Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

UK Teen Banned From US Over Obscene Obama Email 555

Posted by samzenpus
from the sticks-and-stones dept.
British teenager Luke Angel has been banned from the US for sending an email to the White House calling President Obama an obscenity. The 17-year-old says he was drunk when he sent the mail and doesn't understand what the big deal is. "I don't remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k. It was silly -- the sort of thing you do when you're a teenager and have had a few," he said. The FBI contacted local police who in turn confronted Luke and let him know that the US Department of Homeland Security didn't think his email was funny. "The police came and took my picture and told me I was banned from America forever. I don't really care but my parents aren't very happy," Angel said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Teen Banned From US Over Obscene Obama Email

Comments Filter:
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:06AM (#33574234)

    But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k.

    So what? I mean ... so what? A lot of Americans feel the same way and we don't have to be drunk to say it ... free speech and all that. Or do we believe that people in other countries shouldn't be able to express negative opinions about our leaders? What kind of example are we trying to set here?

    Low hanging fruit, I guess. As if a drunken teenager's ramblings constituted some credible threat against the President. Besides, I'm a little confused on how a kid gets banned from the United States forever for performing an action that isn't illegal in this country, probably isn't illegal in his, and should have been entirely beneath law enforcement's radar anyway? Why didn't his local cops tell the FBI to go pound sand? What if he'd been visiting the United States when he wrote that? Would we have imprisoned or deported him? Does the FBI use lead plumbing?

    Yeah, I'm kinda embarrassed by this. Don't try to tell me that every President since the we starting having them hasn't received thousands of messages a year calling him all kinds of names. It's part and parcel of the job: if you don't have a pretty thick skin you have no business being a politician in the first place. So, what made them single this kid out from the rest of the pack? Does the FBI ban every foreigner who expresses a negative opinion of the President from ever setting foot in our country?

    Personally, I'd like to know what Obama thinks of this silliness, what he thinks has been accomplished here. It sounds to me like a couple of Federal agents need to have their wings clipped, or at least should be assigned duties more suitable for their temperament. Reading obituaries, maybe.

    • by Em Emalb (452530) <ememalb AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:10AM (#33574320) Homepage Journal

      Love the lack of free speech here.

      Burn a flag, protest, do whatever, but HOW DARE YOU CALL OUR PRESIDENT A PRICK!

      You sir, will never visit our country!

      Sometimes I can't believe I live in this country, it's so goddamned weird.

      • by Pojut (1027544) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:13AM (#33574368) Homepage

        Love the fact that you cite lack of free speech, yet cite burning the flag and protesting as things that you can legally do in this country.

        I swear, most Americans don't realize how good we actually have it.

        • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:17AM (#33574462)

          Love the fact that you cite lack of free speech, yet cite burning the flag and protesting as things that you can legally do in this country.

          Yeah ... he didn't actually make his case very well, did he.

          I swear, most Americans don't realize how good we actually have it.

          No, we don't, and it's that complacency that's virtually guaranteed to lose us everything we have left, eventually.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Pojut (1027544)

            No, we don't, and it's that complacency that's virtually guaranteed to lose us everything we have left, eventually.

            I didn't say things were perfect, just better than most people make it out to be.

            Compare living in America to many other countries in the world, and tell me we don't have, in the grand scheme of things, relatively easy and free lives. Could it be better? Certainly. Do we have to be careful that we don't lose that relatively easy and free living? Absolutely. But it's not all doom and gloom...I'd much rather live here than dozens of other countries.

            • by feepness (543479) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:41AM (#33574864) Homepage

              I'd much rather live here than dozens of other countries.

              The constant travel leave you exhausted!

            • by Haffner (1349071) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:46AM (#33574968)

              Let me put my opinion into a mathematical analogy (it'll make sense). Let's say there's a big graph. Y Axis is "How great your country is" in some sort of measurement. X Axis is time. We move right on the graph as time moves forward. Right now, the US function may be at/near the top of the graph. However, the derivative of the US function is negative. In fact, if the derivatives of all the nation's position functions were graphed, we would be pretty close to the bottom. Sure, there are some countries (like African ones that just had a coup, or something) that may be falling faster than us, but our derivative is negative and big. And more importantly, our second derivative is negative, and it's also very negative. We are going to get worse faster than we have been, is basically all that means.

              Some analysis of that: Position (where we are right now) we rank 1st, let's say. Speed (what's being done right now) we are going in the wrong direction, and we are heading there quickly. Acceleration (what's going to happen to the speed) is also headed in the wrong direction, and its also getting more negative quickly. To translate this to the real world, position is our current set of laws. Speed is the laws that are getting passed that are dropping our position (right to privacy, open government, etc), and acceleration is really public opinion - a positive acceleration with a very negative speed means that the population realizes things are bad, and they are trying hard to change it for the better. An acceleration of zero means people are happy with the direction the country is going in, or at least they don't care enough to change it. Negative acceleration means people are actively setting the stage for the next batch of politicians to be even worse than the current ones.

              It may be lengthy, but I like using these three criteria as a means of rating government. When people tell me America is the greatest, I agree, but then explain how it won't be very soon. Most people disagree at first, but after some arguing, most people agree with the acceleration argument, and probably half (democrats, mainly) agree with the speed.

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by russotto (537200)

                Some analysis of that: Position (where we are right now) we rank 1st, let's say. Speed (what's being done right now) we are going in the wrong direction, and we are heading there quickly. Acceleration (what's going to happen to the speed) is also headed in the wrong direction, and its also getting more negative quickly.

                Yeah, but jerk is off the charts, as this story proves.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by rainmouse (1784278)

                Some analysis of that: Position (where we are right now) we rank 1st, let's say.

                Good post although many Americans claim to live in the greatest country in the world I challenge firstly what they actually mean by that and secondly how they come to this conclusion given that only a suspected 22% of Americans even have a passport (http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2010/02/17/how-many-americans-have-a-passport-2/)
                For me I think that quality of life would rank pretty highly in my choice of the greatest country to live in.
                http://www.tripbase.com/blog/top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world/ [tripbase.com]

            • by vertinox (846076) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @02:52PM (#33578462)

              But it's not all doom and gloom...I'd much rather live here than dozens of other countries.

              As an American citizen here is the following list of countries I'd rather live in than here first (in order of preference):

              Japan
              Sweden
              Norway
              Netherlands
              Canada
              Iceland
              Switzerland
              Czech
              France
              Germany
              UK

              and then the USA

              Why? I'd probably do Japan first because of their public transportation and culture of being nice and polite (couldn't feel that every time I've been) and everyone else on the list in order of their quality of socialist programs.

              I don't care what you say... If Socialism creates hell holes... Then I really don't know why Sweden and Norway aren't hellholes they should be. Quite the opposite.

          • Bad Slashdot summary (Score:5, Informative)

            by Futurepower(R) (558542) <MJennings.USA@NOT_any_of_THISgmail.com> on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:36AM (#33574782) Homepage
            The usual: Bad Slashdot summary. The facts: Police said the e-mail to the US president was full of abusive language [bbc.co.uk].
            • by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @12:29PM (#33575694) Homepage

              Fox News is often full of abusive language towards the President. Can we ban them? :)

              • by BobMcD (601576) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @01:44PM (#33577188)

                Fox News is often full of abusive language towards the President. Can we ban them? :)

                Not only is this not funny, nor informative, but shockingly dangerous.

                Suggesting we ban press outlets is decidedly anti-American, whether you personally consider them of any value or not. Change the channel, not the law.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tophermeyer (1573841)
        No suppression of his free speech in this case. He's still got the freedom to speak as far as the US is concerned. We've just asked him never to come onto our property. Any property owner in the US has that right.
        • by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:19AM (#33574506) Journal

          The President doesn't own the US soil, airports, etc. Hell, some Presidents (Clinton) didn't even own their own home.

          And "freedom of speech, but there will be consequences" is not the same as "freedom of speech".

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Score Whore (32328)

            Unless you are much much much older than I suspect (like hundreds of years old) you've never had consequence-free free speech. What the US Constitution provides is for the opportunity to participate in the political discourse without the government interfering. There are lots of things you cannot blithely say, you can't threaten to kill people (in particular the president of the us), you can't make false statements about people, you can't lie while under oath, etc.

            Besides there's more to this than some kind

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            And "freedom of speech, but there will be consequences" is not the same as "freedom of speech".

            In the USSR, it was said you could say anything you want, once. :)

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by operagost (62405)
          Tell that to the people who don't think enforcing our immigration laws is important.
        • by sammy baby (14909)

          Depends on where he was when he sent the text. It's widely recognized that constitutional protections don't only apply to citizens, although they've never been construed as applying to non-citizens in other sovereign nations, as far as I know.

          The US of A is not the government's property, and is not "collectively owned" by the nation, as much as I love Woody Guthrie, so that's a pretty terrible analogy.

          But with all that said, this sounds really, really stupid and fishy to me. Like, "is there something else

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by horatio (127595)
        I'm trying to figure out how "prick" is obscenity, so much so to get you banned from the United States? I don't think this is about the kid or the word. I think this is more about the kid is British. Whatever you think of them or us or Bush or whatever, there are plenty of examples of thinly veiled hostility from this administration toward our most important ally in the world.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by geekoid (135745)

        It's the Sun. This story sin't true. Stop it, just stop jumping and screaming and get all worked up of a headline from an article in the Sun.

    • by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:15AM (#33574406) Journal

      Or do we believe that people in other countries shouldn't be able to express negative opinions about our leaders?

      Of course we believe other countries should have freedom of speech, which is why we invade them. Obviously, it is even worth killing thousands upon thousands of people (or more) for it. Me thinks that this won't last, as any court in the US would see this as problematic. The 1st Amendment *clearly* is not limited to citizens.

      • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:36AM (#33574778) Homepage

        Of course we believe other countries should have freedom of speech, which is why we invade them. Obviously, it is even worth killing thousands upon thousands of people (or more) for it. Me thinks that this won't last, as any court in the US would see this as problematic. The 1st Amendment *clearly* is not limited to citizens.

        True, but unless you are a US citizen or apply for a permit you have no right to be allowed into the US. Many, many people are turned away at the border or departed and it's not a breach of their rights in any way. And I don't know what if any international agreements the US has with the UK, but I'm quite sure they'd contain a provision to reject anyone they wish. So legally no, I don't think he's got a leg to stand on. Not because of his actions, but because he was never entitled to in the first place.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by david.given (6740)

        The 1st Amendment *clearly* is not limited to citizens.

        Well, no --- that was what the whole Guantanamo Bay thing was about; the legal fiction was that since the interns were neither citizens nor prisoners of war, and were not held on non-US soil, then constitutional and international treaty rights did not apply.

        And as a visitor to the US, the piece of paper they made me sign on entry was very scary. As a non-citizen on US soil I can be deported at any time, for any reason, with no right to appeal... and if they did decide to deport me, I wouldn't even be allo

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Well, no --- that was what the whole Guantanamo Bay thing was about; the legal fiction was that since the interns were neither citizens nor prisoners of war, and were not held on non-US soil, then constitutional and international treaty rights did not apply.

          What Constituional rights? The First Amendment doesn't say "Citizens are permitted to..." It says (paraphrased) Congress shall not.

          It grants us nothing. It doesn't matter if someone comes down from the Andromeda galaxy, it is a rule by which the gove

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:17AM (#33574470)

      I think there's more to it. According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303) his email was "full of abusive and threatening language". The 'threatening' part is the problem. All threats aimed at the white house get investigated, regardless of who makes them. If you're in the US, they'll come visit you (a relative-of-a-friend of mine had it happen to them several years ago). Outside of the US, apparently they just ban you. This isn't new to this President.

      Yes, it does seem a lot of fuss over not a lot though.

      • I think there's more to it. According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303) his email was "full of abusive and threatening language". The 'threatening' part is the problem. All threats aimed at the white house get investigated, regardless of who makes them. If you're in the US, they'll come visit you (a relative-of-a-friend of mine had it happen to them several years ago). Outside of the US, apparently they just ban you. This isn't new to this President.

        Yes, it does seem a lot of fuss over not a lot though.

        According to the article (not that I place much faith in it, but whatever) there are some sixty things you can do that will get you banned, of course, they aren't allowed to actually tell anyone what they are. Does anyone know what that DHS person was reputedly talking about?

    • USSR joke (Score:5, Insightful)

      by roman_mir (125474) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:32AM (#33574740) Homepage Journal

      There was a joke in the former USSR, it went like so:

      An American and a Soviet are arguing who has more freedom in their respective countries.
      American says:
      -In USA anybody can just stand in front of the White House and yell "Down with Reagan!", nobody will do anything to do him, it's legal.
      Soviet says:
      -In USSR ANYBODY can just stand in front of the Kremlin and yell "Down with Reagan!" too, and nobody will touch him either.

      -----

      But of-course this kid was not an American standing right in front of the White House and yelling 'Down with Reagan!', I suppose that's the difference here.

    • by Music2Eat (1878664) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:37AM (#33574792)
      According to the BBC article he also threatened the President. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303 [bbc.co.uk] Of course mentioning that in the summary wouldn't have gotten the /. Free Speach RAH RAH RAH cheerleaders dancing.

      In case you were unaware, threatening the President of the United States is against the law in the US. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html [cornell.edu] If he'd done it in the US, my guess is he would have been arrested and deported.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by horza (87255)

        The 'threatening' part of the article immediately stood out. If you threaten a nation's leader, they are hardly going to roll out the red carpet if you want to visit. Especially if you blank out and can't remember what you are doing when you are drunk, but it involves harbouring violent sentiment to the President. Not encouraging.

        I don't see any problem with banning the guy from the country until he grows up.

        Phillip.

    • by TheCarp (96830)

      > Why didn't his local cops tell the FBI to go pound sand?

      Actually, having chatted with some people who lived in the UK, I am not surprised. Frankly, they seem to civil to tell anyone to pound sand. A friend was relating a story about a loud party that the police came to deal with. In this country, these things tend to end with the police acting like a bunch of violent douchebags itching for a fight, with lots of threats and chest pounding.

      There it was more like: "Say old chap, I am from the noise commis

  • by Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:09AM (#33574292)

    A prick?

    The first article I read about this just showed it as p****, so I thought it might be pussy.

    Just show the fucking word, people. It's not that big of a deal.

    • A prick?

      The first article I read about this just showed it as p****, so I thought it might be pussy.

      Just show the fucking word, people. It's not that big of a deal.

      Yes, well, us Yanks are a big prudish about such things you know.

      Now, if he'd called the President a "prick" vs. a "pussy" or even a "punk", would the FBI have reacted differently to his choice of words?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Andrewkov (140579)

        He should have called him a wanker and then gotten away with it.

      • by xaxa (988988) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:34AM (#33574762)

        A prick?

        The first article I read about this just showed it as p****, so I thought it might be pussy.

        Yes, well, us Yanks are a big prudish about such things you know.

        The article is in the Sun. Pussy is on Page 3 [wikipedia.org] (NSFW [page3.com]).

        The BBC [bbc.co.uk] have the story, so it may even be true. It's a bit disappointing to see The Sun relying on facts -- have they run out of imagination?

    • by Pojut (1027544) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:15AM (#33574416) Homepage

      "Remember son, if an upper-classman calls you a pussy, just respond 'I am what I eat'" -Advice from my Dad on my first day of high school

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      I suspect he actually called him a nigger, and just doesn't want to admit it publicly. And that's pretty ignorant. He obviously doesn't even know that Obama is half white.
    • by Xest (935314)

      Yes, the word was "prick".

      Apparently it was after he'd watched a load of 9/11 conspiracy nut films, assuming the whole story is even true of course.

      What's the bet though, true or not, this story will result in a Streisand type effect and before you know it the Whitehouse inbox will be full of "Prick", "Prick Prick Prick Prick Prick Prick", e-mails.

  • So when does calling the president an unsavory name get you exiled? Ya, emailing the White House and calling the president a name isn't "smart" but it isn't illegal unless it constitutes a threat either. If you can be banned from ever entering the country for that "offense", when are we going to be exiled for doing the same?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by craftycoder (1851452)

      Exile: The state of being banished from one's home or country.

      He wasn't exiled because he is not a citizen. He is just an obnoxious child who lost the privilege to visit our nation. We have enough rude and obnoxious people of our own already, why do need to invite them in from other countries as well?

      • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:25AM (#33574618) Journal

        EVERYONE in Britain is rude. Have you ever been there? Hell, look up Wii Fit Plus on Youtube...

        American Wii Fit trainer chick: That's it. Focus on your breathing. Let's try to do ten. One... two... three... you're doing good so far... four... five... six...

        British Wii Fit trainer chick: Let's do ten now! One.. two... come on can't you put some muscle into it?! Three... four... just five more ya fat lump! Six... seven... eight... nine... come on now... ten! There, thought ye were gonna cry for a minute there!

    • by Altus (1034)

      Not exile. He isn't an American. He has simply been told that he is not welcome on American soil. This is a right that any sovereign nation has and they don't have to give a reason. You can have your access to another country denied simply because the guy at immigration didn't like the way you looked at him.

      It's all fun and games until it happens to you

  • We'll teach him that America doesn't tolerate someone speaking freely!
  • by Jailbrekr (73837) <jailbrekr@digitaladdiction.net> on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:11AM (#33574350) Homepage

    I suspect that the Whitehouse is going to be getting A LOT of emails from angsty edgy teenagers calling him more than just a prick.

  • Hey, Obama. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sean_Inconsequential (1883900) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:12AM (#33574356)
    You are a prick. Sincerely, a guy that lives in America.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Guys gets interviewed by a newspaper after getting tracked down by the FBI and banned from the US for life, says it was just a "silly" email, "think I called [him] a prick".

    Suuuuure. "Abusive and threatening" is all the other side will say, but I suspect Mr Angel's email was a little worse than he was letting on. My guess is racial abuse and death threats. But hey, play the innocent, because those Tea Party guys with mildly offensive signs are also getting tracked down by the FBI, right? Right?
  • He THINKS he knows (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:16AM (#33574446)

    "I don't remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. "

    He said he thinks that he called the president a prick. If the provider didn't delete the email (I doubt it), I bet he knows EXACTLY what he wrote since he can look up the damned thing. Probably made some comment like "If I ever see you I'm going to..." but decided not to 'remember' that part in order to not have the rest of the world respond with, "What did you THINK would happen?"

    Personally, I can think of a lot more worse things that could happen, especially if instead of the president, I emailed my boss while drunk.

  • by Marx_Mrvelous (532372) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:16AM (#33574454) Homepage
    I'm going to reserve judgement until the exact text of the e-mail is published. He can't remember what he wrote? BS. There will be a copy in his Sent E-mail folder. I'm guessing he did a lot more than call the POS a bad name. He probably included some threats, veiled or not, and that is the real reason he was paid a visit and banned from entering the country. But until we know what the e-mail says, we can't tell if the reaction was proportionate to the action. Basically, it's a chance for political bashing. Worthless journalism.
    • by bareman (60518)

      I'm guessing that you're correct and there was much more to the message threat-wise rather than just a bit of drunken ad hominem.

      I'd have to see the whole thing to pass judgement and I'd be rather disgusted if it was just about name calling. I'm guessing there's more to it than that.

    • by TitusC3v5 (608284)
      The article is by the Sun. It was worthless to begin with. I would not be surprised if the entire article was fabricated or severely stretching the facts.
  • by Blindman (36862) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:17AM (#33574460) Journal

    From the article, it seems that he might have said a little more than the one sentence quoted above. Not that he is an American citizen, but calling the President names should qualify as protected speech, albeit juvenile protected speech. However, if he also made threats against the President, then that is an entirely different matter.

  • by wonkavader (605434) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:21AM (#33574538)

    I can't believe how little changed. What has seems for the worse.

    What a colossal disappointment this administration is.

  • So a drunk kid doesn't remember what he sent. Okay, I can see that. Now go to the sent messages folder and see what you sent. I bet it was more than calling the president a punk.
  • by abqaussie (1250734) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:23AM (#33574574)
    Um, the original article is from the UK Sun, which is pretty much equivalent to the Weekly World News or any other made up tabloid. Gizmodo linked to it and has since retracted their reporting because the article is false. http://gizmodo.com/5637203/drunk-email-to-obama-gets-british-teen-banned-from-america-for-life [gizmodo.com] Way to believe everything you read on the internet.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      From what I understand it's more like The Post, also owned by Murdoch, than Weekly World News. Rubbish nonetheless. Watch for the The Post write it's own story about it then The Washington Post, again owned by Murdoch, to write about the 'controversy'.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Nimey (114278)

        It's the New York Post that's owned by Murdoch.

  • by Nimey (114278) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:23AM (#33574586) Homepage Journal

    I'm not saying that this *didn't* happen, but the Sun is gutter trash with as much credibility as the National Enquirer.

    The Sun is also owned by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame.

    I'll need to have a report from a trustworthy source to believe this one, especially around election time.

    • by moosesocks (264553) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:46AM (#33574964) Homepage

      Concur. The Sun's source for the "banned from the US" claim is the word of the kid, allegedly based off of what some local cop told him.

      So, yeah. I'd actually be willing to bet money that this story is fabricated.

    • rupert murdoch (Score:5, Interesting)

      by circletimessquare (444983) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [erauqssemitelcric]> on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @12:16PM (#33575480) Homepage Journal

      has successfully repackaged propaganda as news, and has done untold damage to the civil discourse in half a dozen nations

      why is this guy allowed to continue publishing under the guise of being a news source?

      of course you shouldn't stop publishing him, its free speech. and of course the retards who unquestioningly trust this filth (obama is a "secret muslim!") share the blame

      but doesn't society have a duty to clearly delineate fact from fiction? to, for example, insist that what this man publishes is "for entertainment value only, not to be confused with news"

      the man is damaging western civilization by driving the topic of mass conversation into the area of political spin and smearmongering. surely we have a duty to insist that what is presented as news be news. otherwise, this man is assembling the riff raff into an angry stupid propagandized fountain of ill will eating at society

      label the shit this man publishes, mark it clearly as fiction. let him have his corporate agenda-funded propaganda, its free speech. but i don't want to pay this cognitive tax on the stupid when it comes to civil discourse in my country any more

  • It was handled poorly, but it needed to be handled. There's an evolution to things like this that get away from you if you take small enough steps...

    "Your leader is a punk"...
    "Your leader is awful"...
    "I hate your leader"...
    "I wish your leader was removed from office"...
    "I wish your leader was dead"...
    "I wish someone would kill your leader"...
    "I'm going to kill your leader"

    It doesn't take very long to get from calling someone a punk to saying you're going to kill them. You can argue that wishi
  • You know, I wrote the Chinese government years ago, about their invasion of Tibet. A few times over the years, I've wondered if going to China after that would be a bad idea. However, nothing ever came of it. Interesting that the US got so much more worked up.

    • However, nothing ever came of it. Interesting that the US got so much more worked up.

      Still, if a government is going to behave poorly, it's best that it do so right out in the open. Were you wise to be concerned about a message you sent to the Chinese government, assuming you were being critical of it? I don't know. But I would be very surprised if that didn't get a file opened on you somewhere, and you'll never know if that will come back to haunt you some day.

  • by Haedrian (1676506)

    "criticising the US Government after seeing a TV programme about 9/11."

    Did I fall into a wormhole or something? Or was 9/11 a few years before Obama came into power?

  • after all, most men here are circumcised.
  • Its from the Sun (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hungus (585181) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:41AM (#33574860) Journal

    The article is from The Sun [thesun.co.uk], a newspaper known mostly for its page 3 girls [page3.com](NSFW). The Sun is slightly more reliable than the Weekly World News [weeklyworldnews.com] slightly less reliable than most guests on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory [coasttocoastam.com].

  • Original Source (Score:3, Informative)

    by Javez (1876864) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @12:40PM (#33575940)
    The ORIGINAL article was actually published in the local paper on Sunday 12/09/2010 http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Teen-is-banned-from-USA-over-Obama-hate-email.htm [bedfordshire-news.co.uk] It also says he was "drunk and hgh" conveniently left out of the "Nationals"...
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @03:03PM (#33578634)

    He can just walk in from Mexico any time he likes.

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.

Working...