I disagree. In this country, we both have that right. So far. ;)


I am starting to see from your posts that you may have an aversion to authority type figures, ( simply a deduction, not neccessarily true )

More like induction, but I get what you mean. Does it help your analysis to know I'm a 47-year-old female college student? :D

I don't have an aversion to authority or authority figures as a group....just to the ones who misuse their authority, or the ones who are trying to infringe on my rights.

no problem as I said before, agree to disagree, there is no right or wrong answer here. If I implied something or put words in your mouth I do apologize sincerely, and yes I was using a bit of levity in some of my statements, if it came across too sarcastic I apologize for that also. Have a good day!

Is all good. No harm done. I also apologize for being flip.

[Morrigan]

That's not true. You see, I have a brain,
I only have your word on that. The evidence is lacking.

and I would expect that anything that even remotely resembles a threat ought to be looked into by the Secret Service...that's their jobs, after all. OK, she's a 14 year old girl. Who knows what "Bush is a murderer!" crap she's being fed by her parents, teachers, schoolmates, Dylan Avery, ad nauseum? And anyone who thinks it's even mildly difficult for a kid to get a handgun dosn't live in the U.S. Getting a clear shot at Bush would be the hard part -- but even if there's only a one percent chance, why risk it? We're only three presidents removed from an assassination attempt that hit the president, nearly killed an agent, and left the press secretary permanently disabled. And Ford was shot at twice within two weeks, once by a young women who probably had no more mental wherewithal that a typical 14 year old.

I think I see a lot of anti-Bush feelings clouding people's judgements here. For crying out loud, all she got was a goddamned 15 minute lecture. It wasn't like they threw her down and cuffed her. And she has the nerve to complain afterwards? "Ooo, they were sooo mean to me! And what for -- it wasn't like I did anything really bad. All I said was that the president should be killed. I didn't do anything...mommy, mom-meee!!!

Spare me.

So... you do think a ranting teenager is an actual threat to the president, worth looking into beyond a simple "oh, it's an MS-Paint pic on a MySpace profile".
Yep, the evidence is lacking.

[kevin]

Just found out about the movie Death of a President:

http://www.deathofapresident.com/synopsis/index.html

It's a murder mystery following the assassination of George W. Bush in October of 2007.

So is that a threat against the president?

[Stellafane]

I only have your word on that. The evidence is lacking...

Trust me (or not) sonny boy, you're way out of your league judging me in the intellect department. Agree with me, or don't, but don't you dare question my intelligence...you haven't got the wherewithal to back it up.

[Morrigan]

Oh, okay! I'm totally convinced now. :rolleyes: Especially with your amazing deducting skills that made you think "Morrigan" with a girly avatar would be a boy.

[Stellafane]

Oh, okay! I'm totally convinced now. :rolleyes: Especially with your amazing deducting skills that made you think "Morrigan" with a girly avatar would be a boy.

"Girly" avatar? A warrior in full battle dress, with absolutely no distinguishing feminine characteristics whatsoever? Not sure in whose eyes that represents the essence of femininity, but to each her (or his) own, I guess.

Nice try, though.

[CptColumbo]

Just found out about the movie Death of a President:

http://www.deathofapresident.com/synopsis/index.html

It's a murder mystery following the assassination of George W. Bush in October of 2007.

So is that a threat against the president?

They are debating that with the distributers.

[Rasmus]

This thread started because a 14 yo girl got her hand slapped by the SS because she did something stupid, I just happen to agree with that.

I haven't really been following this thread, and I will take the liberty to take this one sentence out of context, since it just jumped at me, anyway.

You agree that "doing something stupid" justifies that the secret service not only takes action, but goes out and does what would be the parent's job - if anyone's?

I have done quitew a few stupid things in my life - and not once did I have to answer to the secret service.

My mom got a talking to from the secret service as a little kid once, though. They questioned her about her parents. their alleged crime: Watching the wrong program on TV. The name of the secret service? Stasi.

I guess I agree that any utterances of "God, I whish someone would just kill him" in any form, even if they refer to the president, are not what I would view as a threat, much less one to be taken seriously.

I for one do not whish to live in a society where the policy is busy questioning everyone that gets overheared as saying "I'll kill you!" or "I could just kill her!" or "I whish they were dead." or any such thing.

And I think that describing the event as "just a stern talking to" etc. absolutely underestimates what it means if the talking to is done by the secret service. (As opposed to, say tutor, counsellor, hall-warden or myspace admin, etc.) I don't think 14 year old teenagers do not have to live with that kind of threats - which I consider much more substantial than any "I am going to kill you" anyone of us could ever blurt out.

[Morrigan]

Well said, Rasmus.

"Girly" avatar? A warrior in full battle dress, with absolutely no distinguishing feminine characteristics whatsoever? Not sure in whose eyes that represents the essence of femininity, but to each her (or his) own, I guess.

Nice try, though.
She has long red hair, a valkyrie helmet, and pink on the armour. Are you blind (http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=Morrigan.jpg)? LOL anyway, Morrigan is clearly a female name, so there.

[TjW]

Well, generalizing, if one does something stupid, one should not be surprised that one has to deal with the consequences, even if you consider such consequences to be unfair.

On the subject of whether or not the USSS had been tipped off:
If I were in charge, it would be a strict policy not to comment at all on intelligence sources. The actual intelligence itself, or portions of it, might be allowed.
Thus the question: "Why did you interview whoozit?" might be answered "There was a threat to the president on their webspace".
The question: "How did you find out about it?" might be answered "We do not comment on intelligence sources."

That a reporter might interpret those answers as "We monitor MySpace for threats to the President" would surprise me not at all.

[fuelair]

If freedom of speech was not meant to be absolute, then why was it framed in absolute language? There is no mention in there of "except," or "unless," or "but not in this or that case." It says "Shall make NO LAW." That we have been chipping away at it indicates we do not understand it, and probably do not really deserve it.



Now who's missing the point? Unacceptable speech must be vigorously defended. Acceptable speech needs no First Amendment guarantee, because we accept it.



You accept it. I do not. I can threaten all day long. It doesn't harm a soul. I don't commit a wrong until I do kill or try to kill someone.



No, dear. Again, you miss the point. When you stifle one form of speech, all other forms are then at risk of also being stifled at some point. As soon as someone with the power to do so decides he doesn't like what you say, you could lose the ability to say it freely.

The office of president does not render its holder a sacred being. Maybe knowing people hate your policies enough to wish you dead is a good thing, if you are wise enough to listen to them. If you stifle their speech, you can delude yourself into thinking everything you do is not only good, but accepted by the citizenry you swore to serve.

That's a far more clear and present danger than some child making vague statements on a web page.

The quote other gave on yelling fire in crowded theater is wrong as far as Supreme Court was/is concerned - the example was used without any ambiguity as an example of speech that could be prosecuted because it represented an imminent danger to the public - not because it affected someones' property rights.

[fuelair]

Free speech is...SPEECH that is FREE. Period. Full stop.
If you still have to "mind what you say", it is no longer free...by definition.
Therefore, free speech with restrictions is an oxymoron.

And, with no offense, I assume that you realise there is no country in this world where free speech - under that, admittedly correct, definition -exists.
The US is assuredly better than most in this regard and, once again in the US, you cannot be arrested prior to saying something BUT if it is against the law to say it, you can be arrested for doing so. In the US, freedom of speech means you are free to say anything - but if you do so, and it has been made illegal to do so, you can be arrested. There are (many) places where you can, and will, be arrested if the authorities think you might some day think about saying something they might not be happy about. There is a difference.

[Rasmus]

Well, generalizing, if one does something stupid, one should not be surprised that one has to deal with the consequences, even if you consider such consequences to be unfair.

The consequences should be foreseeable if you want to rule out surprise. In that regard, my grandparents shouldn't have been suprised that their daughter got questioned by their friendly neighbourhood agent. And AFAIK they weren't surprised.

But if the consequences aren't reasonable, no matter how foreseeable they might have been, then it is justified to complain.

In the case of the teenager "threatening" the president (oh, I am certain he and the entire secret service were just ******** their pants when they saw that webpage ...) I don't see how the consequences were either justified or foreseeable, though.

On the subject of whether or not the USSS had been tipped off:
If I were in charge, it would be a strict policy not to comment at all on intelligence sources. The actual intelligence itself, or portions of it, might be allowed.
Thus the question: "Why did you interview whoozit?" might be answered "There was a threat to the president on their webspace".

Irrelevant. Or does the secret service actually have to go and give the girl a talking-to to realize that she was just 14 years old?

What purpose did the talking-to serve, other than frightening a silly teenager? Does anyone believe she is now any less likely to ever kill a president than before? Does anyone think that the president is now safer than before - from anyone at all, not even the just this girl?

The question: "How did you find out about it?" might be answered "We do not comment on intelligence sources."

That would be a good answer, but doesn't really make a difference.

That a reporter might interpret those answers as "We monitor MySpace for threats to the President" would surprise me not at all.

Oh, monitoring myspace might be a good idea. I don't know if and how real terrorists might use or abuse that service to plot their actions. But none of this justifies that anyone ever uttered as much as a single word to a 14 year old girl.

[Rasmus]

And, with no offense, I assume that you realise there is no country in this world where free speech - under that, admittedly correct, definition -exists.
The US is assuredly better than most in this regard and, once again in the US, you cannot be arrested prior to saying something BUT if it is against the law to say it, you can be arrested for doing so. In the US, freedom of speech means you are free to say anything - but if you do so, and it has been made illegal to do so, you can be arrested. There are (many) places where you can, and will, be arrested if the authorities think you might some day think about saying something they might not be happy about. There is a difference.

The main difference is in what kind of thing you might be forbidden to say. It's just plain silly to claim a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and it makes sense to punish people who do that. Such laws do not endanger free speech at all.

[TjW]

<snippage by TjW>
Oh, monitoring myspace might be a good idea. I don't know if and how real terrorists might use or abuse that service to plot their actions. But none of this justifies that anyone ever uttered as much as a single word to a 14 year old girl.

Hmmm. I'm trying real hard here not to propose a strawman. But that could be interpreted as "No threat from any 14 year old girl should be taken seriously".
What circumstances, in your opinion, would justify speaking to the young lady for fifteen minutes or so?

[slingblade]

It also means we have the obligation to keep our government from deciding new things to make it illegal to say, unless they can first show a demonstrable harm. What demonstrable harm does it do to say "I wish he were dead?" or "I hope someone kills him?"

To keep speech as free as possible, you fight. You don't just let the government (made up of fallible people) decide the issue for you, and agree with them. I don't agree this was a credible threat, and I don't have to agree.

It's called "chipping away" for good reason. One blow of the axe won't make the oak fall. But many patient blows will eventually bring it crashing down. and individual blows are often easy to ignore.

You fight the individual blows. You don't wait for the oak to fall. That's how you keep speech free.

[Rasmus]

Hmmm. I'm trying real hard here not to propose a strawman. But that could be interpreted as "No threat from any 14 year old girl should be taken seriously".
What circumstances, in your opinion, would justify speaking to the young lady for fifteen minutes or so?

Oh, I am sure there are such circumstances.

But just posting the described picture on a website does not justify that two agents remove the girl from class - much less after apparently lying to the parents that they would wait until she returns home.

Is that the kind of intelligence that is used to protect the US?

Again, I am wondering what the point was of this interrogation? what could they have learned or achieved in those 15 minutes? (other than to scare a harmless teenager, of course.) What was their plan, how would they have gone about assessing a real risk here? Can real terrorists not even pretend to be scared, crying teenagers? Is that such a sure sign of innocence that it's worth the trouble?

Assume for a second, they really thought there was a real threat anywhere. Would they just walk up to the parents, and give them a chance to warn their daughter if they thought the girl might be serious? No, they would get hold of her first, right?

But they didn't. So I stand by my conclusion that they were - at best - on a nasty little power trip and that there is no way their actions can be justified.

[gumboot]

I don't know about US law, but under New Zealand law (read: British Law) it is illegal to make a death threat against ANYONE. And it is taken VERY seriously.

In addition, given the fondness American teenagers have for slaughtering their fellow students, I would consider a 14 year old girl just as likely a threat as anyone else. What say you learned she was a fanatical player of FPS computer games? (FPS computer games condition people to kill using the same mechanisms as military conditioning)

Frankly if I had to choose between a stroppy 14 year old girl pointing a gun at me, and an upset 40 year old man, I'd choose the man. He's more likely to properly appreciate the consequences of pulling the trigger.

-Gumboot

[TjW]

Oh, I am sure there are such circumstances.

I felt sure you would say so; could you give me an example?

But just posting the described picture on a website does not justify that two agents remove the girl from class - much less after apparently lying to the parents that they would wait until she returns home.

So you've said before.

Is that the kind of intelligence that is used to protect the US?

Again, I am wondering what the point was of this interrogation? what could they have learned or achieved in those 15 minutes? (other than to scare a harmless teenager, of course.) What was their plan, how would they have gone about assessing a real risk here? Can real terrorists not even pretend to be scared, crying teenagers? Is that such a sure sign of innocence that it's worth the trouble?

Assume for a second, they really thought there was a real threat anywhere. Would they just walk up to the parents, and give them a chance to warn their daughter if they thought the girl might be serious? No, they would get hold of her f[/I]irst, right?

But they didn't. So I stand by my conclusion that they were - at best - on a nasty little power trip and that there is no way their actions can be justified.


Actually, here's the part from the story that I found odd:
(my bolding)

Wilson and her parents said the agents were justified in questioning her over her MySpace.com posting. But they said they believe agents went too far by not waiting until she was out of school.


If the questioning was justified, I'm puzzled over how the timing of the questioning changes that.

[Bell]

I don't know about US law, but under New Zealand law (read: British Law) it is illegal to make a death threat against ANYONE. And it is taken VERY seriously.

In addition, given the fondness American teenagers have for slaughtering their fellow students, I would consider a 14 year old girl just as likely a threat as anyone else. What say you learned she was a fanatical player of FPS computer games? (FPS computer games condition people to kill using the same mechanisms as military conditioning)

Frankly if I had to choose between a stroppy 14 year old girl pointing a gun at me, and an upset 40 year old man, I'd choose the man. He's more likely to properly appreciate the consequences of pulling the trigger.

-Gumboot

American teenagers are fond of shooting other students? And FPS are responsible for this :confused:

Andrew, I hope you forgot the sarcasm tags?

[gumboot]

American teenagers are fond of shooting other students? And FPS are responsible for this :confused:

Andrew, I hope you forgot the sarcasm tags?


No. :p I'm not saying that. But it is true that computer games (especially FPSs) do condition people to kill. Of course, being psychologically capable of killing, and actually choosing to do so are unrelated things.

I am fairly sure, for example, that I am thoroughly conditioned to kill (yes, I have been known to enjoy computer games from time to time :boxedin: ) however I have never CHOSEN to kill anyone (or indeed ever felt the urge).

I also hope it was clear my statement about American teenagers being fond of killing each other was hyperbole. :)

-Gumboot

[Rasmus]

I felt sure you would say so; could you give me an example?

I wasn't so much claiming that it was possible as saying I'd expect it to be possible - if that helps.

But I suspect that if they had found that the girl had bought several guns shortly after making the posting etc. that would justify giving her a closer look.

So you've said before.

I shall award myself points for consistency then.

Actually, here's the part from the story that I found odd:
(my bolding)

If the questioning was justified, I'm puzzled over how the timing of the questioning changes that.

This is their opinion, not necessarily mine. I need to think about it longer.

But changing the timing did change what they did. Sitting down with a teenager and her parents is one thing. Especially if that was the agreed upon thing to do.

Getting the teenager out of her class, in front of everyone's eyes, is a lot more scary and rude to say the least.

It is one more aspect that changes the entire act from "we were concerened and wanted to figure out what was going on" to "we're big mean thugs on a power trip and we scare little kids because we damn well can if we please."

Their behaviour just doesn't add up and match their alleged reasons for acting the way they did. It does match the "they were teaching her a lesson"-explanation, though.

[fuelair]

I felt sure you would say so; could you give me an example?

So you've said before.



Actually, here's the part from the story that I found odd:
(my bolding)


If the questioning was justified, I'm puzzled over how the timing of the questioning changes that.
Embarassment factor...

[TjW]

I wasn't so much claiming that it was possible as saying I'd expect it to be possible - if that helps.

But I suspect that if they had found that the girl had bought several guns shortly after making the posting etc. that would justify giving her a closer look.



I shall award myself points for consistency then.



This is their opinion, not necessarily mine. I need to think about it longer.

But changing the timing did change what they did. Sitting down with a teenager and her parents is one thing. Especially if that was the agreed upon thing to do.

Getting the teenager out of her class, in front of everyone's eyes, is a lot more scary and rude to say the least.

Would that be more or less rude than, say, a death threat?
It's an interesting situation. Everyone seems to agree the investigation is, essentially, a waste of time. And yet, the complaint seems to be that more time wasn't taken, in order to seem polite to someone offering death threats.


It is one more aspect that changes the entire act from "we were concerened and wanted to figure out what was going on" to "we're big mean thugs on a power trip and we scare little kids because we damn well can if we please."

Their behaviour just doesn't add up and match their alleged reasons for acting the way they did. It does match the "they were teaching her a lesson"-explanation, though.

Possibly. If they had really wanted to teach her and her parents a lesson, they should have offered to wait while they contacted their lawyer to sit in on the interrogation. That would have been much more polite, I suppose.

[Bell]

No. :p I'm not saying that. But it is true that computer games (especially FPSs) do condition people to kill. Of course, being psychologically capable of killing, and actually choosing to do so are unrelated things.

I am fairly sure, for example, that I am thoroughly conditioned to kill (yes, I have been known to enjoy computer games from time to time :boxedin: ) however I have never CHOSEN to kill anyone (or indeed ever felt the urge).

I also hope it was clear my statement about American teenagers being fond of killing each other was hyperbole. :)

-Gumboot

I'm not convinced people are conditioned to kill by playing FPS. Playing a game is one thing, acting out the game in real life is something else. I've played FPS, but allways knew it was a game, nothing more nothing less. People who have psychological problems (IMHO) can't see the difference. It's their 'fault' when they go onto a killing spree, not the game developers. Such people need medical and psychological help, preferably before it's to late.

And they need to stop listening to Marilyn Manson ;)

[/derail]

[Cylinder]

I'll admit that the job of president is SOOPER SPESHUL and all that, but considering someone MS-Painting the word "KILL" on your photo as a "credible threat" is just freaking retarded.

That's a classic appeal to emotion. Nothing about the artistic merit or production value of the utterance is of concern to the US Secret Service. They were conducting a threat investigation - not looking at her portfolio.

[Cylinder]

The FBI agents tell him he does not need a laywer and that his parents don't need to be there for questioning. This is against the law (in the movie).

The legal concept is that law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to inform each suspect in a criminal investigation of their rights under the US constitution before making statements that incriminate themselves. Minors, in the eyes of the law, are not able to waive these rights in an informed manner. Thus, before evidence derived from a statement taken while in police custody is able to be used in court, a minor's legal guardian must be informed or these rights and allowed to enforce or waive them. This does not prevent law enforcement from arresting, detaining or questioning a suspect below the age of majority outside the presence of a guardian.

Apparently the agents' actions were not outside regulation for the US Secret Service or even for the state of local jurisdictions - even though the latter standards would not even apply to USSS agents.

[Rasmus]

Would that be more or less rude than, say, a death threat?

I will continue to hold adults to much higher standards than teenagers. Now guess where on that scale I would put secret service agents...

It's an interesting situation. Everyone seems to agree the investigation is, essentially, a waste of time. And yet, the complaint seems to be that more time wasn't taken, in order to seem polite to someone offering death threats.

Can't say I am doing that.

They decided to take serious a silly threat on a website. I doubt there are sound reasons to take threats like that, or this particular threat serious, but so be it.

But if taken seriously, I fail to see how their conduct was appropriate in any way - regarding the girls as much as the issue.

Possibly. If they had really wanted to teach her and her parents a lesson, they should have offered to wait while they contacted their lawyer to sit in on the interrogation. That would have been much more polite, I suppose.

Yes. Only then the lawyer would have had a word or two to say about their conduct and they would have lost their chance to be scary.

[gumboot]

I'm not convinced people are conditioned to kill by playing FPS. Playing a game is one thing, acting out the game in real life is something else. I've played FPS, but allways knew it was a game, nothing more nothing less.


It's not so much a case of knowing what is real and what isn't. That's an entirely different issue. And I think the "difference between game and real life" aspect is probably one of the big contributing factors in the major issue - that being the DECISION to kill someone.

The thing with conditioning is, humans have a natural biological resistance to killing other humans. This is a fundamental part of all animal interaction - it is the "fight or flight" and "dominate or submit" response controlled by the oldest parts of the brain.

You're not meant to fight you're own species. You're meant to dominate them or submit to them.

There's a host of factors that influence the strength of the safeguard, such as the presence of authority, and proximity to the victim, but conditioning can remove the safe guard entirely. This enables killing of your own species. Major elements of conditioning include things like shooting at human shaped targets (especially ones with "realistic behaivour" like popping up unexpectedly) and immediate feedback/gratification for hitting the target (such as targets that drop down when they are hit).

These are mimicked exactly in FPS computer games (not intentionally, of course).

A soldier shooting at a 13 point target (I think it's called that) knows they are not killing a person, and that it is not "real". Yet nonetheless they are being conditioned to kill.

-Gumboot

[Rasmus]

You're not meant to fight you're own species. You're meant to dominate them or submit to them.

Says who?

There's a host of factors that influence the strength of the safeguard, such as the presence of authority, and proximity to the victim, but conditioning can remove the safe guard entirely. This enables killing of your own species.

Other species kill their own kind - for various reasons. So how come we ought to be any different?

Do you have any evidence for your claim that playing computer games (whichever kind you chose to focus on, really) conditions people to kill other humans?

[Piggy]

OK, maybe someone's already asked this, but my question is... why were Secret Service agents cruising the MySpace pages of 14 year old girls anyway?

[gumboot]

Says who?

Says the science of biology.

The automated response mechanisms of inter-species and intra-species relations have been known since the 1920's. It's more specific to mammals as they have more developed brains.



Other species kill their own kind - for various reasons. So how come we ought to be any different?

It is very rare for mammals to kill members of their own species. There are quite distinct difference between how, for example, two male lions fight each other and how those same lions would fight another species of animal such as a zebra or a hyena.



Do you have any evidence for your claim that playing computer games (whichever kind you chose to focus on, really) conditions people to kill other humans?

I suggest you read the book "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Lt Col Dave Grossman.

The FPS genre of game is specific because it so closely mimicks standard conditioning techniques used by modern armed forces. The existance of the killing safeguard and the success of conditioning has been well documented by extensive studies since WW2 as well as historical research.

Perhaps it is best illustrated in Brigadier General S.L.A Marshall's study of combat participation during World War Two ("Men Against Fire") in contrast with similar studies into combat participation during the Vietnam War (conditioning techniques were first consciously implemented for the Vietnam War).

It's important to make a distinction between being desensitised to violence, being conditioned to kill, and for what ever reason actually deciding to kill people. The three things are not necessarily related (though the last one will have much greater chance of being successfully carried out if the previous two have occured).

-Gumboot

[freelancephotography]

OK, maybe someone's already asked this, but my question is... why were Secret Service agents cruising the MySpace pages of 14 year old girls anyway?

Thats what I thought when I first heard of it as well, mainly because I thought that myspace automatically made "children's" profiles private (meaning they can only be viewed by those on their friends lists):

If you go to myspace and scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to view the terms and conditions, you'll see also that under the prohibited section (numbered 8) that "myspace reserves the rights to investigate and take appropriate legal action against anyone who, in myspace's sole discretion, violates this provision, including without limitation, removing the offending communication from the myspace services and terminating the membership of such violators."

Which, under myspaces "appropriate legal action" against this girl posting her picture of bush,myspace could have very well tipped off the Secret service as their obligation to uphold their terms and conditions. If you think about it, myspace doesn't have a choice but to report such content..you would expect myspace to report child pornography or other content to proper authorities, myspace does collect IP addresses as well as personal information (name, address, email, etc.)
I agree that if the picture were on a more legitimate site, then yes it should have been taken more seriously..but the fact of the matter is, after she learned that what she had posted was illegal, she took it down-way before the secret service paid her a visit. If it were one of my children I would have been ticked that they talked to my child without my being present; especially after the fact that they stopped by her home to talk to her, and then proceeded to go to her school and pull her from class? The secret service was wrong to do that, very misleading to tell a parent that they promise to stop back by after the girl gets home, but does the opposite? I mean, come on, it wasn't like the girl was going to run away to avoid the secret service..she's fourteen. What would she do, steal a car to get away?!
anyway, just my opinion on the matter, while I think that the secret service should do their job of protecting the president, I do not think that their actions were appropriate for finding this so called evidence on "myspace"
Like someone before me said, it's myspace for god's sakes.

[Morrigan]

I don't know about US law, but under New Zealand law (read: British Law) it is illegal to make a death threat against ANYONE. And it is taken VERY seriously.

First, I need some convincing that a crudely drawn picture with the word "kill" on them represent more than mere frustration, let alone a "death threat".
Second, you say that like it's a good thing. When have zero-tolerance policies ever worked?

In addition, given the fondness American teenagers have for slaughtering their fellow students,

*blinks*
What?


I would consider a 14 year old girl just as likely a threat as anyone else.

Then you are irrational.

What say you learned she was a fanatical player of FPS computer games? (FPS computer games condition people to kill using the same mechanisms as military conditioning)
:jaw-dropp You've got to be kidding me. Everyone, Jack Thompson's on this board!

[gumboot]

First, I need some convincing that a crudely drawn picture with the word "kill" on them represent more than mere frustration, let alone a "death threat".


Well the only way to find that out is to go talk to the person, isn't it?



Second, you say that like it's a good thing. When have zero-tolerance policies ever worked?

Romans never had problems with repeat offenders...:p

(First offence, crucifixion)



*blinks*
What?

Joke.



Then you are irrational.

Children and teenagers have a poorer understanding of consequences than an adult. That makes them more dangerous if they've got a gun pointed at you. In the US it's no harder for a teenager to point a gun at you than for an adult to (or so it seems).



:jaw-dropp You've got to be kidding me. Everyone, Jack Thompson's on this board!

?

Have you read "On Killing" by Lt Col Dave Grossman?

-Gumboot

[Morrigan]

Well the only way to find that out is to go talk to the person, isn't it?
Or simply make a reasonable assumption based on common bloody sense.

"Let's see, a teenager made a picture with the word "kill" on Bush's face. What could this mean? That we have a possible president assasin around, or that we have a harmless frustrated teen venting on MySpace? Gee golly, better find this dangerous threat to national security and put the fear of Bush in!"
:rolleyes:


Children and teenagers have a poorer understanding of consequences than an adult. That makes them more dangerous if they've got a gun pointed at you. In the US it's no harder for a teenager to point a gun at you than for an adult to (or so it seems).

That's your reason for taking this "threat" seriously?



?

Have you read "On Killing" by Lt Col Dave Grossman?

No. Based on your recommendation though, I'll avoid it.

[gumboot]

No. Based on your recommendation though, I'll avoid it.


Well that says it all, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

-Gumboot