It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Secret Service Investigating Facebook Poll Asking Whether Obama Should Be Killed

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by dariousg

Is it because it refers to the president or do you think the poll should not be made regarding anyone?

I don't think you would have the same issue if the poll asked whether these following people should or should have in the past been assassinated;
Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Hitler, Escobar, Stalin, Ahmadinejad, maybe even Arafat. Lets name some more, Kim Jong il, Pol Pot (Cambodia), Mao Zedong, Mugabe.

Hmm, Now, the only difference of these people I can find with Obama is that posing the question as a follower of them could get you jailed/killed/tortured/ejected.

But we are fairly more civilized than that, are we not?

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:42 PM
This is free speech and as such should be protected. That said, facebook could have said no and it is their decision to take it down and I applaud them for it.

I'm as against Obama's policies as anyone...Except for maybe republicans, but they just don't like democrats period, but this country has a painful relationship with political assassinations. If Obama were to be killed it would destroy this country from within. There would be riots in the streets, and Black Americans would feel thrust further back creating a hell of a lot of racial tension, and eventually a civil war that is racially motivated.

People never think of what could happen. I'm telling you right now that if this man dies of anything but natural causes while in Office everything would fall apart in a matter of days.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:43 PM
reply to post by dariousg

I too believe it crosses a line. We do have laws governing what is called "Hate Speech" and as much as it is left to interpretation the suggestion as subliminal as it may have been certainly falls well within the definition.

We're talking about the President here...if the speech is protected then take it to the courts.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:44 PM
I think that it was in very bad taste, and does boarder the question of if it is legal. If the question was put more like when should we consider removing the President from office, then it would have been alright, but to ask when to assinate him, well then that is just in bad taste. The way things are going with as much as of an uproar that Obama is making, such needs not to be put out there, kind of like adding gas to the fire.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:46 PM
For all you "free speech" supporters:

The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.

Free speach has a line that can not be crossed - according to LAW.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by projectvxn

It is just as likely it would fall apart from half the country celebrating and not showing up for work as it is that the country would fall apart from grief and rioting.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
There is a line to free speach. We have all heard this before, but it is true: you can not walk into a crowded theater and yell "fire" when there is no fire. There are reasons for this. You could cause unecessary harm to others, as people freak out and trample each other trying to get out.

You can hate the president and say: I hate the president. But you can not by law, talk about assinating him. It is law.
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.

If one can not see the danger in allowing people to make polls and talk about assignating the president, then, there is no hope.

The poll said: Should Obama be killed.

Screen shot here:

Thank you for proving that he did not break any laws.

No threat was made. Thus, the poll was 100% legal.

As for the OP, saying we all know it is covered in our freedom of speech- that is not true. Over 1/2 of the posts on this thread are calling for the poll creator to be punished, when he didn't break any laws.

You all want to prosecute someone who committed no crime, just because you disagree with his message? If I could see your face while you spew that garbage, I'd be tempted to give you a fat lip.

As for the poll being appropriate.. I agree- it was NOT appropriate. The poll creator should be ashamed of them self. However, they broke no law so they should NOT be punished as if they did.

What a bunch of nut cases... honestly, you guys are sounding like a bunch of anti Americans, so quick to relinquish your freedom of speech.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:52 PM

Originally posted by threekings
reply to post by dariousg

and if the same question was posed about the leader of Iran?

It doesn't matter. Like I said before, if they posed the question as 'will' or 'could' then it's a different thing altogether. It doesn't matter who the person is. The message is simple and it promotes the thoughts of killing a world leader.

And I have nothing against Iran....YET.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by ninecrimes

Please go up a few posts

and read what the law says free speach is. I would bet according to what the Supreme Court says, he/she did break a law.

And I am FAR from anti-American. And I cant stand our president. I think he is the worst president ever. But law is law. Dont like it, change it.

[edit on September 28th 2009 by greeneyedleo]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by greeneyedleo

Keyword = PROHIBIT. Where does it say PUNISH like the people in this thread are asking for?

This thread is so ridiculous, I am leaving it now to avoid losing my mind over you disinfo agents.

Keep giving away your rights.

Keep fighting with each other over simple opinions.

Bunch of sheep.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by grover

These past presidents hardly represented the average American. One screwed around on his wife (Clinton) the other was a moron (Bush) etc etc etc. But yes,, technically they do..... but not literally.
I didn't vote in the last 4 presidents. So, just because he's in the White House does not mean, he represents the American people per se. In fact, these SELECTED officials are embarrassing and making a mockery out of Americans.

Back to the thread-subject at hand. Everyone has to be accountable for their own actions. It's ludicrous any other way.
If this weren't the case then, everyone can just act out and simply blame it on a television show they just watched. If someone is going to get 'inspired' to kill someone due to something they read (and BLAME it on that) then..... we're in BIG trouble.
How can a writer/surveyor be responsible for someone else's actions? That's weak.

I didn't read whatever they're saying was written on FaceBook but it WOULD be interesting to see/read how the American people are feeling. It's a simple question. Not a nice one, but an honest one.
It's not like it was phrased "How many people are willing to murder the president". That's entirely different.


posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by ninecrimes

Prohibit yes. Therefore if someone violates what is prohibited, they break the law.

Sorry you can not have a reasonable and rational discussion. There are people on this thread who never agree with each other on political things, yet we can see that this is a clear violation of the laws set in place.

There is no reason to resort to name calling.

[edit on September 28th 2009 by greeneyedleo]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:00 PM
There was a thread on ATS about the Obama administration seeking to collect data on social network site users such as face book etc.

What better way would they have to find and arrest potential threats to the president than to set up this poll, wait to see if anyone answers yes, then make those people targets for investigations?

If you answered yes, you may have a visit from the secret service in the near future.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:00 PM
Since people seem like they want the Gov. to take action against people posing questions about assassinating or condoning assassinations of world leaders lets hope the secret service investigates these ones as well:

Ki m Jong Il
Bin Laden

This took two minutes to put together, I'm sure more can be found with adequate time.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by TwoPhish

The fact is he is in the White House which in itself states that he represents the majority of the population unless of course you have some evidence of voter fraud.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:12 PM
As has already probably been said, if this was about Bush a few years ago, everyone would be yelling against it, now it seems okay with the public. What happened, did people forget they didn't like Bush too?

They're doing the job their assigned to do. Agree or not with his policies, that's how it is

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
As much as I hate Obama and hate my government violence is a last resort and assassinating a democratically elected President is a very desperate act saved for a last resort. Americans should be ASHAMED of themselves for even thinking about such an act. Obama doesn't deserve to be killed or assassinated. He's got a wife and kids and although seems evil to some is still a human being.

I guess I'm a hypocrite and sometimes get so angry that I would love to see politicians in the street with Columbian neckties. But we as a nation are not there yet and let's hope we never have to go that route.

Obama is directly responsible for the slaughter of other human being fathers who had wives, mothers, kids, friends and loved ones... many of them American.

People who cause death & violence should expect some of that to come back at them. It should come as no surprise someone out there thinks an eye for an eye would be appropriate.

Maybe if the DC mafia leaders experienced some of the violence they happily dole out, they would re-evaluate their behavior.

Will taking out 1 man have the potential of heading off another bogus war? possibly saving 1000s of lives?.. nothing wrong with that discussion IMO.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by threekings

First off I take issue with your blanket statement that the posters here are looking for some kind of punishment. I read only one that called for prosecution.

Second... the four wrongs you listed concerning the assassination of other world leaders is just as bad ( I'm sure represents but a small cupboard full of whack jobs also) doesn't make this poll any more pallidable to reasonable people.

I'm all for defining and tweaking the laws with this kind of speech. I say the investigation should happen, prosecution however depends on the findings.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:21 PM
Yes, the poll is tasteless. But where was your bantering and patriotic attitude when Bush was in Office and the Guardian ran a piece calling for exactly the same thing in 2004? I daresay you, Grover, and your hate for Republicans and Bush, would be singing a different tune.

The article was since removed by the Guardian, but in the link above, someone copied and pasted the full article and posted into the Forum above. The offending note didn't appear until the end of the piece, but it was very clear where it said:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

- Charlie Brooker, The Guardian, Saturday October 23, 2004

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by sos37

I took you out of ignore just to see what you would say..just a typical attack from you.

Check my joining date.

If I had seen guardian's post I would have condemned it as well.

Back to ignore you go.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in