It seems over 730 people voted before the poll was taken down. Bet the ones who voted "yes" are hating life right about now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...oll-asks_n_301860.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...oll-asks_n_301860.html
Secret Service investigating Facebook "Should Obama Be Killed?" poll
- Thread starter JKing106
- Start date
There was a guy on the Daily Show a while back who wrote a book on the secret service that said since Obama was elected death threats against the president have increased 30 times.
Just from an administrative perspective, how would such a poll be treated here? I am VERY tempted to post one due to the free speech implications involved with the gestapo trying to hunt down some people on the internet for voting in a silly poll (which clearly is NOT an explicit or implied death threat).
The fact of the matter is that a president has a very considerable impact on this country and it is no exaggeration to say that the choices made by the president can save or kill tens of thousands of people easily. Just think about the healthcare debate. Without getting into who is right or wrong, its likely that if we did choose wrong that we would end up killing thousands by misappropriating medical resources. As a utilitarian and and "academic" type person I believe that there is noting inherently evil about considering how a hypothetical death of a leader could very well save lives. I don't believe that any discussion on this matter should be viewed a as criminal or even an immoral thought process. I sdee people for example saying the world would be a better place if the leaders of some other countries were no longer around, i'm not sure why our president should be spared such criticism either. A logical argument can be made by a person of conservative values hypothesizing that Obama's health care will kill 50,000 people needlesly, the same is true for a liberal minded argument that president Bush and his war in Iraq killed 50,000 people needlessly.
The fact of the matter is that a president has a very considerable impact on this country and it is no exaggeration to say that the choices made by the president can save or kill tens of thousands of people easily. Just think about the healthcare debate. Without getting into who is right or wrong, its likely that if we did choose wrong that we would end up killing thousands by misappropriating medical resources. As a utilitarian and and "academic" type person I believe that there is noting inherently evil about considering how a hypothetical death of a leader could very well save lives. I don't believe that any discussion on this matter should be viewed a as criminal or even an immoral thought process. I sdee people for example saying the world would be a better place if the leaders of some other countries were no longer around, i'm not sure why our president should be spared such criticism either. A logical argument can be made by a person of conservative values hypothesizing that Obama's health care will kill 50,000 people needlesly, the same is true for a liberal minded argument that president Bush and his war in Iraq killed 50,000 people needlessly.
Well, freedom of speech might be idiotic to you , but its one of the most sacred freedoms we are granted in this country, so I am quoting YOUR post for its idiocy so there
.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
Originally posted by: BrownTownWell, freedom of speech might be idiotic to you , but its one of the most sacred freedoms we are granted in this country, so I am quoting YOUR post for its idiocy so there
yeah its not a matter of free speech. you can ask if the president is doing a good job, or ask if he should be fired or whatever.
Asking if the president should be KILLED is a diffrent story and will get your ass in trouble.
you post one here i would be shocked if you were not permed within 10 minutes.
I'm just going to come out now and predict it was a ACORN employee who posted it who was either really mad at Obama or was trying to pin it on conservatives. If I am right on this I demand all of P&N bow to me.
If I am right on this I demand all of P&N bow to me.Whoever posted this poll needs their head examined but most likely done from a member of the GOP lunatic fringe.
Nah, its more likely just some college kid trying to make a joke. I don't think most of the loony bin conservatives use facebook too much.
It really is deeply disturbing to me though that something so mild is likely gonna get a stupid kid paraded around like some sort of criminal. We could just go to 4chan and 99% of the posters have said something much more provocative, same really goes for most people here I am sure as well. I mean just the other day I saw someone suggesting Kanye West be shot in the face, does that mean the poster was a cold blooded killer, or a racist redneck?
Very interesting that you think stating someone should be killed is not an implied threat.
Regardless, threatening the life of the president is a federal offense, a felony to be exact.
People take death threats and the like against the president very seriously, and for good reason. Almost 1 in 10 men that have held the office have been shot to death and depending on how you rank the severity of various attempts another 20% or so of those who survived had credible attempts on their life. You're talking almost one in three men killed, or almost killed.
Considering the impact that has on the country as a whole, no I don't think you're going to free speech yourself out of a death threat, and I'm nearly certain a poll such as that will send you packing from here in no time.
Advocating killing people to solve problems has a long history of FAIL!
Not a fundamental principle of any "civilized society" that I'm aware of.
Not a fundamental principle of any "civilized society" that I'm aware of.
is it really advocating killing the president? it's just a question... if facebook released the results, I'm sure they'd be overwhelmingly "no"
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,562
- 3
- 0
If I receive a letter with a death threat, I'm calling the cops and putting them on to the return address. Obama just has a whole federal department devoted to the task.
Same thing, different scale.
Same thing, different scale.
So if I post a poll that says 'should we rape and murder loki8481?', I'm just asking a question. Don't worry if only a few people said 'yes', they are in the minority.
BT: Just from an administrative perspective, how would such a poll be treated here? I am VERY tempted to post one due to the free speech implications involved with the gestapo trying to hunt down some people on the internet for voting in a silly poll (which clearly is NOT an explicit or implied death threat).
M: What are the free speech issues. We don't have free speech to cry fire in a crowded theater. We don't have free speech to make death threats. We don't have free speech to threaten the life of the President.
BT: The fact of the matter is that a president has a very considerable impact on this country and it is no exaggeration to say that the choices made by the president can save or kill tens of thousands of people easily. Just think about the healthcare debate. Without getting into who is right or wrong, its likely that if we did choose wrong that we would end up killing thousands by misappropriating medical resources. As a utilitarian and and "academic" type person I believe that there is noting inherently evil about considering how a hypothetical death of a leader could very well save lives. I don't believe that any discussion on this matter should be viewed a as criminal or even an immoral thought process.
M: This has noting to do with anything. The President's function is to have an impact. It is why he in particular was voted in to do just that. It is the vote that determines this, not your personal moral delusions. You are totally insane if you think you can go around and determine by what folk are doing in executive positions that they should live or die. Your job is to determine if they should be voted in or out. The question to ask is Should Obama be impeached. You are a citizen with a vote, not a righteous god. Get your feet on the ground.
BT: I sdee people for example saying the world would be a better place if the leaders of some other countries were no longer around, i'm not sure why our president should be spared such criticism either.
M: "Should the President be killed" is not that question. And nobody asks it within reach of the foreigner they refer to. It is a question folk ask out of frustration that they themselves can't do a thing. You can. You have the same vote as any other US citizen. You don't get to vote with a gun.
BT: A logical argument can be made by a person of conservative values hypothesizing that Obama's health care will kill 50,000 people needlesly, the same is true for a liberal minded argument that president Bush and his war in Iraq killed 50,000 people needlessly.
M: That is not the argument being made. It was a question not an argument and anybody advocating Bush be killed for Iraq need to go to jail too.
You don't ask if the President should be killed because you encourage fools to answer yes. You lend credence to the notion the question is proper. You create a threat that has to be taken seriously and costs money and time to assess. The question is asked by a stupid imbecile or a dangerous fool. Try to take off that engineering hat for a second that reasons along a line, and see the issue from a larger perspective. You are way way out to lunch on this one in my opinion.
M: What are the free speech issues. We don't have free speech to cry fire in a crowded theater. We don't have free speech to make death threats. We don't have free speech to threaten the life of the President.
BT: The fact of the matter is that a president has a very considerable impact on this country and it is no exaggeration to say that the choices made by the president can save or kill tens of thousands of people easily. Just think about the healthcare debate. Without getting into who is right or wrong, its likely that if we did choose wrong that we would end up killing thousands by misappropriating medical resources. As a utilitarian and and "academic" type person I believe that there is noting inherently evil about considering how a hypothetical death of a leader could very well save lives. I don't believe that any discussion on this matter should be viewed a as criminal or even an immoral thought process.
M: This has noting to do with anything. The President's function is to have an impact. It is why he in particular was voted in to do just that. It is the vote that determines this, not your personal moral delusions. You are totally insane if you think you can go around and determine by what folk are doing in executive positions that they should live or die. Your job is to determine if they should be voted in or out. The question to ask is Should Obama be impeached. You are a citizen with a vote, not a righteous god. Get your feet on the ground.
BT: I sdee people for example saying the world would be a better place if the leaders of some other countries were no longer around, i'm not sure why our president should be spared such criticism either.
M: "Should the President be killed" is not that question. And nobody asks it within reach of the foreigner they refer to. It is a question folk ask out of frustration that they themselves can't do a thing. You can. You have the same vote as any other US citizen. You don't get to vote with a gun.
BT: A logical argument can be made by a person of conservative values hypothesizing that Obama's health care will kill 50,000 people needlesly, the same is true for a liberal minded argument that president Bush and his war in Iraq killed 50,000 people needlessly.
M: That is not the argument being made. It was a question not an argument and anybody advocating Bush be killed for Iraq need to go to jail too.
You don't ask if the President should be killed because you encourage fools to answer yes. You lend credence to the notion the question is proper. You create a threat that has to be taken seriously and costs money and time to assess. The question is asked by a stupid imbecile or a dangerous fool. Try to take off that engineering hat for a second that reasons along a line, and see the issue from a larger perspective. You are way way out to lunch on this one in my opinion.
"Should X be killed?" is not equal to "I'm going to kill X."
Certainly in bad taste, but it's not illegal, and the Secret Service is not likely devoting much time to this.
We also know that Freedom of Speech is not a protected Anandtech right. I do seem to recall years ago there were polls (or at least posts) asking if Saddam Hussein should be killed. Those weren't locked, and no one suggested that they should be.
Certainly in bad taste, but it's not illegal, and the Secret Service is not likely devoting much time to this.
We also know that Freedom of Speech is not a protected Anandtech right. I do seem to recall years ago there were polls (or at least posts) asking if Saddam Hussein should be killed. Those weren't locked, and no one suggested that they should be.
I have a feeling its probably been posted more than once that Bush should be killed. I am pretty certain its been said he should be executed for his crimes. I guess its different when you word it that way.. :roll:
It's a tasteless poll. With that said, how is the question "should (someone) be killed" exactly a death threat, genius?
The forums have a search function, use it and find them.
It's definitely different to say that someone should be tried in court and executed than that they should be killed however.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter