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.
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: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:1, Insightful)
They can express a negative opinion, they just don't have the right too do it and expect to be welcome here. It is a privilege to enter a nation that you are not a citizen of and young Luke was rude and lost that privilege. I don't see a problem with it at all. This is not a value judgment about Obama or a rebuke of "free speech". You don't visit a friend's house, call his father p***k and expect to be invited back either. Exactly the same thing as I see it.
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?
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
What *exactly* did the e-mail say? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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:Now that's just stupid. (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 press in the US. About the only thing I could see that would warrant a ban from the US over an email is making death threats against the President with a clear intention of carrying them out. And I'd bet that if we were able to get details from the FBI, we'd find that the former is in fact true. But without the latter, it should be treated as just "boys will be boys" - people say stupid things all the time, especially when teenagers, and especially when drunk.
If it's not an actual imminent threat, it should just be ignored.
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:Now that's just stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Land of the free, home of the brave? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now that's just stupid. (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:Verification, please (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 foreign nationals, but in the case of the First Amendment, it is a limitation on the government, not a privilege afforded to people. What I mean is, the text of the First Amendment, of course, is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion of U.S. Citizens, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof for U.S. Citizens; or abridging the freedom of speech of U.S. Citizens, or of the U.S. press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It might be argued that it might be implied/obvious that it only applies to U.S. citizens - guess that would really be a SCOTUS question. Still, it seems to me that as it stands, the government can't use laws to suppress speech anywhere - doesn't seem like it would only limit Congress's powers with regards to U.S. citizens but give them complete unfettered power w.r.t. foreign nationals.
I mean, I suppose it's completely reasonable to prevent someone from entering the country if they've actually made *threats* against the President, or any person in the U.S., or against the military, or any property (e.g. a threat to blow up a building or a subway, or any other thing), or to harm the environment (e.g. set off a dirty bomb, contaminate a water supply, etc), etc.
But calling someone a name isn't a threat against them. That would seem to fall under protected speech.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (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
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:Now that's just stupid. (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 parasites on our society.
Your suggestion that, "you should be allowed to call your elected representatives pricks", only makes sense if young Luke was a citizen which he is not. He is just some rude boy in some country that doesn't bother to teach its youth manners. That he is banned, if it's true (dubious at best I'd say), then good on him. At least someone is trying to teach manners, clearly his parents never bothered. That my tax dollars are being spent to teach him manners bothers me greatly, but not that someone is doing it at all.
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.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:1, Insightful)
So if Gary McKinnon calls Obama a prick does he get banned from the US?
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, but this is from the same president who asked a religious official to abandon his freedom of expression. If this administration doesn't understand that the First Amendment is to keep the government from doing that sort of thing to it's own citizens, then I doubt the administration understands that the First Amendment is not the source of any rights - citizen or non-citizen. So in that light, I think this non-citizen is democratically screwed. (Well, it's certainly not royally screwed).
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.
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:Change we can believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now that's just stupid. (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 sending a one liner saying "Hey Obama, you're a punk!" You can tell by the way he claims not to know what he wrote, kind of like you always tell the officer that you don't know why he pulled you over or how fast you were driving.
Re:Bad Slashdot summary (Score:2, Insightful)
The usual: Bad Slashdot summary. The facts: Police said the e-mail to the US president was full of abusive language [bbc.co.uk].
And that qualifies for banning a teen for the rest of his life from going to U.S.?
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.
Re:Streisand effect (Score:3, Insightful)
Quick! Someone alert 4chan!
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:Now that's just stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
So let me get this straight. Because you were a Marine, that automatically means your opinion is "correct" and mine is "wrong"?
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. 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. You may be equally willing, but we don't know that.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (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 government is forbidden to cross. That they do or have does not change the meaning of the rule, it simply highlights the lack of enforcement applied to that rule.
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: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 random is likely to make things better. If you live in one of the best places, changing somehting at random is likely to make things worse. Pointing out that we have things pretty good here is important when considering proposed changes to the way we run the country.
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:Bad Slashdot summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Fox News is often full of abusive language towards the President. Can we ban them? :)
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:Bad Slashdot summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't pretend to speak old english if you can't. Thou is not the possessive form, but the singular form of you. The possessive singular form is "thy".
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't agree with that; the only people he has fought for are the people he thought he was fighting for, which ultimately means he was fighting for no one but himself. If you sacrifice something voluntarily you can't turn around and expect repayment or recognition of that action... you can only ask for it.
I however agree that his word carries more weight than the GP's, for no other reason than that he is experienced with the present situations in many of the world's countries; he doesn't glean all his information from behind an electronic display, enacted as a 5th-hand source to the various political-media organisations.
Re:Bad Slashdot summary (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh my god. The BBC is rerunning made up shit from the Sun now.
BTW, notice there is no byline on it. Someone in-house (read: intern) rewrote the Sun story and ran it on the BBC.
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.
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Now that's just stupid. (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:Now that's just stupid. (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:Bad Slashdot summary (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: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:Now that's just stupid. (Score:1, Insightful)
The way Obam's White House acted in this case (and many other cases) reminds me of how Mussolini acted in his "white house". i.e.
They don't truly believe in freedom of speech, and that's why they act how they act. Unfortunately they can't stop Americans from speaking, but by god we can ban this British "prick" forever!
Re:Now that's just stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually there are quite a few errors. At no time did the "journalist" have concrete confirmation that the youth has actually been banned, only his assertion that that was the case. Without followup, fact-checked information I am not going to expend any emotional response on this story.
Even by Slashdot's standards this story should not have been posted.
Re:Change we can believe in? (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps you should be upset that he has perpetuated and expanded Bush's eight years of work then?
Only a moron believes there is a fundamental difference between Bush and Obama, or Democrats and Republicans. It's all corporations, greed, and control, no matter who is in office.
Re:Bad Slashdot summary (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 damn well knew this kid was nowhere near "beyond a reasonable doubt" able to fulfill the legal requirements of the crime, so they did what they could to punish him. I use the term "punish" loosely in this case because the kid obviously doesn't care -- yet.
More broadly, however, and what I believe to be much more important is the resulting so-called chilling effect on speech around the world regarding our Dear Fearless Leader.
Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? (Score:1, Insightful)
I know this might sound crazy, but maybe a different set of rules should apply to governments than apply to homeowners. No, you don't have to put up with assholes in your home, but YES, the government must (and does) put up with a lot of assholes in our country. Why does everything in Slashdot have to be turned into an analogy?