It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LadySkadi
Awesome. I hope the morons who put the poll up and those who voted on it get some sort of a smack down (not for voicing their opinions) but for doing it in an incredibly stupid way. I'm all for free speech, this is true, but there are consequences associated with it (positive or negative) and one should expect that, as well.
Originally posted by ninecrimes
reply to post by LadySkadi
Why should their be consequences for discussing a topic with your peers?
Are we still in America?
Originally posted by LadySkadi
Yep, we are still in America...
If you want to discuss "killing" the President, expect it to be addressed. It would be the same thing if "someone" (quoted because I don't know who that someone/agency would be) picked up the key words in a cell phone conversation or online or any other type of form. This is not new.
Now, if peers want to discuss "killing" or whether the Pres. should be "killed" amongst themselves, off the grid where those "key words" aren't going to raise some flags, by all means go for it. However, if one chooses to do so in a very public, world wide format, expect it to draw some attention from some agency somewhere that will take it seriously.
Again, I never said "don't do it" go for it, if ya want, just expect someone, somewhere to notice and with notice comes some type of "consequence" (yes, again with that word)... whether that consequence is simply scrutiny or something more, who's to know?
Originally posted by ninecrimes
reply to post by LadySkadi
Why should their be consequences for discussing a topic with your peers?
Are we still in America?
Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by grover
The people that posted it should seriously be prosecuted to the full extent of our laws. Granted, they may not be from the good ole U.S. of A. But that is crossing the line. No matter if you dislike our current president or not. It's just as bad as the documentary where Bush Jr. got assassinated.
What is in that poll is NOT freedom of speech. Sorry. It's a sick question that crosses the line. And yes, there are those loose cannons out there that may take the results seriously enough and act on what they may feel is the stance of the majority of this nation. Which would be wrong. No American should ever want any president assassinated. Period.
Originally posted by threekings
reply to post by dariousg
and if the same question was posed about the leader of Iran?
Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by ninecrimes
I'm sorry, but I think the 'freedom of speech' line was crossed in the wording of this poll. When you ask if he should be assassinated it is a LOT different than asking if you think he will be. Period.
Yes, the question of whether he could be assassinated is a gray area topic but the one posed in the poll is black and white.
[edit on 28-9-2009 by dariousg]
www.lectlaw.com...
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.