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.
Hey, Obama. (Score:3, Informative)
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:So, when? (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?
Original article is from the Sun, and not true. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Bad Slashdot summary (Score:5, Informative)
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:Now that's just stupid. (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 allowed to complain. At least they didn't make me carry identification papers at all times.
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].
BBC News (Score:2, Informative)
But it's also on bbc news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303 [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Now that's just stupid. (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: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
Acceptable news source? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true. (Score:3, Informative)
It's the New York Post that's owned by Murdoch.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:2, Informative)
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 allowed to complain. At least they didn't make me carry identification papers at all times.
[emphasis mine]
Actually, you are legally required to have your passport on you at all times when traveling in foreign countries; or at least, that is the case as a U.S. citizen traveling in Thailand.
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.
Original Source (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true. (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.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (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]
And to offer an opinion from a differing source, http://www.financialjesus.com/how-to-get-rich/top-10-happiest-countries/ [financialjesus.com]
I make the proposal that perhaps Denmark is the greatest country in the world. Anyone here that has resided in both Denmark and the USA that is happy to either confirm or deny this?
I note with little surprise that the UK where I live and the USA are both not even in the top ten.
Re:Bad Slashdot summary (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 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.
Now granted, the kid wasn't prosecuted for any crime either in the UK or in the US in abstentia, and it is within the purview of the government to disallow any particular person immigration.
Still, it is a rather ridiculous thing to do especially in light of far more serious threats which need to be pursued.