UK Teen Banned From US Over Obscene Obama Email 555
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.
Now that's just stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:5, Funny)
I'd much rather live here than dozens of other countries.
The constant travel leave you exhausted!
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Yeah, but jerk is off the charts, as this story proves.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, but mere criticism isn't very helpful, and the fact we have it so good means that proposals to change the system should be met with great skepticism and considered conservatively. We have a lot to lose, and so the bar for change should be correspondingly high. Much like any life-safety engineering process, you don't want to just run with some idea that sounds good - and yet, you see people proposing that all the time when it comes to government.
If you live in a hellhole, changing somehting at rando
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Bad Slashdot summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Fox News is often full of abusive language towards the President. Can we ban them? :)
Re:Bad Slashdot summary (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Bad Slashdot summary (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it depends on what the e-mail said exactly. Ironically, the poster who complained about a poor summary neglected to mention this part: "Bedfordshire police, who then visited Luke, said the e-mail was full of abusive and threatening language."
Making threats against the President, credible or otherwise, IS a crime in this country and it IS typical to bar criminals from entry unless we plan to request extradition and prosecute them domestically. Visiting here is a privilege (in the legal sense of the word), not a right.
All in all this is basically a slap on the wrist for a slap-on-the-wrist-worthy offense. I'm sure this young man can appeal the decision should he really care, though it appears he does not. Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Visiting here is a privilege (in the legal sense of the word), not a right.
I don't intend to derail this conversation, but I'd like to point out that this seems to depend greatly on your nationality. Juxtapose these:
A) White kid from Britain wants to be here - Privilege, not a right.
B) Mexican wants to live and work here - Civil Rights issue.
Go figure...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 st
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They knew exactly who this kid was, I'm sure right down to his shoe size and what his girlfriend wore to the dinner date they went on last Friday night. They would have pulled his school records and his medical records for any history of mental illness. They would have found all that out and then some to make sure they were accomplishing their task of presidential protection.
Then the feds called the local cops, they went and knocked on his door, the kid 'fessed up. According to the law I quoted, the feds
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension is your friend.
You're right, it is. Good thing I have it.
"Here" referred to the situation, not the country.
If it was just in reference to the situation, why bring up flag burning and protests...two things which have nothing to do with someone being banned from the US for an "obscene" email?
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but he volunteered to put his life at risk fighting for this nation, its people and the principles it represents. He has earned the right to speak in support of those principles and defend them further, particularly in cases where they have seemingly been forgotten, misunderstood or taken lightly.
A noble effort to be sure, but serving in the armed forces hardly adds weight to your opinion on domestic matters. International matters sure, since you (the general "you") will have see more than I...but views on the general trials and tribulations of the public in America are not enhanced by service.
A highly unpopular opinion, yet one made by looking at things objectively and attempting impartiality.
This does not make your opinion "wrong" or less valid, though it carries a bit less weight in my estimation, since you offer opinion alone, while his opinion is backed by the willingness to defend it.
So if his opinion was that child molestation should be legal, his opinion would carry more weight because he was willing to fight for it? An extreme example, I know...but you get my point.
You may be equally willing, but we don't know that.
Which was my main problem with his post. He assumed many things about me personally, while simultaneously accusing me of assuming things about him...despite the fact that I only responded to what he had written, and not based on assumptions of his actions or character.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
He has earned the right to speak in support of those principles...
So has every American citizen. Sorry but having served in the armed forces doesn't give one extra special First Amendment rights with a cherry on top compared to those who haven't. You may give his opinion more weight but that is not the same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm trying to figure out how "prick" is obscenity
"You can prick your finger, but don't finger your prick, no no!" -George Carlin
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
The government does have the exclusive powers of securing our border.
LOL! They can start with the southern one. Starting right now!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:USSR joke (Score:4, Funny)
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.
obviously, otherwise he'd be a czar now.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If anything, ban him til the end of Obama's term...
Really. Who knows, he might have something nice to say about our next President.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
That was run on "The Sun". They're as trustworthy as the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer.
Reread the story a few times. Maybe you'll spot the error.
DHS, FBI, and his local police were all involved to deliver a warning (via the local police). Not very likely.
The Secret Service protects the president, and investigates threats to him (among other things, of course). Either they would have gone directly to the kid, or they would have gone through Interpol.
I've seen the kind of mail that comes across the desks of our political representatives. Even the local ones get letters, emails, and phone calls that are an awful lot worse than just saying "you're a prick." If any branch of law enforcement were to start following up on every communication like this, it would be a huge and virtually impossible task. Even still, that kind of follow up wouldn't be by order of the POTUS. He doesn't read his mail or email. Well, I'm sure he sees some, but there are staffers that go through that stuff all day every day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And that's the screwy thing here. If it had been the Secret Service here, I'd had been willing to accept that his drunk rant contianed a threat, and the Secret Service must take all such things seriously. But it wasn't, it was the FBI, which suggests there wasn't any threat, just displeasure expressed. Sounds to me like the FBI overstepped.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. This is the United States of America, one of the core principles is that you should be allowed to call your elected representatives pricks. Especially when they are, like this administration is proving to be. It takes quite a bit to be even more secretive than the Bush administration, but damn it, they're succeeding.
There had better be more to this story, because simply calling the president a prick is just - well, boring. Hell, it's downright kind compared to other things he's been called by the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If your point is, "If it's not an actual imminent threat, it should just be ignored." that seems like a reasonable point of view. Many people would argue with you, but not I. I'd love to see every single person on the dole involved in this silliness to be fired. When I say the dole, I mean the police and FBI guys sucking on the bloated breast of government when they should go find a real job so this absurd deficit can be done with and those people can be productive members of society instead of just parasit
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And punks. Dickheads. Douchebags. And ugly. With bad odor.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
The whole thing is fake you twat. http://gizmodo.com/5637203/drunk-email-to-obama-gets-british-teen-banned-from-america-for-life [gizmodo.com].
and i call you a twat cause its my freedom of speech and because you should check your facts before spewing
Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative (Score:4, Insightful)
Double standards, thou name is Britain.
I have a single standard for shitty use of pseudo-olde English. I hold you and anyone else who uses "thou" when only "thy" would work in equal contempt.
What did he call him? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
He should have called him a wanker and then gotten away with it.
Re:What did he call him? (Score:4, Funny)
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?
Re:What did he call him? (Score:5, Funny)
"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:2)
"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
Your Dad sounds like a pretty cool dude. Good advice anyway.
Re:What did he call him? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Re:So, when? (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
That'll show him! (Score:2, Troll)
Streisand effect (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quick! Someone alert 4chan!
Hey, Obama. (Score:3, Informative)
Just called him a "p***k"? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
"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.
What *exactly* did the e-mail say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is limiting his free speech, but they don't have to invite him over to dinner either. He has no legal right to enter the US. This is exactly the same thing as if you yelled over the fence to your neighbor, "Hey Bob, your wife's a whore!" and then got all upset that your "freedom of speech" was trampled when he replied "I don't want you coming into my house anymore!". Even if his wife IS turning tricks every night on the corner he has no obligation to let you into his house if he doesn't like your attitude towards his wife.
Where is the entire e-mail? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Change we can believe in? (Score:4, Funny)
I can't believe how little changed. What has seems for the worse.
What a colossal disappointment this administration is.
Re:Change we can believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Original article is from the Sun, and not true. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's the New York Post that's owned by Murdoch.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's wild that the Washington Post, considered one of the USA's two papers of record (along with the NY Times) has lower Google-fu than Murdoch's propaganda mouthpiece.
I wonder what his secret is.
The Sun has no credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Sun has no credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Many of you are fellow US citizens - how dare you be so easily cowed and manipulated by false information. Shame on slashdot for posting this trash and shame on you for being gullible sheeple.
Hey, Slashdot is entertainment, and this is a forum where we get to post opinions, and other people get to vote on how entertaining our opinions are. That's pretty much the long and the short of it. Sooner or later, if there's anything meaningful about this incident anywhere on the Web, somebody will post it here and we'll all get to go "oh my, how we overreacted" or "Jesus, it's even worse than I thought!" In the meantime, we get to have fun ragging on each other.
Slippery slope... (Score:2)
"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
China (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Uh (Score:2)
"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?
He's unlikely to be a complete prick (Score:2)
Its from the Sun (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Hardly an onerous punishment (Score:4, Funny)
He can just walk in from Mexico any time he likes.
Re: (Score:2)
He said he was drunk, and thinks he called him a prick. That means he was sober and ranted for hours about how he hates Obama.
Even so, it seems like a fair thing to say to a president. What, are world leaders not capable of facing a teenager's comments on their leadership?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
Not sure who said that, but when it comes to journalism, it's as true to today as when it was first uttered (which was something like 50 or 100 years ago - maybe longer).
Still, I'd like to know what else was in the email. I'm not sure someone would actually get banned just for calling the President a vulgar name.
Interesting question though - the First Amendment limits government limitations on speech. I'm not sure if the Constitution actually applies to f
Re:So says the Sun? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say shenanigans by the police. Most likely this is what happened:
The White House got the email. Secret Service calls the police near the kid and ask them to check if he's harmless, trying to impress Jodie Foster, whatever. The cops show up, ask a couple of questions. They decide to yank his chain, making it sound more serious than it is. The coup de gras is telling him he's banned from the US.
Ha ha, good one. That'll teach him.