Secret Service investigating Facebook "Should Obama Be Killed?" poll

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Ausm
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?

Kanye west is not the POTUS!!

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: BrownTown
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.

Quoted for idiocy. Good luck with your poll.

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 .

dude, you are a moron...this is NOT a public forum it is private and has rules, it is also not a government entity which is what the whole freedom of speech thing relates to.

christ...why the hell are people like this allowed to breathe?

 

[Pliablemoose]

The Secret Service has always taken all threats very seriously, that was a dumb move.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: BrownTown
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.

Quoted for idiocy. Good luck with your poll.

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 .

A) Errr, you do not have "free speech" here. These are private forums. The operators of the forum have every right to block your speech, alter your speech, or just flat out ban you. You do NOT have a right to post here, you have a privilege

B) Free speech aside, it is a felony to threaten the life of the President, and such a poll is clearly making implications that lean that way. Unlike foreign dictatorships, if we don't like what a leader is doing, we vote them out of office, so your analogy is not apt.

Nice try.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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.

It's a tasteless poll. With that said, how is the question "should (someone) be killed" exactly a death threat, genius?

I am a very stupid person and really get pissed off when people call me a genius so please excuse my brilliant reply to your knee jerk comment that I implied anything of the kind, you blithering savant. Let me make myself moronically clear. I gave three examples where a person does not have free speech refuting the notion that we have it. I said noting there at all about the question being one of the three I listed. I pity how smart you are, hehe.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BrownTown
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).

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.

not to mention the number of attempts and successes on candidates

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

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 .

Freedom of speech carries responsibility for that speech. The classic example is shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.

This "poll" suggests that some justification exists for killing Obama. In such a public poll, it implies a direct threat which you seem far too willing to overlook.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: tk149
"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.

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:

If someone said the equivalent for Bush, he or she would have been booted, and you can take that to the bank.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: BrownTown
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.

Quoted for idiocy. Good luck with your poll.

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 .

Freedom of expression is probably the MOST protected of freedoms in the U.S., but those protections aren't without limit. Slander, libel, incitement to commit violence, incitement to create panic, assault (the credible threat of violence), obscenity, pornography, public nudity (as expression), and - yes - threats against the President are all NON-protected speech.

No right is absolute because rights ultimately conflict and choices must be made between/among them.

 

[woodie1]

I wonder if those who voted 'yes' gave any thought to the fact that we'd have Joe Biden as POTUS.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shira
Freedom of expression is probably the MOST protected of freedoms in the U.S., but those protections aren't without limit. Slander, libel, incitement to commit violence, incitement to create panic, assault (the credible threat of violence), obscenity, pornography, public nudity (as expression), and - yes - threats against the President are all NON-protected speech.

No right is absolute because rights ultimately conflict and choices must be made between/among them.

Still, nothing 1st amendment has been implicated here. Facebook took down the poll, not the government. And frankly, while the poll itself is disgusting, I doubt that the prosecution could meet the the statutory burden of proof that the pollster presented a true threat to the president.

From what I can tell two people would be perfectly within their rights to hold a public discussion on the merits and consequences of having the president killed so long as neither proclaimed their intention to do so.

The statute:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t028.htm

THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT - 18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;

Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and

Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.

A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.

The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: BrownTown
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.

Quoted for idiocy. Good luck with your poll.

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 .

dude, you are a moron...this is NOT a public forum it is private and has rules, it is also not a government entity which is what the whole freedom of speech thing relates to.

christ...why the hell are people like this allowed to breathe?

OMG death threat, ban!!!

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: BrownTown
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.

Quoted for idiocy. Good luck with your poll.

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 .

dude, you are a moron...this is NOT a public forum it is private and has rules, it is also not a government entity which is what the whole freedom of speech thing relates to.

christ...why the hell are people like this allowed to breathe?

OMG death threat, ban!!!

See, thats exactly the amount of thought that the person who posted this poll probably put into it, and now the secret service is after him. Its one thing if Facebook takes it down, thats obviously their right, but the secret service investigation is a totally different animal. This wasn't treated like an administrative issue onthe forums it is being treated as a crime. People on ATOT make more explicit death threats against world leaders and each other every damn day and nobody gives a rats ass.

 

[Circlenaut]

Just curious is it illegal to threaten the lives of other politicians? Their families? How far does this protection go?

 

[JSt0rm]

this thread is a 9/10

bravo...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
See, thats exactly the amount of thought that the person who posted this poll probably put into it, and now the secret service is after him. Its one thing if Facebook takes it down, thats obviously their right, but the secret service investigation is a totally different animal. This wasn't treated like an administrative issue onthe forums it is being treated as a crime. People on ATOT make more explicit death threats against world leaders and each other every damn day and nobody gives a rats ass.

stop with the foreign leader analogies, how many foreign leaders have been killed by US citizens? The murder rate among US citizens is about 1 in 30,000. US presidents? About 1 in 10. So it's incumbent upon the SS to investigate. Contrary to what you say, this isn't being treated like a crime, and no one has been arrested. What it might do is give the SS some good leads on the whackos who actually do plan on taking action and are dumb enough to vote in a poll saying so. The SS will take a look and see if there's any there there. If not, they'll close the investigation and move on. I doubt it'll take them very long, and they do have about 300 other death threats to investigate.

Originally posted by: Pippy
Just curious is it illegal to threaten the lives of other politicians? Their families? How far does this protection go?

I'm not sure if a discrete statute bars threats against senators/congressmen, etc, but ordinary death threat laws cover those situations.

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: Pippy
Just curious is it illegal to threaten the lives of other politicians? Their families? How far does this protection go?

It is illegal to threaten anyone's life.

Don't worry though, I am sure that those who voted as such just miscast their vote like John Conyers did on defunding ACORN.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
this thread is a 9/10

bravo...

I laughed out loud... This thread is some powerful troll bait.

 

[piasabird]

I wonder what they would say if the poll was about whether we should assasinate the leader of Iran? I keep wondering why we let that terrorist into our country, and why the press loves him so much. Cant we at least tell Iran he can stay at home and we dont want him here?

It is not such a good idea to ask about killing the president of the country you live in when he was elected by the voice of the people (more or less). Arresting him or throwing him in jail or investigating him is another thing altogether.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I wonder what they would say if the poll was about whether we should assasinate the leader of Iran? I keep wondering why we let that terrorist into our country, and why the press loves him so much. Cant we at least tell Iran he can stay at home and we dont want him here?

It is not such a good idea to ask about killing the president of the country you live in when he was elected by the voice of the people (more or less). Arresting him or throwing him in jail or investigating him is another thing altogether.

I think you should actively work at getting the pres arrested, that should work out well for you (more or less)

 

[nullzero]

I was reading a while back about facebook have connections to the CIA. I do not know how true they are but it would make sense. Its a great way to know how the masses are feeling regarding war, economy, etc.

 

[jackschmittusa]

nullzero

Why would the CIA car about opinions about war, the economy, etc.? They have no domestic role.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
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.

Good thing we're a "civilized society" then, right?

Actually I believe you'll find we're falling far from that tree these days.

 

[FoBoT]

FBI located the person that created the poll, no charges to be filed

http://www.google.com/hostedne...NtzjgabE5mpzR0KM_xYnSQ

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
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.

Conservatives are a peaceful bunch, aren't they