The Manhattan Project
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Sculpture Garden Ice-Skating Rink Remains Closed
Truly charming news out of Hagerstown: the AP via WTOP reports that the Secret Service detained a Maryland man who showed up to one of Sen. Ben Cardin's health care reform town hall meetings with a sign reading, "Death to Obama." And wait, it gets even charming-er! The sign also reportedly read, "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids." Thanks for classing up the joint, unidentified 51-year-old Maryland man. We're sure everyone appreciates your erudite contributions to the health care reform debate.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Does anyone know about the armed robbery on 13th NW last night in Columbia Heights? The helicopters
[more]
Not to in any way defend this guy, his signs, or his worldview, but...
This brings up an interesting question. At what point does one's freedom of speech cross the line into the federal offense of threatening the life of the President or first family?
Can you bring a sign that says "Obama should die?" How about "I hope Obama dies of cancer?" In neither case would a reasonable person interpret a threat (since you can't transmit cancer to someone), but how would the Secret Service react?
The concern here, of course, is that the Secret Service doesn't engage in "mission creep" and begin taking down signs that simply oppose the President. There were cases of this during the Bush administration if I remember.
I understand what you're getting at, but the Secret Service treats every "threat" seriously. They have to. That doesn't mean they detain every single person, but they at least look into it to see if there's any validity.
Heck, a guy showed up across the street from Obama's town hall in New Hampshire the other day with a gun holstered on his leg and a sign that read "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." Some might argue this is a threat against Obama. But he was not detained nor was the sign taken away. So I'd say the Secret Service exercised some discretion there.
Should these guys have been arrested too: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896215/posts sorry for freerpublic, first post on google.
Agree with hillvda, not a credible threat. Obama wasn't even there.
make no mistake, i think both of these are idiots.
a) You realize that's two pictures of the same guy, right?
b) Yes, it would have been totally appropriate for this guy to be detained and investigated.
Why is there always such a desperate search for hypothetical hypocrisy in these cases? The exact same Republicans crying about how "there were protest groups doing these things against Bush" are the ones who screamed the most loudly about how horrible and inappropriate it was when those tactics were used against Bush. When called upon to denounce the wild-eyed fringe, Democrats seem to cave and make apologies and do the distancing dance nearly every time ... Republicans, though, not so much.
Sorry, by both of these guys I meant the guy with the Kill Obama and the Kill Bush. But they should still have right to say it.
If you genuinely believe that, then you should campaign to get the law changed, because according to current statutes they clearly do not have that right.
It's one thing to express violent speech that's not directly aimed at someone (although if you REALLY analyze that statement with an IQ higher than double digits you can tell it actually IS aimed directly at someone or some people) but it's quite another issue when you're blatently expressing violent ideas regarding the leading figure in our national political system.
The guy was being stupid and he's lucky that detained is all they did... there were probably times (before my arrival on this earth) that such messages would earn you a black hood over your face and a one-way trip to a slow and painful demise in the damp dark cell of an undisclosed facility deep underground. In today's world all you get is a slap on the wrist and the ire of intelligent person's everywhere--he should consider himself blessed--do you think he'd of been tolerated giving that message in Iran? I'm sure those people would love to have our freedom of speech protections.
Good reference to Iran! People should remember that.
I think it's pretty safe to say that if you show up anywhere with written or oral messages containing the words "death" and "president" in the same sentence, you should probably expect that guys in suits are going to detain you. Especially if you're a dumb white fat red-neck who can't keep his racist hatred to himself (which I'm guessing was the case here).
I despised everything the former president did, he was a total idiot and everyhing he touched sucked... but I would never have been stupid enough, nor even really had the desire to go around touting a deathwish sentimentality against him... It's just ignorant and foolish and quite frankly I don't think freedom of speech should apply here.
In generally I think people stretch the freedom of speech ideal too far. Just because you have something hateful and ignorant to say doesn't mean the rest of the world should have it forced up on us. What about our rights to not be subjected to racist or homophobic groups like the boys in white and the Phelp's family?! I think the concerns of the whole (i.e. the 'victims' of stupid messages like that) should outweigh the needs of the few (i.e. the intolerant and ignorant old farts in MD who are afraid of getting better healthcare).
Just my two cents!
In generally I think people stretch the freedom of speech ideal too far. Just because you have something hateful and ignorant to say doesn't mean the rest of the world should have it forced up on us.
I sympathize, but feel obligated to bring up the slippery slope argument. Saw this first hand with the development of speech codes during my university days. If a guy is outside your house with a bull horn screaming "Death to Gays", then you get him arrested for disturbing the peace-making threats. If he mutters "queer" as you walk by, there is not much you can do other than make sure your membership to the Pink Pistols is up to date.
Or you could junkpunch him.
they get it from they momma: Fox News Channel. It's interesting that the Becks, OReillys and Hannitys on that network can cry about how the (liberal) entertainment industry is responsible for wrecking our culture. But when they're called out for their inciteful commentary or that Limbaugh -- a fat junkie shock jock curled up turd of a man -- really is the voice of the Republican Party, they say (paraphrasing Glenn 'I Weep For ... Whatevzerz' Beck) "No, no. You can't take us that seriously. We're just entertainers".
To be fair, Chris Matthews is sounding like a Rush wannabe these days.
Rush wannabe? How on earth so?
He's been spending a lot of time in Canada and WILL NOT STOP singing those two lines of Tom Sawyer that he knows.
The yelling, the blowing up over everything, general all round bloviating.
@ hillvada
I think this is a situation in which Justice Stewart's famous quote about pornography, "I know it when I see it." Although the idea of 'mission creep' does indeed scare me, I also think that we have to hope that Secret Service Agents are sufficiently smart and sufficiently trained to understand the difference between a disagreement and a threat. We have to trust that the rules we have in any society guide people to make right decision, but understand that people make decisions. And trust those people. Otherwise, society is broken.
The thing about the guy in NH is that if he had just the gun or just the sign, we never would have heard about it. Unfortunately for him, he chose the combo-deal on exercising his rights.
These guys need to stop using store brand to make their foil hats as the radiation is getting through them. If one is stupid enough to carry a sign like that then let the police detain them and have a legal expert, i.e. judge, determine whether they broke the law or not.
During the Clinton administration there were bombs and assassination attempts, so these threats shouldn't be taken lightly. It would be a mistake to overreact, but just as much a mistake to ignore assassination threats.
Having fallen off of it's horse, the Republican Party is now being dragged along behind it. They actually appear to be sincere about trying to reign in the birthers, but it isn't doing them any good.
I don't buy that at all. I think the GOP is doing the same "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" that they did with Clinton, and they did during the election.
"Of course I think the President was born in the US., but I don't understand why he just doesn't produce his original birth certificate to put this all to rest."
I agree. I don't buy a word of this "oh we're sincere, we'll tell them to be nicer, sorry" crap... The conservative leadership are using fear, lies, and the media (mostly Fox) to incite riotous attitudes in their followers. Furthermore, they're using this opportunity to stop any and all debate on the issue because they have no platform to stand on--if they can't have their way--nobody can! What I hope is that people start to catch on and come down on these rebel rousers like a ton of bricks before these "Town Hall Outrages" become "Town Hall Shooting Spree Massacres." The right has no other tactic left but to incite unrest in the populace because they have no rational reason to oppose the health care reform.
I think it is pretty scary that so many of you are willing to give up your freedoms to win a political argument.
"Know it when you see it" doesn't cut it when you are dealing with free speech.
I hope the ACLU takes this case and runs with it.
What freedoms are we giving up, exactly? The law against making direct threats against the President has been on the book for years, and as far as I can recall conservatives have never complained about it before. The idea of the reviled-by-conservatives ACLU arguing that death threats against the President are protected speech on behalf of a conservative client just boggles my mind, and I can't say I think it's terribly likely.
Also, what argument are people shaking their heads about this guy trying to "win"? The argument about whether or not Presidential death threats make a substantive contribution to the health care debate?
The right to free speech.
Listen, I am not even arguing this specific case so much as I am arguing the point in general. The way the post is written, the majority of the comments, etc... What we have here is an instance where someone was taken by the authorities for making a statement with a sign. Just because Sommer feels differently than the guy does not mean it is "charming news" that he was detained by the authorities. Wasn't it Voltaire that said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."...?
With respect to this specific incident, the guy is a total moron. That being said, I think the ACLU could prove that holding a "Death to Obama" sign is NOT a direct threat to the President.
We also need to consider that the Secret Service may have found additional information that we are not privy to at the moment, and hauled him in for that.
James von Braun exercised his freedom of speech and his right to carry a gun and look what that brought the folks at the Holocaust Museum. Just saying that I am not up for giving up my or anyone else's rights but if I protest with a sign like this then I would expect some law enforcement intervention.
I totally understand what you guys are saying.
I guess my main concern is that we don't excitedly hand over our rights on a silver platter. One day, we might not be on the same side of the issue with those that are in control. In that situation, we might suddenly find those rights very important.
I am not trying to be completely objective here, not political.
As I understand it, the Secret Service investigates anyone who threatens the President, even if it is far fetched. My guess is they're well within their authority to pull the guy out of the crowd and have a word with him.
I remember a specific example of a pre-teen girl who did a sketch saying something along the lines of "Die President Bush"; she was picked up at school by Feds.
Here's the take-home lesson: sure, the dude in NH and the clown in Hagerstown have the right to say what they think and carry a gun and whatever else. But only sad sacks with no lives and unchecked anger management issues actually wake up in the morning, eat their cheerios, walk out the door and pull bullshit like this. And they do it not because they know what they're talking about or have a point to make but because, again, they are sad sacks with no lives and anger management issues.
I would agree with that.
And the terrible irony is that they're the ones who would finally benefit from receiving some mental health counseling under a reformed health care system.
http://thegopisdead.blogspot.com/
I see a lot of comments referring to our "loss of freedom" here, and I just don't see it. What reason does anyone have to give a death threat to anyone? The Secret Service has their right to question anyone who, even innocuously, makes threats to the President's health and safety. People complain about rights here, but what happens the one time that Secret Service doesn't investigate a claim because people are angry about their rights and something happens? Then people will be outraged they didn't do their job and a political leader would be harmed.
Why would anyone want to wish someone harm like that? I hated Bush, his policies, and the fact he was voted in a second time, but that doesn't mean I wanted to wish him harm. People need to come up with better things to say that actually are worthwhile to hear. Saying stuff like that doesn't help make your point, rather the opposite.
Sortof depends on what 'detention' means. If they checked him out, patted him down, asked him why he was such a moron, then let him go after determining that he posed no threat (assuming that he didn't), I think that's quite reasonable.
If they threw his butt in jail overnight that's different.
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - John Milton
speech is not a threat; the secret service over-reacted and infringed this idiot's constitutional rights. liberal hatemongers regularly shouted similar "threats" at bush speeches - with impunity. the wall street journal recently sited several examples of outrageous behavior directed at bush - that was always ignored. before you jump to conclusions - i'm NOT a bush fan. but i am deeply disturbed that the current democratic leadership seems to have little regard for the freedom of speech. pelosi and reid both want to silence critics and allude that people who disagree with them are nazis or worse. i believe that is inexcusable from "leadership" in a democracy.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
MikeB - that is a direct quote of THOMAS JEFFERSON.
I believe you can find it inside the Jefferson Memorial; along with a ton of other equally revolutionary sentiments. Our political leaders - and our citizens - would be well served to review our revolutionary history. There is NOTHING un-American about expressing views - even stridently. And let's face it, we enjoy our freedoms because of a revolution - not because of friendly chit chate between the colonists and the monarch...
That's actually a misquote from John Adams who said, "The weeds of freedom must be fertilized every Friday night with the poop of the homeless and the pee of the LNS douches."
This was in reference to the Second Barbary War.
monkey - i love your comments and sense of humor; you nearly always crack me up. but, just for the record for anyone who doubts it - the quote really is jefferson.
the memoria is a real eye-opener!
:-)