Slashdot Mirror


UK Teen Banned From US Over Obscene Obama Email

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.

555 comments

  1. Now that's just stupid. by ScrewMaster · · 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.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      If anything, ban him til the end of Obama's term...

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    2. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Em+Emalb · · 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.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    3. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · 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.

    5. Re:Now that's just stupid. by craftycoder · · 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.

    6. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    7. Re:Now that's just stupid. by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ScrewMaster · · 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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re:Now that's just stupid. by horatio · · Score: 1, Troll

      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.

      --
      There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
    11. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, 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".

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    12. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension is your friend.

      "Here" referred to the situation, not the country.

    14. Re:Now that's just stupid. by _xeno_ · · 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.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    15. Re:Now that's just stupid. by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell that to the people who don't think enforcing our immigration laws is important.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    16. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 2, 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.

    17. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      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?

    18. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 2, 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

    19. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Em+Emalb · · Score: 0, Troll

      I served my country, 5 years in the Marine Corps. I've been all over the world, to countries that saying anything about the leader of that country could get you thrown in prison or worse.
      This is a knee-jerk reaction to a kid's momentary lapse of judgement.

      You know nothing about me, and it seems, not a whole lot about anything.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    20. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Kjella · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    21. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, it's an overreaction, but realize the kid is probably lying and likely said a lot more than "prick." I'm sure that not only was the email in his sent box, and it was probably shoved in his face a couple of times in the process. He may not have "remembered" it at the time the cops came, but I'm sure he's figured it out since. I'm guessing the email was at least mildly threatening, in a way that was recognizably juvenile enough that they didn't take further steps.

    22. Re:Now that's just stupid. by craftycoder · · 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.

    23. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Music2Eat · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the BBC article he also threatened the President. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303 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 If he'd done it in the US, my guess is he would have been arrested and deported.

    24. Re:Now that's just stupid. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > 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 commission, you really can't be making so much noise after 11 pm".
      "what are you going to do about it"
      "Well we would like it if you would turn it down"
      "No"
      "Fine then, well I am writing that down, next time you want to have a party like this you wont be able to"
      "Why Not"
      "well because its against the law to make so much noise after 11".

      No police comming in the door, no people being arrested, nobody using violence to stop... noise.

      It made the place sound so civil that I almost want to move there.

      Also... what is a p***k anyway? They really should translate their damned slurs into English.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    25. Re:Now that's just stupid. by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      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 going on here" fishy. Like one of those "evil vs. stupid" debates, a la Wyatt Cenac and John Oliver.

    26. Re:Now that's just stupid. by oldhack · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      And punks. Dickheads. Douchebags. And ugly. With bad odor.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    27. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So if Gary McKinnon calls Obama a prick does he get banned from the US?

    28. Re:Now that's just stupid. by david.given · · Score: 2, 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.

    29. Re:Now that's just stupid. by gtall · · Score: 1

      Damn it, you caught us. Now we'll have to move the White House's We Hate the Brits tea parties into some other quarters. Sheesh, a government can't even enjoy a bit of incomprehensible silly hi-jinks any more.

      "Say, Barack, d'ya see what we did to that kid with the "prick" email."

      "Hehehehe, that one never gets old. Hey, about we find some visiting Russian scientist and prevent him from returning without a visa for Russia. I can't get enough of that."

      "Snicker, good one, Barack. Let's make him go to the British Embassy for that visa too, he'll spend the next year in bureaucratic limbo."

    30. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · 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).

    31. Re:Now that's just stupid. by feepness · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      The constant travel leave you exhausted!

    32. Re:Now that's just stupid. by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      So what, when a president ends his term we take em out back with a shotgun and end their miserable life? Obama wills till be here, and he will still need to be protected by Secret Service.

    33. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      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.

      And punks. Dickheads. Douchebags. And ugly. With bad odor.

      Thanks, I think we get the idea.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    34. Re:Now that's just stupid. by jorenko · · Score: 1

      "You know Greg, this obituary reading business is getting rather dull. Let's go make some more interesting ones."

    35. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So let me get this straight. Because you were a Marine, that automatically means your opinion is "correct" and mine is "wrong"? Was I wrong in stating that you mentioned flag burning as a legal form of free speech, immediately after citing our lack of free speech in America?

      Oh, and also:

      I've been all over the world, to countries that saying anything about the leader of that country could get you thrown in prison or worse.

      I already covered that. Not that it matters, since you seem to assume things about me personally, whereas I responded directly to (and only to) what you've written.

    36. Re:Now that's just stupid. by modecx · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure who made came to this determination... But it's We The People of the United Stats, not We The Anonymous Spooks of the United States, who are solely capable of deciding these things. If he was banned by an act of Congress, fine.

      I am completely apathetic to the idea of his visiting our wönderful country.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    37. Re:Now that's just stupid. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Yeah, I'm kinda embarrassed by this.

      Don't feel bad. I'd be embarrassed too, if I fell for an article from The Sun. Fortunately, I know that they're about as reliable a news source as The Weekly World News (but Bat Boy is absolutely, undeniably real. Elvis told me so!)

    38. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Haffner · · 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.

      --
      "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
    39. Re:Now that's just stupid. by flaming+error · · Score: 1

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

    40. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love the lack of free speech here.

      What are you saying man? He said his piece and we all heard it, how was the government censoring him? It wasn't. That's what the free speech is there for.

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

      Free speech does not mean you are not responsible for the content of your speech. Plus I doubt that was all he said.

      You sir, will never visit our country!

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

      I suppose a country where a 17 year old has a drinking problem is much, much better.

    41. Re:Now that's just stupid. by geekoid · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    42. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Score+Whore · · Score: 2, 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.

    43. Re:Now that's just stupid. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      1st Amendment *clearly* is not limited to citizens

      Technically, the constitution only applies to citizens. But for our government to do this is just scary and wrong, unless we are not getting the full story here.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    44. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      First off, well written. Just like to say that :-)

      That being said, you will never hear me say America is the greatest country for the simple fact that I live here. Whether America is the greatest country or not is something that I can't objectively say, since I have bias built into every thought comparing this country to other countries (I've lived here my whole life. I've traveled a lot, but my home has always been here.)

      My comment about living here rather than dozens of other countries was, however, indeed referring to war-torn countries, such as the ones in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South America that are in a perpetual state of hostility or threat of hostility. No bias needed for that kind of assessment.

    45. Re:Now that's just stupid. by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I could tell you, but then I'd have to ban you.

    46. Re:Now that's just stupid. by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

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

      Sure it is. "Freedom of speech" does not imply "freedom from consequences of drunken derogatory speech".

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

      Of course not, it's an analogy. But, the Federal Government does indeed represent the people that own the property that composes the United States. Plus the Federal Government is explicitly charged with securing our borders.

    47. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      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.

      I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just think it would be a good idea if we had more respect for what we do have, and realize what it could mean if we give it up.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    48. Re:Now that's just stupid. by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, e-mail does not "forget" and everyone knows that by now, especially when someone has the clarity of mind to locate the email address of a potential enemy not already in their address book for a new written attack.

      "Forgetting" in his statements sounds like it is impossible for him to go back to his outbook and print it out to better position him on his own defense. This is like the "I was crazy at the time, your honor" defense. It's also like lying about having called me when you owed me something, claiming that my answering machine did not kick in on the supposed call, and that the call's [false] happening would evade our ubiquitous caller ID logging. Mostly older fools use this latter defense. They don't understand technology enough to lie well.

    49. Re:Now that's just stupid. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Usually, if your neighbours report that you're being noisy unreasonably late, council officers come round. I don't think they're police, though they might bring police with them if they expect there'll be a problem.

      I've only been at a party where this happened once. I didn't realise there'd already been a visit by the noise people, when there was a knock on the front door, which I was standing next to, so I opened it. The man asked to speak to whoever lived there. I found a couple of the residents (students), then listened in.
      "We've had further complaints that you are still playing loud music. Please turn it off immediately."
      "Why? It's Friday night, no one has to work on a Saturday"
      "The man who lives next door says he needs to drive trains at 5am tomorrow"
      "So? It's a Friday night, no one has to work on a Saturday"
      At this point I was convinced that the hosts of the party were selfish, spoilt brats and left, so I don't know what happened.

      Example of what the noise people will do.

      (A prick is a penis.)

    50. Re:Now that's just stupid. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. "Freedom of speech" does not imply "freedom from consequences of drunken derogatory speech".

      "Freedom of speech" makes no mention of excluding "drunken derogatory speech". For all the good that does it might as well be "freedom of speech, so long as we approve of it", which totally kills the entire POINT of the thing.

      We don't need freedom of speech to say all the shit everyone agrees with. That right is in place to protect all the UNPOPULAR speech, specifically like "drunken derogatory speech".

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    51. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Deviate_X · · 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.

      and i call you a twat cause its my freedom of speech and because you should check your facts before spewing

    52. Re:Now that's just stupid. by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

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

      And some of them (the same ones) only bought a house in NY that they very rarely use, just to fulfil the requirements to become their senator. Now that she's no longer a Senator, they don't even need to bother visiting that rathole state any longer.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    53. Re:Now that's just stupid. by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      You're assuming the comment the kid made to a newspaper is the entire content of his email. It was stated by the police that the email contained abusive and threatening content. Threatening content is likely what got him banned. He is a citizen of the UK, he doesn't have a right to come to the US, and if he did threaten the President of the US, it's likely a short fuse until they mark you on the list of people they'd rather not come over here. The government does have the exclusive powers of securing our border.

    54. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I just think it would be a good idea if we had more respect for what we do have, and realize what it could mean if we give it up.

      That I completely agree with :)

    55. Re:Now that's just stupid. by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      The political laws do not matter. Anyone who impunes the honer of the most high lord Obama must be punished! As the reincarnation of God himself, Obama is well within His right to have this obamanation punished! This slanderous teen should have divine lightning bolts strike him from above, or at least patriot missiles. His holiest virtues shall not be questioned.

      Anyway, that teen is probably just a typical white person.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    56. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    57. Re:Now that's just stupid. by slater.jay · · Score: 1

      Russia will do you one better. You *are* required to carry your identification papers at all times, and if you lose your exit papers they don't let you leave.

      I guess that last part is a bit counterintuitive.

    58. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Obama's a prick.

      I voted for him.

    59. Re:Now that's just stupid. by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1, 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.

    60. Re:Now that's just stupid. by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Free speech does not mean you are not responsible for the content of your speech.

      But at least in the USA, free speech is exactly that, except for your being legally liable when "crying fire" to endanger others [the metaphone is "wolf" in general,] and slandering. Removing that exception, you are left with anonymous speech in that the content of your speech cannot be traced and attributed to you for punishment or praise.

    61. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 0

      One could say it is fair turnabout.

      The UK banned Chris Brown for life because he pled guilty to a felony domestic battery, which shouldn't have been a felony (she wasn't really badly hurt - but if she goes to the hospital - it's a felony - serious bodily harm) and shouldn't have been a crime - he was defending himself - she was beating on him while he was driving because he allegedly cheated and he fought back. He should've fought the charges! Or so I've heard. He has enough money to have "purchased" an acquittal! Or gotten it down to a misdemeanor.

      The UK considers him a serious danger to public safety (WTF?!) and has banned him. Like he was going to just beat on people over there or something. Treating him like he was Osama Bin Laden or something.

      Hope Chris Brown don't mind never leaving the US ever again in his life. (well Mexico will probably not ban him, and there is little stopping him crossing in from San Diego)

      It is easy to get banned from countries. Doesn't even need to be a felony either. If you are an American and get a DUI here in the US, Canada will ban you from even visiting! Canada will even ban people for offenses they committed while under 18 (and they say they are more progressive than the US... sounds like something we'd do).

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    62. Re:Now that's just stupid. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    63. Re:Now that's just stupid. by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      You've gone too far, expect a plane ticket to England in the mail. Along with a terse letter asking you not to return.

    64. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      OK, high school kids: freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from responsibility for the consequences of that speech.Making threats is not protected speech.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    65. Re:Now that's just stupid. by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      So . . . you're saying that you'd rather live in America than in any of the dozens of war torn countries. Great point. I would rather drive a beater Saab than a Pinto that is in the act of exploding. In the USA we have the potential to have things be very good. We are living way under our potential. Saying that it is wrong to criticize because we have it better than others is incredibly obtuse. Comparing our standard of living to the worst conditions on the planet (some of which we bear some culpability for) to show "how good we have it" is useless at best. The only way we can improve our lives is through active and constructive criticism of what is going on. Pointing out absurdities in the system is true patriotism.

    66. Re:Now that's just stupid. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is, a US citizen (which I am not) can call his president whatever he wants - a characteristic shared with many members of the so-called Western world. I have made a practice of calling British and Australian politicians by much less charitable terms than "prick" for several decades, and (so far) I haven't had any visits from men in dark suits and sunglasses...

    67. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the kid looks arab. then we should fry him

    68. Re:Now that's just stupid. by IshmaelDS · · Score: 1
      --
      letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
    69. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Plus the Federal Government is explicitly charged with securing our borders.

      LOL! Can someone please tell them that? There's this border on the south...

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    70. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 3, 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.

    71. Re:Now that's just stupid. by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      The whole point of freedom of speech is the ability to do so without fear of reprisal, punishment or persecution, particularly when the powerful find it uncomfortable. It's not just the freedom to communicate an opinion - every single human being has the ability to do that. It's what happens afterward that matters.

    72. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I think I read a comment about your obvious mental illness just the other day. Feeling suicidal yet? Go for it.

    73. Re:Now that's just stupid. by daveime · · Score: 1

      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.

      And yet people do all of the above without a moments thought. Kind of makes you wonder if the Constitution is even 0.001% relevant to todays society ?

    74. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    75. Re:Now that's just stupid. by spamking · · Score: 1

      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.

      But don't you dare try to burn a copy of the quran . . .

    76. Re:Now that's just stupid. by lgw · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    77. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Whoa whoa whoa. I never once said it was wrong to critisize...in fact, I highly encourage it, as my posting history here shows.

      I'm just saying people act like we live under an oppressive thumb, while completely ignoring the fact that the proverbial thumb isn't even outstretched when compared to other nations.

      That's all. A useless (as you put it) yet still true observation.

    78. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The government does have the exclusive powers of securing our border.

      LOL! They can start with the southern one. Starting right now!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    79. Re:Now that's just stupid. by lgw · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    80. Re:Now that's just stupid. by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure out how "prick" is obscenity, so much so to get you banned from the United States?

      The only thing to figure out is how /. got such a shitty summary of the matter. According to police he was threatening the president. That's a crime, and totally different from calling someone a prick.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    81. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Gah, sorry...didn't realize you weren't responding to me :/ Damn active conversations...

    82. Re:Now that's just stupid. by hondo77 · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    83. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    84. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the odds of that?

    85. Re:Now that's just stupid. by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

      No. The man was ASKED not to do something that was clearly inflammatory and very well could have serious (violent?) repercussions. Nobody forcibly stopped him from doing anything. People spoke out against it and tried to reason with the man, which is completely legal and appropriate.

      As far as the Brit kid... many of the comments here have pointed to the BBC article, which says he used threatening language. Threats are not protected by free speech. I think the whole thing is silly, but if he did make some kind of threat, the response is not unreasonable.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    86. Re:Now that's just stupid. by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      I think this perspective is wrong. The inalienable rights described in the constitution are supposed to apply to everyone ("all men") - they are *guaranteed* to citizens. Citizens who respect those rights should not abridge them for non-citizens, under most circumstances. Failing to do so indicates a profound misunderstanding of what they mean and why the constitution was drafted in the first place.

    87. Re:Now that's just stupid. by mitchell_pgh · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, I don't agree. The teen seemed to have threaten the President (Bush/Obama... I would have the same opinion) which in this country is a federal offense.
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html
      If I threatened the leader of another country (even if I was a teen... and drunk), should I really be surprised when they don't grant me permission to visit? If our federal agents can click a button and keep someone that has been confirmed as threatening the President, out of the coutnry, why wouldn't they? In this silly case, sure... and Obama would probably echo that. But let the kid appeal the decision or ask for reconsideration.

    88. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Machtyn · · Score: 1
      As a fellow American, looking forward to the 2012 election season ever since McCain won the GOP nomination (how the heck?!), I tend to agree with this kid.

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

      Seriously, we give illegal aliens as much rights as any citizen, why not afford this kid the same treatment?

      Now, if we are not getting the whole story and the kid actually put actual threats in his e-mail, then the FBI has no choice. But if it was only because he called him a prick (is that a bad word? I thought it means he's a jerk) then what's the big deal?

    89. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Arkham · · Score: 1

      First off, the constitution only protects US citizens. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." doesn't apply to some dumbass British citizen who sends drunken expletive-filled diatribes to the president. For all we know, it had direct threats on him in it.

      As everyone on Slashdot knows, he can look in his sent box (and I am sure he has) and know exactly what was sent. The fact that's he's being duplicitous about it makes a pretty strong case that he's not telling the whole story, because "threatened the life of the president" isn't covered under free speech.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    90. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1
      "...like this administration is proving to be..."

      I haven't been following the news, but what exactly are they doing so wrong?

    91. Re:Now that's just stupid. by AshtangiMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your sig and your post are at odds. Maybe want to rethink one of them.

    92. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      That right is in place to protect all the UNPOPULAR speech

      Precisely. "Freedom of speech" is not the right to yell "fire!" in a theater, or to make false claims about a product you are selling. It means the right to express yourself in a political way on any topic, in public. There is a social contract and legal precedence that that says you are free to express yourself as long as you are not interfering with other people's rights. IE: you can protest an abortion clinic, but you can't block people from entering it. You can't threaten to kill or injure someone, which would limit their ability to move freely in a secure manner. If you make an absolute claim about someone, you might have to demonstrate that it is true (libel/slander). In short, you have to be *mildly* responsible, but you can say Obama is a dickhead, burn the flag, and (at least in theory) build a mosque in downtown New York.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    93. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Finger-pointing time: The Republicans started it by deciding that non-Americans are godless heathens who weren't granted inalienable rights.

    94. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cause every time the US breaths, our UK government bends over and and gets shafted, willingly at their request...It is disgraceful being a puppet for the US and I personally am disgusted at the UK's constant US ass-rapes...

      This isn't the US's fault, they are doing what is in their interes (whether for the people or for the Government), and I appreciate that...What I don't appreciate is the UK's spineless backbone in saying "No", bending over and saying "Go for it"

    95. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ktappe · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure out how "prick" is obscenity, so much so to get you banned from the United States?

      Per the original article, it was much much more than just that one word. If you threaten the president, prepare to be banned. And that's a way different concept.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    96. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      What are the odds of that?

      Not high.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    97. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      First off, the constitution only protects US citizens. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." doesn't apply to some dumbass British citizen who sends drunken expletive-filled diatribes to the president. For all we know, it had direct threats on him in it.

      SCOTUS has held that the US Constitution does apply to non-citizens.

      But other than that I agree with you. This kid has had an opportunity to learn about life. Hope he gets it.

    98. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ktappe · · Score: 1

      There had better be more to this story, because simply calling the president a prick is just - well, boring.

      There is more to the story. Perhaps if you had taken 30 seconds to read the original story, you'd know that he actually threatened the president. Oh, wait, sorry, I forgot this is /. where reading the real story instead of the incorrect summary is verboten.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    99. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Kumiorava · · Score: 1

      So legally no, I don't think he's got a leg to stand on.

      I think he summed up his feelings about this as "I don't really care". On the other hand this sort of publicity stunts by US are not good in the long run. I know my friend was denied visa to travel to US for honeymoon, they went to Italy instead and loved it. Arrogance shows and national image is at stake, legally not a problem.

    100. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      That isn't the point. If the US Government punishes someone in any way because they expressed themselves, then it is still a breach of the 1st Amendment. It says that Congress can't restrict (ie: punish) free speech. Not for citizens, or even visitors, but for ANYONE, ANYWHERE, regardless of where their race, nationality, creed, or residence. It isn't often that this would come into play, but it *is* what the Constitution says about speech. It doesn't cover that teen talking about HIS government, but it DOES cover him talking about ours.

      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.

      The 1st Amendment does NOT grant us freedom of speech, it assumes that all humans already have it simply says that Congress (or the government in any capacity) can't fuck with it. So in this scenario, unless what he said would be covered as an exemption (ie: threat), then the US government *has* gone against the Constitution. In short, the government has no right to limit or punish anyone, anywhere, for political expression. Barring him entry *is* a form of punishment.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    101. Re:Now that's just stupid. by horza · · Score: 2, 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.

    102. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      Your "source" article has no source. I call shenanigans

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    103. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ooshna · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. I read the first paragraph and was left scratching me head like wtf is he talking about. Then upon reading the second paragraph I saw the word Acceleration and thought to myself "Finally he is talking about cars now I'll get it" But no not one damn car in that whole post I feel like I just wasted a chunk of my life to be left confused and scared thanks a lot.

    104. Re:Now that's just stupid. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      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.

      Couple of points here: It is illegal to threaten the life of the President. The Secret Service and FBI treats all threats seriously. (And they should). The person in question was banned as a a punishment; he wasn't thrown in a prison cell or anything. That's the price you get for getting drunk and doing something stupid.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    105. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And now I'm wondering if they plan to deport all of us Americans who have also called Obama a p***k. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    106. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1
      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    107. Re:Now that's just stupid. by russotto · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    108. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, 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. :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    109. Re:Now that's just stupid. by david.given · · Score: 1

      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.

      It depends on the country. I specifically asked about it, and was told that as a UK citizen in the US I did not need to carry my passport. OTOH while in Korea I did have to carry my passport.

      Perhaps there's a US rule that US citizens abroad must carry passports, but that would seem really weird. (Not necessarily wrong, though.)

    110. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      Yes - but it was government staff of the highest level acting in an official capacity when they asked. Executive requests aren't on the same level as congressional laws - but that's a line I don't want any form of my government toeing.

      We non government entities are perfectly capable of plastering our opinions about the dude's "exercise" across the news reels, talk shows, and internet. Besides, when the government steps in there's a certain amount of validation which accompanies that oily slick of not-quite-technically-in-a-court-of-law-sense-with-a-really-expensive-team-of-lawyers-violation of the First Amendment.

      If the teen credibly threatened the president then it's another story, but the AC has a point about the First Amendment.

    111. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where's the evidence it is fake? All I see is a Gizmodo posting that "It ain't true." with nothing at all to back it up.

    112. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They also mention the kid said he wasn't sure exactly what he said. Probably because the FBI goons beat him with a baseball bat and he can't remember that there's a sent email folder. Dang goons browbeating limeys.

      Hey hey, we're the goonies.

    113. Re:Now that's just stupid. by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, it's hard to surprise me anymore about anything regarding politics. On the other hand I just can't help wondering the about veracity of the report. I mean, are we hearing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, here? Something just sounds too cute by half. On a related topic, and speaking of country bans, isn't there one acerbic U.S. talk show host, Michael Savage, currently banned in the U.K. because the last U.K. administration thought his right-leaning (sometimes) speech hateful? Notwithstanding agreement either way, are all hands really completely clean here?

    114. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Runacta+Munac · · Score: 1

      WAIT! This was sent from MY iPad? I didn't even know I had one! WHERE IS IT?

    115. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me get this straight. Because you were a Marine, that automatically means your opinion is "correct" and mine is "wrong"?

      He's simply stating his background and what is influencing his opinion. He's letting you know that he does "realize how good we actually have it" and that he's proud to have served his country which lets us have it good. Your dismissal of his opinion, without actually taking the time to understand it is what is "wrong." Read on.

      Was I wrong in stating that you mentioned flag burning as a legal form of free speech, immediately after citing our lack of free speech in America?

      You missed the entire point. The point is, that "Burn a flag, protest, do whatever" is at the, historically controversial, extreme. Name calling is typically not considered to be something that stretches your rights. As such, it doesn't deserve the extreme of being banned from the USA.

      The way I read it is that he doesn't feel that the banning a teen from the US is warranted. He points to the inconsistency of allowing more extreme behavior but not allowing much more moderate and commonly tolerated behavior. It's "weird" as he describes it.

      Your statement that most Americans not knowing how good they have it might be overwhelmingly true, but it is only loosely connected to the post you originally responded to. He never said that Americans had it bad. That's something you spontaneously injected into the conversation.

      Fred: French fries taste good. :) :)
      Joe: Oranges are high in Vitamin C. You clearly undervalue good nutrition!!!!!! >:\
      Fred: I... I eat oranges too. :|
      Joe: Was I wrong to point out that oranges are high in vitamin C!!!!???? No.
      Fred: I didn't mean to...
      Joe: How can you even question oranges as a source of vitamin C!!!

      Of course Fred can't counter the well known fact that oranges are a decent source of vitamin C. Joe walks away feeling accomplished, for "winning" the argument. Everyone else thinks Joe is an ass. Both Fred and Joe were right. Joe, however, created a situation for the express purpose of trampling Joe. This makes Joe feel strong because once again his rightness was reaffirmed.

      I recommend Fred reads Coping with Difficult People.

    116. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 1

      You will now.

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    117. Re:Now that's just stupid. by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I took his comment to indicated one or both of two things: either because he's a Marine his opinions on honoring the country are a good deal more conservative than most folks in essense, most of my brother marines are at the left tail of being offended on behalf of the US, so if I think the US overstepped it's likely that almost every American does as well, and two Marines generally have had more experience in foreign nations than most citizens of the US by virtue of the US having bases spanning the globe today, so he might have more experience in seeing what other nations do which could be useful in judging the severity of this punishment.

      On an unrelated note why is /.s comment window so slow in IE?

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    118. Re:Now that's just stupid. by commodore64_love · · 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!

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    119. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Runacta+Munac · · Score: 1

      "And "freedom of speech, but there will be consequences" is not the same as "freedom of speech"" I hate to break it to you, but there are ALWAYS consequences - sometimes trivial, sometimes not.

    120. Re:Now that's just stupid. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Look at the headline date. Look at the text in the 'article'. They are quoting the Sun. Really no quoting but running the exact same story verbatim. Now how could you legal copy a story from another paper verbatim? Oh wait it'c coming from the same place.

      The anti-Obama crap that is being done by the owners of certain media corporations is really getting too much.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    121. Re:Now that's just stupid. by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      I suppose a country where a 17 year old has a drinking problem is much, much better.

      Where'd you get the fat that he has a drinking problem from?
      Legal drinking age here is 18, so naturally lots of 17 year olds have easy access to alcohol via 18 year old friends and getting drunk occasionally doesn't make him an alcoholic.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    122. Re:Now that's just stupid. by dominious · · Score: 1

      I propose to all non US /.ers to send an email to the white house calling Obama a prick. Let's work the Streisand effect.

      Hold on, someone is knocking on my do

    123. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now to use my right of FREE SPEECH
      Obama fuck you you don't have the balls to anything a republican knows what to do about illegal immigration what your doing is frankly, rather scary 800 billion+ down the drain

    124. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have called him a nigger and sent him a basket of cotton

    125. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm friends with a number of people who serve or have served in the armed forces, and I'd consider a couple of them to be extremely intelligent. A few of them though, dumb as doornails. I'd consider their intelligence levels to somewhat accurately represent the rest of the country. None of them have any special training in political studies, the military did not teach them politics, and not all of them care to keep up with politics. The military is made up of people, the same people that make up the rest of the country, and there's no reason to take their opinions more seriously simply because they've served in the military.

    126. Re:Now that's just stupid. by BobMcD · · Score: 0

      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.

      In fact, I think you could just as easily argue that those who have served are less able to participate in a free democracy. They've all been programmed to obey authority without questioning. Maybe it didn't stick for all of them, or maybe it wears off over time, but I'd prefer the civilian point of view over the military one for just about every debate for this reason alone.

      Further, if they joined at 18, they may have actually never lived as an adult in the culture that they're trying to modify. At least until they've been out a while, and back in the 'real world', so to speak.

      The same arguments could be made for any other kind of mind-altering, highly-institutionalized scenarios, like prison.

    127. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      And yet people do all of the above without a moments thought. Kind of makes you wonder if the Constitution is even 0.001% relevant to todays society ?

      It should make you wonder whether Score Whore knows what he's talking about - for the most part, he doesn't.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    128. Re:Now that's just stupid. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I' be willing to lose the right to burn a flag, if I gained the right to keep my money, instead of having to pay the Neighborhood pack-a-day Smoker to get a new lung (

      The first tight is trivial (I'd rather use words and free press not burn stuff). The second right is fundamental - the difference between being free and being my Smoking neighbor's slave/source for free cash.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    129. Re:Now that's just stupid. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      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.

      I find it deeply quixotic that inside a discussion about the First Amendment, you're clearly illustrating the usefulness of the Fifth.

      You're seeking to indict on the basis of his lack of participation with law enforcement, are you not?

    130. Re:Now that's just stupid. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      The Constitution codifies certain natural rights, by way of government prohibitions, but this is not an exclusive list by any means. See the Declaration for more detail on the scope and origin of these rights, but it isn't anything to do with the Constitution.

    131. Re:Now that's just stupid. by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

      No. It was a request. Whether it's by the government, Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Easter Bunny, it's a REQUEST. He was not forced to do anything. He is still talking about it freely and, as far as I know, still has not decided whether or not he will go through with the burning.

      If you have evidence that he was coerced in some manner other than 'please don't do this', post it.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    132. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 1

      I suppose a country where a 17 year old has a drinking problem is much, much better.

      Where'd you get the fat that he has a drinking problem from?
      Legal drinking age here is 18, so naturally lots of 17 year olds have easy access to alcohol via 18 year old friends and getting drunk occasionally doesn't make him an alcoholic.

      If drinking results in you sending a threatening email to the president of the US (and not remembering those threats), then yes, you have a drinking problem, regardless of age.

      But I'm not sure how it's relevant. I suspect most countries have at least one 17 year old with a drinking problem.

    133. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Corbets · · Score: 1

      He has earned the right to speak in support of those principles...

      So has every American citizen.

      Um, have to argue that. Every American has the right; rather few have earned it! And no, I'm not saying soldiering is the/a/the-only way to do that.

    134. Re:Now that's just stupid. by jbengt · · Score: 1

      First off, the constitution only protects US citizens.

      The US constitution defines and limits the powers of the US government. It does not grant any "unalienable rights", like the right to free expression, to anybody, US citizen or not. People have those rights just by being.

      For all we know, it had direct threats on him in it.

      That is my guess, also. In which case it would not be an issue of freedom of speech.

    135. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying that in my experience, people who do something stupid and get caught, most of the time unfortunately, do not step up and admit what they did. Rather they present what they believe are mitigating factors that will reduce the severity of the consequences ("I don't recall", "I didn't notice my speed", "I was drunk"). Ideally they'd recognize why there is an issue and grow from the experience.

      The purpose of the fifth amendment isn't to allow people to get off, it's to prevent the government from beating confessions out of people. While it happens, the theory is that the judicial arm of the government will provide a check on the executive branch and this is one cast in stone rule that facilitates that.

    136. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      In regards to the limits of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, please explain where I'm wrong. As regards the actual events that took place (or didn't take place), I have no facts -- only experience as to what is likely based on recent trends in social behaviors.

    137. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Speigel · · Score: 1

      Ya, because if they didn't ban him, Obama be like: say it to my face! The kid be like: I would but your sissy friends banned me! Obama be like: that's cause your a farthead. I mean 17, really, come on, talk about blown out of proportion.

    138. Re:Now that's just stupid. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      The purpose of the fifth amendment isn't to allow people to get off, it's to prevent the government from beating confessions out of people.

      That's but a teeny, tiny facet of it. Protection against compulsory testimony also promises the use of evidence to convict you of actual wrong-doing. So while they cannot arbitrarily beat confessions out of you, neither can they hold you in contempt, nor prosecute you for obstruction. They have to look elsewhere for their convictions.

      An officer who asks 'do you know why I stopped you' is in effect trampling on your rights. Or at least attempting to do so.

    139. Re:Now that's just stupid. by vertinox · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    140. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Docboy-J23 · · Score: 1

      Somebody should make that graph on graphjam. I would but I suck at making graphs.

    141. Re:Now that's just stupid. by GooberToo · · Score: 0

      They don't truly believe in freedom of speech, and that's why they act how they act.

      Freedom of speech has always stopped at the President. Always. Its illegal to make threats against the President. Its illegal to make hostile remarks to the President. His remark is somewhat hostile.

      Something else to consider, Obama is the first black President in American' history. I imagine the Secret Service has been very busy with racists over and above what Presidents normally receive; which is considerable. From the Secret Service's perspective, do you really want to be the agent that receive an email from a would-be assassin, who killed America's first black president? I'm sure their moto is, check everyone they can.

      Its also illegal to talk about bombs in airports or on a plane. Where's your damnation of airports and planes?

    142. Re:Now that's just stupid. by vertinox · · Score: 1

      I' be willing to lose the right to burn a flag, if I gained the right to keep my money, instead of having to pay the Neighborhood pack-a-day Smoker to get a new lung (

      The problem is if the government can decide what constitutes freedom of speech and what not, then you'll still won't have the right to keep your money and then you can't complain about it.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    143. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 1

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

      There are other countries I would rather live in as well, but I was referring more to war-torn parts of the world (which far outnumber the "peaceful" parts.)

    144. Re:Now that's just stupid. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Its illegal to make threats against the President.

      That's incorrect. Any such law is nullified by the US Constitution's Superior Law (1st, 9th, and 10th amendments). Also the Bill of Rights for all 50 states and DC.
      .

      >>>Its also illegal to talk about bombs in airports or on a plane.

      See above. Or below.

      It's also commonly stated that you can't issue death threats, but the SCOTUS has ruled again and again that death threats are protected speech, if the person is unarmed. They went on to say that sometimes in the heat of a protest, somebody might say things he/she would not normally say, but it is not grounds to arrest them. It's First Amendment protected.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    145. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may give his opinion more weight but that is not the same thing.

      Aye, and what's more, giving someone's *opinion* more weight because of what they've done makes no sense, either.

      It is often said that when you disagree, you should attack the message, not the messenger: don't resort to ad hominems, but rather argue against *what* your opponent in the discussion is saying. Surely the same thing must apply here? The message stands on its own, but "ad hominem support" that emphasizes who is speaking rather than what they are saying is fallacious.

    146. Re:Now that's just stupid. by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

      The same arguments could be made for any other kind of mind-altering, highly-institutionalized scenarios, like prison.

      Or college.

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    147. Re:Now that's just stupid. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Yeah I think you missed my point:

      The government "gave" us a trivial right (flag burning) while taking away the fundamental rights that REALLY matter, like forbidding protests or taking our money for redistribution to their political friends or letting us use the internet w/o being spied upon. It's like giving your wife a $40 microwave, but denying her the car she really needs. The former is a poor substitute for the latter.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    148. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The news reports I read claimed there were threats in the letter, not just obscenities.

    149. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      That may be so, but tell me how has a 17 year old teen with a foreign nationality and a drinking problem elected a US president, who was elected 2 years ago?

    150. Re:Now that's just stupid. by rainmouse · · Score: 2, 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/
      And to offer an opinion from a differing source, http://www.financialjesus.com/how-to-get-rich/top-10-happiest-countries/
      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.

    151. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      They've all been programmed to obey authority without questioning.

      LOL, yeah, I'm a fucking KILLING MACHINE!

      Have you ever served in the military?

      Do you really think we're unable to think for ourselves?

      Are you really comparing the military to prison?

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    152. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Most of us never even make it through the incorrect summary before starting to rant.

    153. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      Whoops, didn't close the tag.

      The above comments, and this bullshit right here: Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

      It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment

      Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

      are the reasons this place is going to shit.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    154. Re:Now that's just stupid. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      The same arguments could be made for any other kind of mind-altering, highly-institutionalized scenarios, like prison.

      Or college.

      It could, but in the opposite direction. College tends to encourage acting out, exploring drugs/alcohol, etc.

    155. Re:Now that's just stupid. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Do you really think we're unable to think for ourselves?

      If you're asserting that there has been absolutely zero psychological programming directed at you, then I absolutely do question your judgement. As would any reasonable person.

      The first thing you're taught is how to stop thinking. Then they build you up to think the way they want you to think. This is a well-established fact.

      Are you really comparing the military to prison?

      Are you really building men out of straw? I already made the comparison that's valid here. Both have rigid authority structures, both modify behavior, and both have pronounced impact on young minds. There are other organizations as well, like cults, Buddhist temples, and whatnot. I made no further comparison than that.

    156. Re:Now that's just stupid. by odysseus_complex · · 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.

    157. Re:Now that's just stupid. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Why so - being skeptical of change doesn't mean avoiding change! It means seeing evidence that a change will be good, not merely sound good. Any good engineer thinks this way - you don't rush a change into production without testing! Faster change does not mean better progress, and often means the opposite.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    158. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then where are you living now? If in the USA, why not get out? If you don't want to be here, don't... (and stay out!! heh)

    159. Re:Now that's just stupid. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      >>>Its illegal to make threats against the President.

      That's incorrect. Any such law is nullified by the US Constitution's Superior Law (1st, 9th, and 10th amendments). Also the Bill of Rights for all 50 states and DC.
      .

      Apparently you are incorrect (thanks to The Wild Norseman in a later entry). Here is an article describing the issue in detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States

    160. Re:Now that's just stupid. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      How are they forbidding protests?

      Also, you have every right to help get them to stop taking our money -- vote for politicians that will enact laws to cut taxes, and give feedback to the existing politicians about your beliefs.

    161. Re:Now that's just stupid. by suman28 · · Score: 1

      This is a very very good article. Thank you for pointing that out. However, I am curious as to how the court sees "maker voluntarily and intentionally uttered them as a declaration of apparent determination to carry them into execution". What if you simple say, "I had no intention of actually carrying it out. I said something in the heat of the moment". Also, just because the people in power choose to do what they want, i.e. threaten people just for speaking their minds, does not make it right in anyway. The article itself says that "75% of the people who threaten are mentally ill." Cheers.

    162. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You know there was 8 years of calling for Pres. Bush's death, burning him in effigy, and people writing books on wanting to kill, or other fun shit. I don't remember hearing any blasting stories of people being banded for life...

      Maybe Obama and his new secret service handler should grow a thicker skin?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    163. Re:Now that's just stupid. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      The government doesn't believe or like free speech. They tolerate free speech from their fellow countrymen because the constitution forces them to.
      Anybody not protected by the American constitution has exactly zero rights as far as the government is concerned.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    164. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      Every American citizen HAS the right.

      Not every Amercian citizen has EARNED that right.

      Unless you believe that having something is equivalent to earning it... rich parents?

    165. Re:Now that's just stupid. by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Why are you still an American citizen? If you truly preferred over a dozen other countries then you could find a way to make moving to one of the countries happen. Japan isn't the easiest country to move to, but you have a pretty big list there.

    166. Re:Now that's just stupid. by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Where's the evidence it is fake? All I see is a Gizmodo posting that "It ain't true." with nothing at all to back it up.

      While certainly not "proof", I think that the article in Gizmodo is a lot more credible. It mentions the fact that it is not the policy of DHS to contact local authorities in other countries to have them inform one of their citizens that he is banned from entering the U.S. for life, which is what the original story reported that DHS agents did. If someone is banned from entering the U.S., the DHS would inform them themselves, usually when they show up at a point of entry or apply for a visa.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    167. Re:Now that's just stupid. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      It's meant to stop people from posting -- let me phrase this delicately -- "knee-jerk" reactions.

      Slashdot isn't "going to shit" because of these measures. In fact it's improving because it chases away people unable to cope with the idea of having to think about what they type before submitting.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    168. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of us living outside of United States of Hypocrisy know that are two different rulesets for USA/Israel and the rest of the world. Im happy that some of the americans now living in United States are aware of this too.

      And hey, please ban me too! And I'd love to have a Certificate saying "You have been banned from USA for EVER!" with offical seals and all. Would be a great thing to hang up on the wall...I love Europe!

    169. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      In regards to the limits of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, please explain where I'm wrong.

      There are lots of things you cannot blithely say ... you can't make false statements about people

      For starters, you can make all kinds of false statements about people, especially if it is done blithely. For example, there are tens, if not hundreds, of false statements made about every sitting president every day in the press. Same thing with pretty much any public figure. Here's one - Obama's a muslim. See? Ain't no one going to jail for that.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    170. Re:Now that's just stupid. by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

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

      Yes it is. There is always consequences. If you threaten to blow up a building, you can get arrested. Why? because other people have blown up buildings, if they did not take a threat seriouly and something happened, well the law suits would be swift and terrible. The point here is that the consequences are from the government. You can say what you want freely about your boss say, and get fired, you can say what you want about another person, he may deck you. You can express you ideas about religion and a Church may throw you out. You may look at a white girl and get lynched (oh right that consequence is long gone). There are always consequences. But you are not restricted from speaking freely, that is unless what you want to speak about has been classified by the government or maybe a gag order given by the courts, or maybe a non-disclosure clause in a contract. Or as it was in the Bush presidency, you're "Free Speech" was coralled into a "Free Speech Zone" where no one could see or hear you. Then there is always the wife factor.

      There are always consequences to speech free or not and to suggest otherwise is being too simplistic.

      We do hold our highest political office in high regard as we do say the flag or the Congress or our Embasies abroad and protect them. An verbal assault on the sitting President is an assault on our institutions and has consequences.

    171. Re:Now that's just stupid. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>vote for politicians that will enact laws to cut taxes,

      Yeah I did that in 2000 and 2004. It didn't work out. It's why the Founders of this nation decided we need a Supreme Law that is higher than politicians, since they are unable to control themselves. The Law chains the politicians from trampling individual rights.
      .

      >>>How are they forbidding protests?

      In Pittsburgh some people tried to protest (peacefully) against the Corporate Bailouts and the police donned their paramilitary gear (plus tank) to make them disperse. And it's not just that one case - it seems to happen again and again that police forbid people from gathering with signs.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    172. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Golddess · · Score: 1

      They went on to say that sometimes in the heat of a protest, somebody might say things he/she would not normally say, but it is not grounds to arrest them. It's First Amendment protected.

      Citation please. The only thing I am familiar with in this regard is "fighting words", which are not constitutionally protected*.

      *Whether or not I agree with that is another story, and not something I'm here to discuss.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    173. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      I'm being cremated, so you'll have to shit in my ashes.

      I'll have my family email you with where my remains will be spread.

      For the record, I've killed hundreds of millions of potential babies, but no "alive" babies.

      Also, die in a fire.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    174. Re:Now that's just stupid. by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Troll

      Whatever wikipedia has to say is ALSO nullified by the Supreme Law of the Land.
      There is NO law, rule, politician, government, court, or article higher than these words:

      "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Plus the various "free speech" rights codified in the 50 State Constitutions.

      Therefore any law that forbids you from saying, "President ____ should be dead," is a nonexistent law. It is nullified. It has zero force. This is not rocket science... there is no law higher than the Constitution. Simply to understand really; even for those with low IQ.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    175. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      I personally know a few people who were banned from being within a 50 mile radius of the president after emailing rather inflammatory remarks to the white house (again drunken), and these incidents occurred under both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. This is really is standard operating procedure and has been for decades. I suspect the "banned from America" is what they do in similar situations when the person is not a US citizen.

      You can disagree with a president or his policy, but it is asked you do so respectfully. Or if you're gonna be nasty don't send it to the White House, just do what everyone else does and complain about it on Slashdot or Facebook.

      I suppose the moral of this story is not to send angry drunken emails the White House.

    176. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Where is the evidence it is real? All I see is a Sun article claiming that "this highly implausible thing happened", with nothing at all to back it up.

      Given the choice, I would trust Gizmodo over the Sun, which is a gutter tabloid aimed at people with an elementary-school reading age whose three main interests are (a) breasts, (b) breasts, and (c) getting angry about foreigners.

    177. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Didn't say you'd go to jail, said there are consequences. For example, everyone now knows you're an idiot because you think Obama is a muslim, or Obama could sue you for libel. Either one is a consequence. The first just normal social ostracism, the second a civil legal action. The fact that people get away with things doesn't mean that they aren't actionable.

    178. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and i call you a twat cause its my freedom of speech and because you should check your facts before spewing"

      Facts on the ground.

      He did. It was reported in a UK paper, which should have done some fact checking themselves.

      You coming in late to the game can always point out the new facts retrospectively. Note your post is 39 minutes after his. The Gizmodo story changed at some unnoted time (and time zone if that stamp on the right means anything, there's a big window in the comments), which depending on time zone, may mean he didn't know while you did.

    179. Re:Now that's just stupid. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Well, if the voting "didn't work out", then vote for different people and so on.

      I don't know about the protest situation you describe. There are laws regarding having to get permits for gatherings above a certain number of people (I understand many people think those are unConstitutional, but they currently are the law).

    180. Re:Now that's just stupid. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      So you don't even believe in the "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" (incorrectly) exception?

      The law is on the books, of course it is being currently enforced. The Supreme Court has to declare it un-Constitutional. It has not been, so it is currently the law that must be followed.

    181. Re:Now that's just stupid. by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      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.

      There's something rather pathetic about the ridiculous use of the term "socialism" in America to demonize anything that's possibly left of main stream US politics.

      The word "socialism" in the US seems to mean something more akin to Stalinism or Juche. Really, if you come to Europe and live in a place like Sweden, you'd have a pretty hard time trying to work out what all the fuss is about "socialism" back home. Free healthcare and high taxes have about as much to do with "socialism" as the Pope has to do with the Branch Davidians.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    182. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So all i have to do is forge an email from somebody else threatening the president and they'll get all kinds of special treatment...

      If all email threats get investigated,the potential for abuse is raised due (in part) to the limitations of email and the internet for identifying individuals.

      And even if an investigation concludes that a forgery had taken place, it could really inconvenience someone in a big way. Consider preventing someone flying in to the country for a speaking engagement by forging an email from them threatening the president shortly prior to their visit. It may not even be permanent, but it could damage someone's reputation or, at the very least, delay them for a considerable amount of time while things get sorted out. Something to think about.

    183. Re:Now that's just stupid. by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      Lemme guess? You're not exactly a Constitutional scholar?

      Perhaps when your understanding of Constitutional law advances beyond that of a 4th-grader, your ridiculous and easily disproven opinions on this will be worth something. Until then, I'll just read the above comment as, "Gee, you've proven me utterly wrong and I'm sorry."

    184. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Golddess · · Score: 1

      So you don't even believe in the "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" (incorrectly) exception?

      I am not C64, but no, I do not.

      HOWEVER

      Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from responsibility of uttering those words. And at present I do not believe that the government should be involved in such a scenario except as mediator between the theater, its patrons, and the idiot who incorrectly yelled fire.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    185. Re:Now that's just stupid. by DiniZuli · · Score: 1

      As a Dane I'm interested in why Denmark is not on your list ? Being quite similar to Norway and Sweeden and in many ways the Netherlands as well, Denmark should be somewhere among those countries - why not ?

    186. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 1

      Did you just use three paragraphs to say "the U.S. is OK now, but declining at an accelerating rate"?

    187. Re:Now that's just stupid. by vertinox · · Score: 1

      As a Dane I'm interested in why Denmark is not on your list ?

      Oh sorry... I've got nothing against Denmark, but it is one of those countries that fall off my radar (kind of like Belgium).

      I should take a look someday. ;)

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    188. Re:Now that's just stupid. by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Why are you still an American citizen? If you truly preferred over a dozen other countries then you could find a way to make moving to one of the countries happen. Japan isn't the easiest country to move to, but you have a pretty big list there.

      Arguably, I'm still an American citizen because I was born here and the immigration laws are quite damn difficult to have residency in Japan. (I've looked)

      Also its rather expensive.

      My list was mostly a "If residency and moving wasn't a problem" or "if i could be born in any country I wanted to be born in"

      But seriously... Americans should go to Japan at least once in their life. Its an eye changing experience.

      I can't believe we tolerate the things over here that we do.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    189. Re:Now that's just stupid. by genican1 · · Score: 1

      LOL! Can someone please tell them that? There's this border on the south...

      Yeah, that stupid oil trying to sneak in from the Gulf!

    190. Re:Now that's just stupid. by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      Hey Michael Savage says dumb stuff every night; this is why Britain Banned him from Visiting Britain. The British set the standard very low for banning people; so you Brits have little right to complain.

      Tim S.
      PS: I consider Michael Savage an Idiot; but that is not grounds for banning.

    191. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      We will drag our feet over a guy planning to burn 200 Qu'rans, but a kid calls our president a prick... watch the fuck out! Seriously? Homeland Security is a bunch of arrogant pricks. I'm sure Obama makes polite company, but info think he's an idiot, but I can say the same about the last president.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    192. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      I read this and immediatly thought of that Starship troopers..... join the army and become a citizen!

      would you like to know more?

    193. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how long ago that was, but now everybody over the age of 18 needs a passport in the US unless you're a US citizen or green-card holder (green-card holders need to carry their green-cards). The rules changed to remove exceptions sometime in the past couple years.

    194. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Llamahand · · Score: 1

      Is the Rose Atoll in American Samoa really in all that much danger? That's the southern most point in US land.

    195. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd probably do Japan first

      fuck you weeaboo, go back to 4chan.

    196. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0

      Didn't say you'd go to jail, said there are consequences.

      Consequences which you immediately defined as "the government interfering" - the government only interferes through through threat of jail.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    197. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The US constitution defines and limits the powers of the US government. It does not grant any "unalienable rights"

      +1 bingo.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    198. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      As somebody who has spent some time in Japan, I don't think it's the paradise it's commonly portrayed as on the internet.

      Sure, some things are nice -- public transportation is great, everybody's polite...

      But then there's also the very high cost of living; public areas are packed with smokers (ok, not a big deal if you like to smoke); racism and sexism are blatant and nobody cares; and it's very difficult to get a job that isn't a stereotypical office desk job, especially if you're a foreigner. And Japan's typical office work environment is terrible... I can't even begin to go into that if you haven't been exposed to it before.

      If those things don't bother you, that's great, but there are a lot of subtle things about Japan that don't stick out to your average tourist. Try living there for half a year before you decide you want to immigrate...

    199. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a First Amemdment issue. You have no "right" to threaten or intimidate another person, and threatening the President is specifically a criminal act. The United States, as a soveriegn nation, can and does bar anyone it choses from entry. This includes murderers, drug dealers, financial criminals, dictators, and yes - people who threaten the President. I am not even remotely upset by this, whether the threats he made had been against Obama or against Bush.

      And by the way, don't be fooled by that "kid", in whose mouth butter would apparently not melt in when caught.

    200. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Grogan+The+Destroyer · · Score: 1

      1. This piece of "reporting" comes from a trashy Rupert Murdoch rag (the Rupert Murdoch claim might have to be fact-checked), the most valuable journalistic contribution of which is always on this page: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/virals/superbabes/ 2. Why opine about freedom of speech on something we clearly don't have the facts on? Who knows what sort of threats he made in the email. 3. No pooftahs! 4. Spam!

    201. Re:Now that's just stupid. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it is woefully incorrect. I see others have pointed this out.

      Feel free to visit your local airport and and quietly discuss bomb making with one of the security guards. I can assure you your life will be forever changed - and not in a good way. It is a federal crime to do so. Same for threats against the President.

      As others have already pointed out, the majority of the people who make sure threats are mentally ill. Hardly surprising the person in question says he was drunk when he wrote the email. Diminished capacity to say the least, considering he couldn't even remember the contents of an email he wrote to the President of the US.

      And as a side note, roughly twenty years ago I was at an airport discussing a computer virus. The word bomb was used to denote it would active at a specific date/time, as I was passing through security. The guard was polite and informed me that the word was not to be used in an airport unless I'd like my own private room. He then pointed me at a sign immediately behind him, clearly indicating it was a federal crime. Needless the say, the conversation stopped there.

      I can assure you the information I provided is accurate. And even if you're not technically breaking the law, I can assure you the Secret Service will be more than happy to inflict some sort of legal discomfort in your life if you choose to ignore the provided information.

    202. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Its illegal to make hostile remarks to the President.

      You lie!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    203. Re:Now that's just stupid. by eblonk · · Score: 1

      The police said it. The police says a lot of things. The judge decides, be it a British or an American judge. Granted, customs can stop him despite that and he would have to fight it in court, which is a practical way to stop him from doing something he should be able to by law (i.e. entering the USA). The Sun said it. Call me when it's in an actual newspaper. One that has journalists.

    204. Re:Now that's just stupid. by aiht · · Score: 1

      The same arguments could be made for any other kind of mind-altering, highly-institutionalized scenarios, like prison.

      Or college.

      It could, but in the opposite direction. College tends to encourage acting out, exploring drugs/alcohol, etc.

      And people in prison are known for their upright behaviour.

    205. Re:Now that's just stupid. by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 0

      I agree.
      Why should my money go to help people who break a leg playing a sport. I don't play sports why should I have to contribute for people who are taking unnecessary risks. Sky diving, rock climbing skateboarding ect ect.
      I also don't think my tax money should go to pay for your little brats to go to school since I don't have any kids.
      I also do not own a car so my tax money should not be used to pay for roads just so you can drive your fancy horseless carriage around.
      I also don't own a gun so why should you be allowed to own one. They make our cities unsafe and people are dieing because of this BAN THEM.
      I don't go to church BAN THEM OR TAX THEM. /end sarcasm

      No one gets to decide what the money they pay in taxes goes to, so pony up just like the rest of us and stop whining. Your whining reminds me of the guy who didn't want to pay his share of the tip in Reservoir Dogs.

      Lets make this simple.
      You have the right to do what you want to do in your life as long as it does not directly violat the rights of someone else.
      You DO NOT have the right to decide what other can and cant do in their lives.

      You have the right to be offended.
      You do NOT have the right to NOT BE OFFENDED.
      if you see a show that offends you DONT WATCH IT.
      If a church offends you DONT JOIN IT.
      If SMOKING OFFENDS YOU DONT FUCKING SMOKE

    206. Re:Now that's just stupid. by akayani · · Score: 1

      Dear President Obama,

      Owing to the life ban placed on Luke Angel can I say... you Sir are a P R I C K !!!!!

      <<<
      That's about the only way to resolve it.

    207. Re:Now that's just stupid. by hab136 · · Score: 1

      In your post, you say "mere criticism isn't helpful" and "we have it so good". In your sig, you criticize the US, which isn't helpful according to you, and implies that we don't have it so good. Do you see the dichotomy now?

    208. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Kharny · · Score: 1

      Yes, his problem was that he probally was legless after 3 pints, should have practiced more ;D

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
    209. Re:Now that's just stupid. by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      What a happy thought. I wonder if we could import that idea here - and then make it retrospective for a certain comedy duo of ex-prime ministers?

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    210. Re:Now that's just stupid. by williamhb · · Score: 1

      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.

      Nope. They wouldn't have gone through Interpol because Interpol's constitution bars it from handling political crimes. And the Secret Service wouldn't have gone directly to a teenager in the UK over this because it would have caused an international incident with the UK government. ("This is our turf, so you go through our police.") The Sun scenario sounds far more likely -- DHS are notified because it's "an overseas threat", they contact the FBI because the FBI have a relationship with the UK police, and the UK police then arrange for a local constable to knock on the teenager's door.

    211. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't come to the UK if you have children, they kidnap them and them adopt them out to China and Afghanistan or worse, local british chavs who live in council rent paid houses who claim they can't afford to buy the children orange juice, fresh beef and fish, but can afford £150 toasters, gym memberships and make the kids watch their fat bodies treading the mill to 2 hours as if it's educational.

    212. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Finite9 · · Score: 1

      Not to be unkind, but you don't understand what you are wishing for. It isn't all roses moving to another country.

      Speaking from personal experience, after having moved to Sweden, which is #2 on your list, I miss my home country, I miss my culture, I don't feel like I fit in here, and sometimes feel unwelcome simply because i'm not a native Swede. Usually, being coloured, or non-christian, would create responses of "yeah, I can understand why, even if I don't agree with racism", but i'm white and from Britain and feel like an outsider anyway.

      Am I alone? I think not. I think it is a perfectly natural Darwinian-like response to liking your own herd/culture and mistrusting others. I strongly suspect you probably get this no matter who you are or where you move to, and it is not specific to Sweden, although it might be more pronounced here due to the Swedes tendency towards xenophobia (more so than other cultures).

      Plus, I no longer feel like a Brit either, due to having broadened my experience a bit, and I now live in cultural limbo.

      Trust me, stay at home, and do yourself and your eventual children a favour by letting them visit their grandparents every week instead of every 4-6 months.

      --
      "Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman
    213. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech means that you can burn an American flag. You can form groups based on hatred like the KKK. Americans think that examples like these mean that free speech is alive and well.

      But there are significant exceptions:

      • you can't write mean emails to the president
      • you can't burn a Koran (Many people assume that it would be protected speech, but not according to Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.)
      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    214. Re:Now that's just stupid. by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      I honestly doubt Omama could care less and he probably will have this stupidity revoked as soon as he hears of it.

      Fact is, compared to manure outlets like Faux News, what this kid said was laughable and Obama would probably smile because at least there are some kids out there that seem interested in world events and willing to speak their minds.
      Compared to your run-of-the-mill American, that is.

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

    215. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Obfiscator · · Score: 1

      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.

      I've seen something like this written several times already in this thread, and I have to question it. How much is really seen by the members of our armed forces abroad?

      I ask because I served my country as a Peace Corps volunteer for two years. Living in the community, I saw how attitudes/behaviors changed when foreigners were around. Things certainly got filtered, and the filters kicked up a notch when a member of the State Department (embassy worker) came through. Volunteers and State Department people lived in different worlds there. Same country, but different worlds.

      One foreigner changes the situation (I certainly wasn't part of the "true" culture, even after two years). A group of foreigners changes the situation even more (especially if they all move together in fancy cars). A group of foreigners with guns/power? I'd be curious to know if any of the interactions are the same. Any military people with Peace Corps experience around to comment on this?

      --
      "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
    216. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out Australia you insensitive clod!!!

    217. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The way Obam's White House acted in this case (and many other cases) reminds me of how Mussolini acted in his "white house".

      Do you really think someone in the White House specifically directed this, as opposed to someone lower down the chain of command?

      You don't think that maybe, there might be an old policy already in place that people who make threats against U.S. government officials are banned from entering the U.S.?

      Let's be aware that the TFA linked to is from The Sun, which is a Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece -- it's less reliable, and its target audience several IQ points lower, than Fox News.

      There was, by Angel's admission, more to the note than calling Obama a prick:

      He said that he had called President Obama a 'p***k' but when asked if the action taken to ban him from going to America 'forever' was extreme, Mr Angel said he had been more abusive than that.

      The teenager added that he had been watching some conspiracy theory programmes such as the ones about 9/11 and had been researching the Illuminati - a lot of which he believed in.

      If this doofus is a 9/11 "truther" and a conspiracy theory nut, I have no problem believing that there was much more threatening content than just calling Obama a prick.

      Of course, if you really think Obama is comparable to Mussolini, you and Angel would probably be fast friends.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    218. Re:Now that's just stupid. by lgw · · Score: 1

      We're doing as good as anyone, but everyone else has gone overboard with socialism as well, and faces the same austerity in the coming decade. You can be "among the best" and still have problems to fix, but that means being careful in how you fix your problems. The second sentence in my sig is my well-researched suggestion for fixing the problem.

      Is your worldview really so simple that we're either the shining example of perfection, or at the bottom of the heap? Have you never done further optimization of an already good process?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    219. Re:Now that's just stupid. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>So you don't even believe in the "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" (incorrectly) exception?

      As someone responded to that case (back in the 1910s), "Yelling fire in a theater is not the purview of the government, because it is a private building. If the owner allows his visitors to yell fire, they most certainly can." [Example: Rocky Horror Picture Show showings.] And: "Furthermore this argument by the Court is not justification to arrest anti-war protesters for sedition. They are standing outside of the European war zone and warning people of the danger of going there. It is equivalent to standing OUTSIDE a burning theater, and warning people not to enter. Both are protected speech."

      See? It helps if you understand the CONTEXT of the case, and not just one single out-of-context (and 100 year old) sentence.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    220. Re:Now that's just stupid. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Do you really think someone in the White House specifically directed this

      Yes. It was a whitehouse.gov email, so it would have been handled by White House staff in the various offices that exist inside that building.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    221. Re:Now that's just stupid. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Well, if the voting "didn't work out", then vote for different people and so on.

      Who? If I don't vote for Republicans (as I did in 2000), then that leaves Libertarians which is a wasted vote (L's never win) or Democrats who are even bigger bastards than the R's. You are naive if you believe you can exact change through the polling booth, because it is controlled by a Duopoly. Like choosing between getting screwed by Comcast or Verizon for your internet. Same difference.

      Or as summarized by that one Simpsons episode - it makes no difference if you vote for Kang or Koloth - both are plotting to take-away individual freedom.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    222. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      No, I said that free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment is to allow people to participate in the political discourse. Then I gave several examples of things that are not participation in said discourse that are not allowed and have have government enforced / supported consequences. The government providing a framework to have your assets seized isn't going to jail. And that's only one type of speech that isn't completely free of consequences. Why don't you address the others, seriously, make a credible threat on the president. Then come back and tell us how there are no consequences. Punk.

    223. Re:Now that's just stupid. by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      Obama is a p***k.
      Let's see if the FBI watches /.

      Really , i just can't believe they would ban you for saying that. This must be a joke.

    224. Re:Now that's just stupid. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      See now.... I agree with you totally on the party hosts in this case but... I tend to think it comes down to "appropriate response". Here in boston, I have seen the same thing... a few cops come out, and warn people sternly. Then they come back, act like pricks, and cart people away in chains.

      That doesn't sit well with me, I am not sure "being a selfish prick who annoys people" warrants being dragged off in chains. A stern talking to? Certainly! Maybe some sort of public humiliation or something? Overall, I would much prefer seeing the nieghbor himself come knocking on the door and explaining the situation and showing his anger, rather than having intermediaries have to come out.

      Here the government seems to suffer from "when you have a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail" syndrome. "Oh this is a problem, lets see who we can cart off in chains to make the problem go away."

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    225. Re:Now that's just stupid. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > (A prick is a penis.)

      I knew that, I just didn't know p***k was "prick". I have never, in my life, seen anyone censor the word "prick" before this discussion.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    226. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I'd say the moral of the story is, idiots are idiots even when drunk. And the secret service can't tell the difference between a drunk teen. And someone who's planning to try and kill.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    227. Re:Now that's just stupid. by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      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.

      Based on the TFA you could conclude that they only did not come to get him - yet. Don't worry. He is in the queue.

    228. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      No, I said that free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment is to allow people to participate in the political discourse.

      (A) I quoted your own words and did not alter the context, quit trying to weasel.
      (B) You are wrong - if what you said were true, that the intent of the first amendment was to allow participation in political discourse - that fact would be included in the amendment. It is not. The first amendment doesn't even provide an example of usage like the way second amendment does.

      And that's only one type of speech that isn't completely free of consequences. Why don't you address the others

      Because your claim that you "can't make false statements about people" was so broad that instances of it outnumber all of your other examples by many orders of magnitude. Proving 99.99% of your premise to be false is good enough to demonstrate that you really didn't know what you were talking about.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    229. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      You use the phrase,"the moral of the story" but it does not mean what you think it means.

    230. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Golddess · · Score: 1

      If I don't vote for Republicans (as I did in 2000), then that leaves Libertarians which is a wasted vote

      Out of the last 25 presidential elections, MD has voted Republican 9 times. That's 36%, so maybe you'd be right to say that voting for a third party in MD is a waste of a vote (in that there is a chance for the republican to win), but I'm sure there are some states out there where voting republican (or democrat) is a waste of a vote because the state never swings that way. In which case voting for a third party most certainly would not be a waste of a vote.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    231. Re:Now that's just stupid. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Well that makes sense, then, and I fully support this decision. Anyone stupid enough to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories should be banned from the planet.

    232. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yes as we all know, no one has any idea that a phrase could mean different things in different parts of the world. How earth shatteringly complex or something.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    233. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      Sweden and Norway and the others follow Social democracy, not fullblown socialism.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    234. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      *scratches head* Now you've completely lost me. So you honestly believe that the punitive punishments allayed against my friends were due to incompetence by the secret service? And that "the secret service are stupid" is a moral?

      Well, good luck to you.

    235. Re:Now that's just stupid. by TheABomb · · Score: 1

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

      Because this is Slashdot, I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up the obligatory Yakov Smirnoff quote:

      "When I came to America, I was amazed at the freedom of speech comedians had. I couldn't believe they could criticize their country's leaders out in the open. Here in America you could say, 'I don't like Reagan'. Of course, in Russia, we were allowed to do that too. We could say, 'I don't like Reagan!'"

      In Soviet America, joke's on you!

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    236. Re:Now that's just stupid. by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      Now, now, there are plenty of countries where they legally burn American flags in mass protests all the time!

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    237. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      But seriously... Americans should go to Japan at least once in their life. Its an eye changing experience.

      Seconded. I've been several times, a total time over there of about four months. Japan is certainly not perfect, but it's a prosperous industrialized nation with very different social and religious concepts. It helps you question your preconceptions.

      Plus, if you spend enough time there, you'll both get to see the Ugly American in action, and experience racism directed at you; for a white American, these are very thought-provoking experiences. Not to say there's a tremendous amount of anti-gaijin sentiment -- in fact a lot of Nihonjin are quite interested in and friendly to foreigners -- but it's there and given enough time you'll trip across it.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    238. Re:Now that's just stupid. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I don't care what you say... If Socialism creates hell holes

      Socialism doesn't create hellholes in and of itself. Corrupt bureaucracies and greed-ridden public officials do that.

      Now, when you get right down to it that is why I object to (for example) Obama's health care plan and any other major expenditure of public funds in the United States. It's not that some good can't come out of them: it's that they usually end up wasting too much of those funds. That's because our leaders, our bureaucrats, and the private sector corporations that actually provide most of the services, cannot be trusted not to steal the money or otherwise waste it.

      So, please, don't hold up Japan or Germany as examples of how well socialism works. In many respects, it works very well for those countries, and for others on your list. But those are different cultures, with very, very different ways of going about things.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    239. Re:Now that's just stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would want to go to America anyway? Chances are you would get shot by some cop or gangsta! lol

  2. America...FUCK yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The guy should feel lucky that a drone didn't drop a hellfire missile on his ass, because that's how Team America does it baby!

    America, fuck yeah! Comin' again to save the motherfucking day, yeah!
    America, fuck yeah! Freedom is the only way, yeah!
    Terrorists, your game is through, 'cause now you have to answer to
    America, fuck yeah! So lick my butt and suck on my balls!
    America, fuck yeah! What you gonna do when we come for you now!

  3. What did he call him? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · 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.

    1. Re:What did he call him? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:What did he call him? by Pojut · · 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

    3. Re:What did he call him? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:What did he call him? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:What did he call him? by Andrewkov · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    6. Re:What did he call him? by Xest · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:What did he call him? by xaxa · · Score: 3, 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 (NSFW).

      The BBC 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?

    8. Re:What did he call him? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah, I tried that comeback with a bully once. I ended up eating dirt.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:What did he call him? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Being the same size as seniors when you're a freshmen certainly helps...seeing you lift more than them in the weightroom helps too :-)

    10. Re:What did he call him? by alta · · Score: 1

      Wow, the first post in /. history to use the N word and not be modded flamebait or troll.

      I think there should be some achievement awarded there.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    11. Re:What did he call him? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      I am a yank, you insensitive clod!

    12. Re:What did he call him? by __aahsjj4927 · · Score: 1

      What about if they call you a piece of shit?

    13. Re:What did he call him? by thethibs · · Score: 1

      Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

      --
      I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    14. Re:What did he call him? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Then I'd ask them why they were talking to crap. Only crazy people do that.

    15. Re:What did he call him? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Well, he's implying that calling someone that is a bad thing.

    16. Re:What did he call him? by fishexe · · Score: 1

      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 (NSFW).

      False! Tits are on Page 3! Sadly, no pussy.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    17. Re:What did he call him? by SailorBob · · Score: 1

      So does that mean Obama eats p***k?

      --

      Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!

    18. Re:What did he call him? by Inda · · Score: 1

      The BBC's reputation of reporting unbiased truthful news ended a long time ago.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    19. Re:What did he call him? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I thought he actually called him a p-astrisk-astrisk-astrisk-astrisk!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    20. Re:What did he call him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So. do you recall her name?

    21. Re:What did he call him? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Dirt.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    22. Re:What did he call him? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      That's when you stand up, spit the dirt in their eyes, kick 'em in the nuts, and bite their damn ear off. If you can't defend yourself in a fight, fight dirty. ;)

    23. Re:What did he call him? by aiht · · Score: 1

      False! Tits are on Page 3! Sadly, no pussy.

      Real! ones are on page 4.

    24. Re:What did he call him? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Could've been a couple of consonants worse.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  4. p***k? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is a p***k? prick? 99.99% of politicians are pricks, if that is what p***k means. p***k is obscene?

    1. Re:p***k? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      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?

  5. So, when? by rotide · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:So, when? by craftycoder · · 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?

    2. Re:So, when? by Altus · · Score: 1

      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

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    3. Re:So, when? by bluefoxlucid · · 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!

    4. Re:So, when? by rotide · · Score: 1

      I understand that you were confused about my first sentence. But my post was three sentences long and you entirely missed the third one which would have easily cleared up the confusion:

      "If you can be banned from ever entering the country for that "offense", when are we going to be exiled for doing the same?"

      I never said he was exiled. My post was an open question as to when foreigners being banned for calling the POTUS a name would slip to citizens being exiled.

    5. Re:So, when? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. STOP taking headline and comments on face value. Check the source.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:So, when? by craftycoder · · Score: 1

      Paging the straw man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

      In a word, NEVER. No American will ever be exiled for this. We have rights because we are citizens.

    7. Re:So, when? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      So when does calling the president an unsavory name get you exiled?

      I believe it was Reagan who banned the Canadian authur Farley Mowat over his threat to shoot down any US ICBM's passing overhead *with his personal gun*.

      Talk about overreacting.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    8. Re:So, when? by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      LOL for backing up statement with evidence.

    9. Re:So, when? by ktappe · · Score: 1

      So when does calling the president an unsavory name get you exiled (sic)?

      When the person does more than that. Read the article.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    10. Re:So, when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could it be that he is a fair complexioned, blue-eyed young male who is a [GASP!] soccer/rugby thug? You know, a member of an endangered human phenotype that by definition has no rights like the bearded, swarthy, capped and robed pork-shunning types who shout things like "Jihad against the West" overrunning the landscape.

    11. Re:So, when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they have Wii fit in McDonalds, isn't that where most people in America live?

      Oh look, I'm going to be banned from America for calling Americans fat...

    12. Re:So, when? by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      In my experience, sending nasty drunken threatening emails to the white house as a US citizen usually ends up with being banned from getting within a specified number of miles of the president. This has been the case since the Clinton years, and probably from even prior.

    13. Re:So, when? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "EVERYONE in Britain is rude"

      You must be an American. :)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:So, when? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Etiquette is relative. Ethics (philosophy on good and evil) are relative. Morality (definitive good and evil) is not.

  6. So says the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Shenanigans!

    1. Re:So says the Sun? by jbeaupre · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:So says the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sound much nicer. I wish the police lied to us more often.

    3. Re:So says the Sun? by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Well, if you read the BBC article, the police confirm that they told him he's been banned. They never confirm that he's been banned, just that they told him so. At any rate, the US government policy is not to tell people they have been banned. So, it's unusual to break with protocol like this, if true. It's especially weird to break with protocol preemptively, by telling the police he's been banned PRIOR to the police doing the investigation they've been asked to do by the Secret Service.

      The same thing happens to US citizens, too. If you send a threatening email to the president, or anybody in the government really, you'll get the FBI or the SS showing up to ask you a few questions. Almost always they decide it's harmless, and you get warned not to make threats even in jest. Sure, they end up on FOX when threatening a democrat, and on CNN otherwise, showing how the evil party in power abuses its power by crushing the freedom to make death threats, but it's not like they get arrested unless the SS/FBI think it's a legitimate threat.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    4. Re:So says the Sun? by CyranoDeBergerac · · Score: 1

      coup de gras

      They hit him with a lump of fat?

      Or did you mean coup de grâce?

      Nothing like pretentiously misusing a foreign term to make you look like a twat. (Or even a con.)

    5. Re:So says the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      British Police don't do much. The Labor Government introduced an Arrest Quota with bonus money for the officers and the relevant region. Police here now arrest anyone innocent to increase quota. I've been arrested twice in 2 months for walking INTO a police station with VIDEO evidence! It's out of control. In the mean time kids are knifing each other in schools, drugs are being sold in shopping centers and it goes on and on.

      But British police don't carry guns. So the last thing they want to do is chase down a real criminal, it's easier to arrest a 55 yo old pensioner who rode his bike across a pedestrian pavement than arrest a kid weilding a knife.

      Incidentally THE SUN isn't worth the ink it's printed with. It wrote an article about me having children to several british women. Damn, I've been missing out on some hot sex ... and my kids aren't too happy being called tramps at their schools and my partner isn't happy that she did all the hard work and didn't get the credit for it!

    6. Re:So says the Sun? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Dude, I've got an unset broken arm (surgery scheduled) and barely able to type. With the pain killers, I'm lucky you understood me at all.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    7. Re:So says the Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry , i didn't know the FBI visited you.

  7. That'll show him! by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Troll

    We'll teach him that America doesn't tolerate someone speaking freely!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. Streisand effect by Jailbrekr · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:Streisand effect by Ironhandx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quick! Someone alert 4chan!

    2. Re:Streisand effect by mickwd · · Score: 1

      The UK should respond by announcing that another UK citizen is never going to be allowed onto US soil.

      PS: Check out the NASA Documents section.

    3. Re:Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An excellent way to waste FBI/secret service resources for enemies of America?

      Just send fake emails by the truck load and millions of man hours are wasted.

    4. Re:Streisand effect by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      Or from everybody's favorite site: 4Chan...

      Could you imagine what would have happened if the teen sent Obama Goatse?

  9. Hey, Obama. by Sean_Inconsequential · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are a prick. Sincerely, a guy that lives in America.

    1. Re:Hey, Obama. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Do you really think this happened? or do you think someone taught to 'teach the controversy' and not facts just found a piece of crap from the Sun and submitted it?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Hey, Obama. by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Do you really think this happened? or do you think someone taught to 'teach the controversy' and not facts just found a piece of crap from the Sun and submitted it?

      Nah, it really happened - the Sun ripped it from his local newspaper: http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Teen-is-banned-from-USA-over-Obama-hate-email.htm

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    3. Re:Hey, Obama. by Sean_Inconsequential · · Score: 1

      I think it really happened, though not as it was reported. I think it shows quite well how people, and the press, manipulate facts to suit their ideology or make themselves appear to be the victim or to make for a good story to sell advertising. To think that the government would bar someone from the country for life for something as benign as name calling is absurd, certainly Obama has been called worse by someone much more capable of action or rallying a crowd than a seventeen year old.

    4. Re:Hey, Obama. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a prick.

      Sincerely,
      a guy that lives in America.

      Maybe.

      But the bigger pricks are the ones who are maintaining this concept that the top office holder is responsible for everything.

      And even bigger pricks are the ones who think politicians aren't just putting on a {Republican, Democrat} team jersey for show.

      And still bigger pricks are the ones who think the RIGHT is really that different from the LEFT.

      And the BIGGEST PRICKS are the puppeteers who are pulling the financial strings behind all of it-- and probably you, too.

      Freedom only happens when the government gets really, really (need a magnifying glass) small.

  10. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did this get slashdotted? The Sun is a tabloid under Murdoch's domain, knuckleheads.

    1. Re:What? by QuiGonGene · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was about to type.

  11. Just called him a "p***k"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Just called him a "p***k"? by mea37 · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. And here's the thing: if I'm wrong, the kid should be able to prove it (or at least make a good go of trying).

      Sure, the U.S. authorities might (claim to) be barred from discussing a specific case; but the kid can almost certainly produce the email (that being what Sent Mail is for). Of course, there would then be some back-and-forth about whether the email he produced was authentic, whether it was the email in question, etc. A real reporter might have asked to sit with him at his computer and look over his sent email folder. If he agreed to this (without being given enough warning to tamper with the message first), then he'd have some credibility.

      Even if we just had his word as to the authenticity of the email, that might be enough to force an official response from the White House; if they show me an email, I'm inclined to believe it's real. And depending on what email service he uses, it might be possible (perhaps not easy) to get an authentication of what message was sent from them. (For example, since I use GMail, I'm willing to bet that Google could tell you whether I raelly sent a given email or not.)

      The point being, if I'd just been told at college age that I were barred from a major country, I wouldn't just assume that it would never matter. I'd be making every effort to show that it was an over-reaction, if it were. This kid, on the other hand, can't come up with better than a "gosh, I don't think I said anything that bad"?

      Not buying it.

    2. Re:Just called him a "p***k"? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      If he used the official White House contact form to send the email, he won't have a copy. I've used it, you don't get a copy sent to you.

    3. Re:Just called him a "p***k"? by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      There's no way to know that.
      Innocent until proven guilty. And since we don't get to see a copy of the text , we can only assume innocence.
      I hate it when people play the racism card without evidence.

      But banning someone for life , for this , is ridiculous.
      I mean , he is a teenager , reading about conspiracy theories and believing them . In a few years , he would have realized what the real world is about , and would feel silly about sending the mail.

      Offcourse , getting threatened by the FBI for sending the email doesn't help in this case . It probably just reinforces the view that something ugly going on. In fact , it even makes me wonder.

  12. HAHA HAHAH AHAHAH AHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cough.. cough..... HA!

  13. He THINKS he knows by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    1. Re:He THINKS he knows by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      If he used the official White House contact form to send the email, he won't have a copy. I've used it, you don't get a copy sent to you. Nada. Anyone could call the President a prick or even send death threats from your IP and you'd be none the wiser.

    2. Re:He THINKS he knows by mjwx · · Score: 1

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

      Yep, but it should be in his sent items right.

      Seriously, I think somoene a few posts up nailed it.
      1. Idiot sends abusive email to pres (stupidly with real name on it).
      2. Secret Service calls the Plod, asks them to find out if the guy's a threat. Puts a ban on visa just in case.
      3. Plod visits idiot, finds out he's an idiot and tells idiot he can't get a US tourist visa any more.
      4. Idiot calls tabloid, makes up sob story.
      5. Tabloid makes big deal out of nothing (BAU for a tabloid).

      Nothing more to see here, the US is already very strict with tourist visa's and you can be rejected, even as Brit or Aussie for any number of obscure reasons. Even as an Aussie, I have to apply for a US tourist visa before even getting on a flight compared to Europe, Aisa and many other places where I can expect a Visa on Arrival.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  14. What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Marx_Mrvelous · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
    1. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could agree, except for the fact that speech is supposedly free both in the UK and the US, and otherwise threats are actionable crimial offenses.

      In other words: the Secret Service shoud send the accusation to trial or STFU.

    2. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just curious, did you mean to write "POTUS" or are you trying to get banned from the USA?

    3. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by bareman · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Marx_Mrvelous · · Score: 1

      If I do, that would at least be a real news story! But yes, I meant POTUS.

      --

      Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
    5. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
    6. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they feel he is a threat to the president, they aren't going to try a foreign citizen in a foreign country. They're going to ban him from entering the country.

    7. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Shhhh. You'll disturb the conservative hive-mind if you speak too much of such possibilities. Slashdot is still working hard to label Obama as a great fascist dictator communist pig leftist Muslim Christian Atheist yada yada yada. If you suggest not only that the great satan did not himself conduct such action; but that such action might not have occurred at all, you will invoke the anger of the slashdot conservative base.

      The best choice of action is to stand back and laugh as they grasp at straws while their argument falls apart...

    8. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can't remember what he wrote? BS. There will be a copy in his Sent E-mail folder.

      You know, not all of us are using outlook.

    9. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Haffner · · Score: 1

      It's too bad we call him POTUS (POH-tuhs) rather than POTUSA (poh-TOO-sah) sounds much funnier.

      --
      "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
    10. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      That would be par for the course for the Sun.

      Their latest scoop is the amazing "magnetic woman".
      http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3102005/Iron-mam-Brenda-Allison-a-is-human-magnet.html

      I'm guessing that the FBI/secret service would be pretty busy if they took this route for all "you suck" emails - so presumably they'd only bother calling across the pond when the content is a little more suggestive or threatening than usual. Kind of difficult to say without seeing the original.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    11. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 4, 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.

    12. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by flandar · · Score: 1

      So we actually learn more about our own media from this story than the story itself. A responsible media wouldn't publish a story like this until they actually had the FACTS. What did the kid really say? He is obviously lying in the quote. This is a biased one sided story with no fact checking or research. It's an inflammatory headline grab trying to manipulate their audience. They are just looking to grab eyes with headlines that have no meaning.

    13. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Zizagoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      He wouldn't have a copy if he used http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact to send the email.

    14. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      If it was Outlook, it would've probably lost the email. :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    15. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by keeboo · · Score: 1

      Their latest scoop is the amazing "magnetic woman". http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3102005/Iron-mam-Brenda-Allison-a-is-human-magnet.html

      And if the picture is right, a men repellent aswell.

    16. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I could agree, except for the fact that speech is supposedly free both in the UK and the US, and otherwise threats are actionable crimial offenses.

      In other words: the Secret Service shoud send the accusation to trial or STFU.

      Does the Secret Service have standing in Britain?

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    17. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by fishexe · · Score: 1

      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!".

      This is by far the most insightful analysis of the situation I've seen in this thread.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    18. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      So we actually learn more about our own media from this story than the story itself. A responsible media wouldn't publish a story like this until they actually had the FACTS. What did the kid really say? He is obviously lying in the quote. This is a biased one sided story with no fact checking or research. It's an inflammatory headline grab trying to manipulate their audience. They are just looking to grab eyes with headlines that have no meaning.

      His local Newspaper is heavier on facts than the Sun; so what we actually learn is that the Sun doesn't report news properly, but we knew that already.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    19. Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  15. Where is the entire e-mail? by Blindman · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
    1. Re:Where is the entire e-mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here it is:

      You don't frighten us, American pig dog! Go and boil your bottom, you son of a silly person! I blow my nose at you, so-called Obama President, who has the brain of a duck, you know! You and all your silly American cabinet member types! You empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELT OF ELDERBERRIES! I wave my private parts at your aunties, you cheesy lot of second hand electric donkey bottom biters! I BURST MY PIMPLES AT YOU, you tiny-brained wiper of other people's bottoms! ILLEGITIMATE FACED BUGGERFOLK! And if you think you got nasty taunting this time, you ain't heard nothing yet! Daffy Amerikaner executive office folk! THPPPT!!1!!

    2. Re:Where is the entire e-mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know if this Obama's figure (made in Spain) qualify as Free Speech?

      http://www.caganer.com/barak-obama-p-289.html

  16. Verification, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have not seen it verified, anywhere, that the boy was "banned from the US". Maybe some local officials in the UK told him that - I have no idea - this is not verification.
    People can say anything they want and no one will bother to verify if it is sensational.

    1. Re:Verification, please by JSBiff · · Score: 2, 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.

    2. Re:Verification, please by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      The first amendment was phrased that way because it was the position of the founding fathers that "All men are created equal, and endowed with certain unalienable rights..." or something like that. The point is, the U.S. was supposed to be the first country to assume not that its citizens were special, but that humanity was special. The initial assumption the the United States was founded upon was that all men (humans) are created as equal beings with certain rights inherent to their existence. Thus, setting up the Bill of Rights to state the the government shall not do A, B, and C was intentional. It was written on the assumption that human beings, all human beings, have certain rights simply by being human beings. The United States government was supposed to be set up as an entity that would not tread upon any human being's rights, not just it's citizens. Now whether that ever was, is, or will be the case is an entirely different discussion.

  17. Change we can believe in? by wonkavader · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    What a colossal disappointment this administration is.

    1. Re:Change we can believe in? by satoshi1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I am so upset that he hasn't undone Bush's eight years of work in a quarter of the time!

    2. Re:Change we can believe in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heheh.

      For those of us who did not drink the kool aid, and saw through this guy from the beginning, there is no disappointment. A strong urge to say, "I told you so," but no disappointment.

      You, and those like you were all: "Oh, the red necks and the racists HATE Mr. Obama. I hate THEM, so they must be wrong. Plus, have you LISTENED to Palin? Puh-LEEZE!"

      Thanks for helping fuck up the country.

    3. Re:Change we can believe in? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      He hasn't even undone a quarter of said work in a quarter if time, not even closely.

      What is worse is that he clearly is bent on preserving some of the worst parts of Bush's legacy.

    4. Re:Change we can believe in? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Does it take 2 years to close Guantanamo? Which, by the way, is twice as long as what Obama promised he'd do it in, and it still isn't done.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Change we can believe in? by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      It's not what he hasn't undone. It's what he hasn't changed.

      He campaigned like he was going to act and "President" [as a verb] totally differently from what people usually think of when think of a politician.

      It turns out ... he isn't doing that. He's basically the same as any other Democrat.

      At least, that's why it seems many that voted for him are upset. I didn't vote for him and didn't believe his campaign promises in the first place, so I am not particularly surprised. Actually, so far, he seems to have turned out slightly better than I thought would happen... ;)

    6. Re:Change we can believe in? by ktappe · · Score: 1

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

      What a colossal disappointment this administration is.

      I love how you undid your argument by immediately going too far. Disagree with Obama all you like, but blaming him for this action that he obviously did not even know about but was done by the Secret Service just makes you sound silly and lame.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    7. Re:Change we can believe in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is Bush X10. He has continued all the things people disliked about the Bush presidency, and done it 10X the rate. Obama has surpassed Bush in a quarter of the time.

    8. Re:Change we can believe in? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    9. Re:Change we can believe in? by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      "I love how you undid your argument by immediately going too far."

      Obama has done no visible sort of cleaning out of the knuckleheads that Bush appointed, or the draconian ideas about security and power.

      The message from the top to the agents in the field ("Civil rights are back. Start thinking about people as citizens, again, not as the enemy or as peons you can spy on, abuse, etc.") never came. The agents still act like they did in the Bush administration. They may even now be worse, because they we expecting the message and it didn't come, which showed them that this is the new way of thinking: it wasn't just Bush, it's here to stay, and abusers of power are safe forever.

      That's the administration. You can say the actions of the little people in any department are just the actions of those little people, and not the administration, but when there's an overall pattern, and the upper level does nothing to change it (or even makes it worse -- see the justice department and it's stepping up of Bush-era prosecutions) that's the administration.

      I have not gone too far. Bush's government did, and the Obama administration has fixed nothing and even made things worse. He is to blame for this action, until we hear that someone from above reverses it and apologizes for it, showing that he appointed someone competent to oversee this department. We almost certainly won't hear any reversal or apology, because Obama has a mouth-breather in the position.

      I voted for him. I want him to succeed. He has, so far, failed in (almost) every area.

    10. Re:Change we can believe in? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      McCain seemed a decent[1] guy to me, but he was eight years too late. Palin is absolutely barmy.

      That left Obama and ... whoever the understudy is ... as the only sensible choice[2]. During the campaign it became apparent what a good talker he is. During his presidency, it's becoming apparent that it's all he is. But then remind me, what was his job before?

      He's a big disappointment, but it could have been worse.

      [1] By the standards of the profession
      [2] Is anyone else worried that it was as close as it was?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Original article is from the Sun, and not true. by abqaussie · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 Way to believe everything you read on the internet.

    1. Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true. by locallyunscene · · Score: 2, 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'.

    2. Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true. by Nimey · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true. by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      If I type 'The Post' in google the first result that comes up is The [New York] Post. The second result is a student run paper. I didn't know there was another well-known 'The Post', but that's the one I was referring to.

    4. Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true. by Nimey · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true. by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Actually, the original article is from Bedfordshire News. http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Teen-is-banned-from-USA-over-Obama-hate-email.htm

  20. The Sun has no credibility by Nimey · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:The Sun has no credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Yet, this article gets slashdotted, and now people are trying to seriously deal with the ramifications of this supposed (and unverified) act on the details presented in the trash tabloid.

      What the hell? I am ashamed - I'm sure almost everyone of you here has the right to vote, some in this country, and this is a demonstration of your grasp of information? No questioning the source? Only a few people in the comments are even dealing with the problems presented in the article if taken at face value - that the use of the word 'threatening' is contained, but subdued, while the sensationalist name calling is highlighted.

      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.

    2. Re:The Sun has no credibility by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:The Sun has no credibility by Nimey · · Score: 1

      And your uninformed opinion at the top of this discussion marks you as a moron. Congratulations, I guess.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:The Sun has no credibility by moosesocks · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:The Sun has no credibility by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And your uninformed opinion at the top of this discussion marks you as a moron. Congratulations, I guess.

      And your uncouth commentary marks you as of the same personality type who sent that stupid email to Obama. Congrats on your lack of civility. Too bad I'm not the President, I could ban your ass.

      Besides, I did RTFA, it was just completely useless and uninformative and that was as far I was interested in pursuing the matter.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:The Sun has no credibility by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      Remember, the first rule of the Obama Fan Club is to never talk about the Obama Fan Club.

      The second rule of the Obama Fan Club is to destroy any bad Obama press. Denial of service is an acceptable 1st step.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    7. Re:The Sun has no credibility by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      His local Newspaper (most likely where the Sun stole the story from) is heavier on facts; there are also links to the BBC's reporting in other threads on this page

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    8. Re:The Sun has no credibility by neiljt · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My heart sank when I saw my first ever link from Slashdot to the Sun. Yes I know, Slashdot is hardly the Acme of Journalism, but compared with The Sun ...

      Rupert Murdoch. Now there's a p**** for you.

      Dammit, now maybe I'll get banned from Oz for life. Oh well.

    9. Re:The Sun has no credibility by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      And... also from Bedfordshire News, who confirmed with Police that they visited the teen.

      More likely, it's the case of a PC intimidating an individual, and they had no idea if he were actually banned or not. But it's a fairly safe assumption, especially if according to Bedfordshire News, the email said "A LOT more than just prick". Like, threatening language.

      So, let's review what really happened: Angel gets drunk. Writes abusive and threatening email to White House. White House receives email. White House transmit it per S.O.P. to the Secret Service. Secret Service per S.O.P. investigates. Since Angel is not in the US, they contact the local police to investigate if Angel is a real threat. The Bedfordshire police sends two PC to the house. The PCs arrive and "rough the kid up" because that's what some cops do. Kid calls up news to whine. Reports gets blown out of proportion by the media assuming that there was some sinister action on part of the administration, when in reality it was entirely S.O.P.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  21. Slippery slope... by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

    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 wishing or threatening harm to someone is where the line is drawn, but it's all about baby steps. If you take small enough ones eventually you'll get there, and the administration knows that.

    That said, banning someone from the country is too much, certainly for that statement anyway. It should have been handled, but certainly not that harshly. If my kid calls 911, they call back and say don't do that. They don't pick him up and throw him in juvi for 6 months.

    1. Re:Slippery slope... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Your post is a good example of slippery slope, but probably not in a way you had intended...

  22. China by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:China by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason nothing was done at the time is because the Chinese government is patient, very patient! They are actually hoping that you will visit China. That is when they will throw you in jail. Don't think they forgot about it!

    3. Re:China by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Check you sources, it's the Sun.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:China by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Don't think they forgot about it!

      Yes, well, don't think law enforcement in the U.S. forgets much of anything either. The long arm of the law is based upon the long memory of the law, and that's true no matter where you are.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  23. Butthurt much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some kid on the other side of the globe calls somebody a non-nice word - on the internet no less - and gets perma-banned in real life? Is Obama a vindictive, Internet-tough-guy IRC op? Quite pathetic really.

    Well at least it shows that the often touted "free speech" is only valid until somebody in power objects; which is certainly more harmful to the US than some kid calling the president names.

  24. Re:Land of the free, home of the brave? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe he'll invite him over to have a case of beer or two.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  25. More people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what what the reaction would be if a lot of people suddenly sent emails to the white house, calling Obama a p***k...

  26. corepirate nazi illuminati call to arms/life0cide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it could be something else, but what could that possibly be?

    http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=blair+bush+cheney+rumsfeld+wolfowitz+obama&fr=ush-news&ygmasrchbtn=Web+Search

    http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=manufactured+weather&fr=ush-news&ygmasrchbtn=Web+Search

  27. USSR joke by roman_mir · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:USSR joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, government protests you!

    2. Re:USSR joke by Culture20 · · Score: 3, 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.

  28. Uh by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    "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?

    1. Re:Uh by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Nope, it was this past Saturday and that date will fall again next year and every subsequent year.

  29. Bad Slashdot summary by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The usual: Bad Slashdot summary. The facts: Police said the e-mail to the US president was full of abusive language.

      And that qualifies for banning a teen for the rest of his life from going to U.S.?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Which still qualifies as Stupid Thing To Do, but does anyone actually think this kid is a credible threat to the President?

      I'll buy that the Secret Service/FBI looks into it (if he managed to hit the right notes in the email). I'll even buy that local police will assist (because police do that sort of thing). But once you find the guy, unless there's something unmentioned going on... he's one drunk kid who isn't even in the same country.

    3. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      And that qualifies for banning a teen for the rest of his life from going to U.S.?

      Probably not, but it depends on the content of the e-mail. Has it been released to the public?

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    4. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by IshmaelDS · · Score: 1

      Nowhere in that tiny article does it state that the email was "full of abusive language". It states "threatening" and that's it. Regardless of that though, who cares? His response according to that article was "oh dear, it was me" when the police came to question him. Does that really sound like a threatening person to the president?

      --
      letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
    5. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Well, he's British. Why would he ever want to go to the US? To go where? Florida?

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    6. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Poobar · · Score: 1

      "Bedfordshire police, who then visited Luke, said the e-mail was full of abusive and threatening language." In the 3rd paragraph of the tiny article.

    7. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by IshmaelDS · · Score: 1

      Doh. I'm a moron. I just saw the line. somehow I missed it when reading. sigh, more coffee please

      --
      letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
    8. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      And that qualifies for banning a teen for the rest of his life from going to U.S.?

      Well, on the other hand, there are other places to visit. I am approaching my 50s and although I have spent many years moving from one country to another, have never yet visited the US. I can imagine a number of reasons to do so, but none so immediately pressing that I feel the need to submit to being treated as a criminal by their immigration officials.

    9. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by fishexe · · Score: 1

      The usual: Bad Slashdot summary. The facts: Police said the e-mail to the US president was full of abusive language.

      More importantly, according to the link you posted: "Bedfordshire police, who then visited Luke, said the e-mail was full of abusive and threatening language." Threatening the president is a crime. Threatening anyone with bodily harm has been a crime for centuries under English common law. Unless the police are lying, there's no free speech issue here.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    10. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    11. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by IshmaelDS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ya I realized after I posted that I was a moron.

      --
      letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
    12. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by StikyPad · · 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.

    13. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    14. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by ktappe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

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

      Mod parent up please.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    15. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      When abusive and threatening language is homegrown, it qualifies as a form of protected speech.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    16. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Canada!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    17. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 2, 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...

    18. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Oh you're not a moron. You're apparently a whaler in handheld format with two screens...

    19. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · 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.

    20. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by boxwood · · Score: 1

      Well the thing about the Mexicans is that the government could put a stop to illegal immigration by just checking in on businesses and making sure all their employees are citizens or legal immigrants. This wouldn't be all that difficult to do really, since they already check to make sure people are paying taxes. They just need to cross reference the IRS database with the state's birth certificate databases and INS databases, And you'd have a big long list of people to deport.

      Why don't they do this? because it would disrupt a lot of businesses.

      So now we have a bunch of people who are technically illegal, but de facto legal (because the government will not take action). They are in the country and government and business have decided to allow them to stay in the country. If the powerful have decided to allow Mexicans to remain in the country should they not have the rights that everyone else in the country have?

    21. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm personally appalled that the Beds police wasted public money on this.

      Do they see themselves as the FBI's pet poodles?

      Disgraceful.

    22. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      well the USA's a lot more strict look at the guy who threw the egg at John Prescott (deputy PM) a while back. In the USA he would have been shot by the Secret service John just punched him out - not bad going for 70

    23. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      While you make a good point, I think it is more about their votes than their rights. Never mind that it should be impossible for an illegal to vote, we're going to pander to them anyway.

    24. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by boxwood · · Score: 1

      Yup thats the reason right there. A lot of it comes down to cost. If a foreigner makes a threatening remark towards the president then they have one of two options:

      1. Start an investigation to determine if he is serious and/or if he has the means to act on his threats. Put a flag in the Homeland security database so that if he tries to enter the US they would monitor his movements and who is is meeting with, etc.

      2. Just ban him from entering the US.

      I'm sure they have a huge list of procedures to follow. You email the president and tell him he's a prick, they probably query a database to see if you're already on file, and if that file indicates you're dangerous, then follow it up. If not its fine. You make a threat, that will be followed up, regardless of whether or not you're on file. If you're overseas that means you immediately get banned, and get a visit from the local police. Depending on what the police report back they may investigate further, or just drop it.

      How do you tell from an email if someone is just drunk and stupid or is a deranged madman that is an actual threat? You ban a drunk asshole, who cares? but if you don't ban a deranged madman and something really bad happens...

      No story here, just the secret service following procedure.

    25. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      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...

      If the white kid from England was already living and working in the U.S., then it could easily be a civil rights issue.

    26. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Why? Squatter's rights is a Civil Right now?

    27. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2, Informative

      18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.

      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.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    28. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

      I agree with this, even though Fox News has made it clear time and time again that they are anti-American. Hell, they had a thing about "not questioning a wartime president". Obama is a wartime president but they're questioning him. Or the protests thing. When people protested Bush they were, according to Fox, "anti America hippies that want our enemies to conquer us". Now that they're leading protests for... I guess they're protesting that Obama is black. There's other examples, but really all you have to do is watch Fox News itself, or The Daily Show since they tear them a new one (metaphorically) every few episodes.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    29. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Fox "News", no matter what they might try to claim, is not really a "press outlet" any more than the Weekly World News is. It's entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

      p

    30. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Now that they're leading protests for... I guess they're protesting that Obama is black.

      Read this, then come back here:

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1643323

      Really enlightening stuff. Fox News isn't really the problem with the 'because he is black' angle. Polarization is. And Obama is rather blind for not seeing that an endorsement for 'change' didn't necessarily mean 'liberal change'. Only 20% of those polled, on both sides of the isle, actually endorsed that sort of thing in 2009. Thusly, the whole 'secret agenda' thing has a lot more basis than it seems to at first glance.

      Fox is feeding on this, to be sure, and inflaming it, but the actual emotions appear to be based on more reasonable things.

      Anyway, read the paper.

    31. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      And because you apply this label, they ought to loose their First Amendment protections???

    32. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you're bringing up illegal Mexican aliens in a non-immigration debate strictly defined in the context of "visiting" calls into question the reliability of your paranoia about alleged voting and pandering.

      Find a proper forum for your fanaticism, Bob. Nobody here shares your fear about "those dirty Mexicans" raping your "pure white daughter."

    33. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I have only sons, AC, and several of my very good friends are 'dirty Puerto Ricans'. As citizens, perhaps unsurprisingly, they don't care much for Mexicans themselves. Also illegal Mexican aliens ARE legally only visiting, are they not?

      And again, if they have no political clout, why are they an election issue?

      Color me a racist and a fanatic if you'd like, dear Coward, but at least TRY to touch on the points as you do so.

      Finally, try being man enough to log in first. You'll find it liberating.

    34. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Press outlets should not be allowed to spread patently false information.

    35. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Press outlets should not be allowed to spread patently false information.

      Why not? Every single one does it regularly, both intentionally and accidentally.

    36. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Your argument "because you apply this label" is idiotic, since Slashdot posts have no legal authority. That of course doesn't mean there is no authority over the matter and under the clause "or of the press", yes, they can lose rights granted to the press if such authority revokes their press status.

      It doesn't invalidate "...abridging the freedom of speech...", but that freedom is limited by a variety of reasons, including the one discussed in this article. If Fox is convicted of any of a number of anti-American laws mentioned, yes, its activities could be curtailed to a certain extent.

      Lucky for Fox sheep, Obama isn't the dictator they ignorantly accuse him of being.

    37. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by fishexe · · Score: 1

      18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.

      Yeah, that too. Probably a better argument than my own, given that criminal law has almost entirely been moved from common law to statutory law.

      Still, it is a rather ridiculous thing to do especially in light of far more serious threats which need to be pursued.

      Possibly. We don't know in great detail what was in the email and what the sequence of events was. Did they know it was a drunken message at the time they decided to ban him? The email of a drunk could probably be easily mistaken for the email of a crazy person, and a majority of the people who've carried out attempts to harm or kill a sitting US President were, to use a clinical term, crazy people.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    38. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Your argument that only opinions with legal authority are worthy of analysis and rebuttal is equally idiotic. Further, it is off topic.

      If Fox is convicted of any of a number of anti-American laws mentioned, yes, its activities could be curtailed to a certain extent.

      Have any charges been yet brought? Because the topic to which I'm responding is:

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

      THAT is the topic here, and I have yet to see anything criminal within the realm of Fox's 'abusive language'.

      Any rebuttal based on anything other than 'abusive language' is out of bounds.

      In short, go bash Fox in someone else's thread. I'm responding to the chilling effect of eliminating parts of the press simply because we don't like them.

      Lucky for Fox sheep, Obama isn't the dictator they ignorantly accuse him of being.

      Go read the paper I've linked here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1786900&cid=33579428

      I think you'll find that Fox isn't the enemy here. It's the lack of liberals that's creating the 'dictator' emotion. Fox is just taking it all the way to the bank.

      Check it out!

    39. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Note the smiley face, a tongue-in-cheek "joke" so to speak.
      It's meant to put a bit of new light on the subject, since Fox effectively does the same thing.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    40. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Not only did I note it, but I'm disagreeing with the humor of it. I even said so in the first five words of my post.

      This is sort of like 'dead baby' jokes to me - too serious a subject to enjoy in this manner.

    41. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      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.

      So...freedom of speech is great, unless it is used to suggest something you disapprove of, even in the form of a joke?

      Besides, considering the kind of crap that goes on under the banner of "patriotism", being called anti-american could be construed as a bloody compliment.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    42. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by gamecrusader · · Score: 1

      so in other countries they can't say that say fuck you obama u are fucking this place up and obama is an asshole
      while here we have the right to say fuck you to our congressmen, and government and they are ass holes and mother fuckers

    43. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Yup, Canada Rocks. It's England + France (Engrance 2.0)

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    44. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      You're jumping the shark here. I'm suggesting that anyone ban Frank T Lofaro, I'm just pointing out that his comments are poisonous. Even in the form of a joke.

      Bashing is fun, I know, but I swore off the stuff a few years back. Sometimes I relapse, but I'm only human.

      That being said, I still prefer actual discussion with content in it, thanks.

    45. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Grrrr! I'm NOT suggesting...

    46. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      I'm banned for life from Canada for having tried to cross the border within 5 years of being charged (not convicted) with a drug charge in the US.

      So to heck with Canada!

    47. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    48. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your parent was aware of that, as far as I can tell, though it's not a bad thing to make it more clear.

    49. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      So we can assume you're already petitioning for an appeal on behalf of this kid?

    50. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      It may be anti-American, or maybe not, but it is Canadian to allow the Right Wing Fox news network to operate in Canada while continuing to keep Al Jazeera banned from Canada.

      As long as Right Wing governments are in charge, anything that is bad is good, and Double-Speak rules the day.

    51. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I honestly didn't know that. That's sad.

      And the immigration department cut off funding to the Canadian Arab Federation on grounds that its president regards Hamas and Hezbollah as "legitimate organizations."

      Um, weren't they duly elected by their people?

      Poor Canada.

    52. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      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.

      So we can assume you're already petitioning for an appeal on behalf of this kid?

      Nope, but mostly on the grounds that it didn't actually happen.

    53. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      "Making threats against the President, credible or otherwise, IS a crime in this country"

      If only we had, oh, something like, a concept called "intent", which authorities could consider when deciding whether someone was actually making a real threat or just being young, foolish and harmless.

      "All in all this is basically a slap on the wrist for a slap-on-the-wrist-worthy offense"

      Perhaps I'm just odd, but I don't consider a lifetime sentence restricting travel - even if it was to a country I'd have no current intention of visiting - a slap on the wrist.

    54. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no the news agencys need a muzzel like a sick dog that tries to bite the hand that feeds it freedom of speach should have a caveate. ingnorant Americans anyway!! oops i bet i get baned from Slashdot by a moderator oooooooo yeah its just like that.

    55. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox news is not press. They are a corporatist propaganda machine infiltrating sparsely populated towns and sparsely populated minds to do their bidding.

    56. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Not sure Fox News qualifies as a press outlet. Granted, they do a lot of press release-type articles, but I always thought that fell under marketing.

      To be serious, there are ways of limiting the control that large mediia corporations have over everyday people. It's more reasonable and very possible to have a blanket ban for corporations from engaging in a particular action than to ban any particular corporation from a specific or generic set of behaviors.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    57. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So's banning drunk foreign teens for mouthing off - I believe that was the point.

      The dangerous thing is suggesting that a corporation (press or otherwise) somehow deserves more consideration/protection than the individual.

    58. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      They don't try to speak directly to the president though.. Also the UK also keeps extremist Islamic preachers from entering the country too; I can see this kid isn't as much of a threat with hindsight (knowing that he is 17, as the FBI wouldn't have known at first), but if a country wants to keep out someone they don't like that's fine.

      And if you don't like what Obama or anyone else is doing don't write them a threatening letter, do something constructive about it..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    59. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      My elementary school teachers often threatened that "this would go down on you permanent record." I thought they were just blowing smoke. Maybe they weren't full of crap after all.

    60. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by whoop · · Score: 1

      Funny how we can be so strict with visitors (or in this case, potential future visitor), but make a statement about people entering this country illegally, and you're racist, xenophobic, etc.

    61. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      calling fox *entertainment* news a press outlet is fuckin ridiculous

    62. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, i believe he was being sarcastic. obviously it would be bad to censor the press.

    63. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The usual: Bad Slashdot summary. The facts: Police said the e-mail to the US president was full of abusive language [bbc.co.uk].

      According to the BBC article the email was not only full of abusive language, but full of abusive and threatening language. To prohibit entry of a foreign national who has made threats against the President of the United States seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

    64. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You're not necessarily a moron. If Bedfordshire police said the sky was blue, I'd look up and check.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    65. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by felix85 · · Score: 1

      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.

      I believe you misunderstood that comment. I don't think he was actually saying that we should ban Fox News from the US. Instead I think he meant that the government cannot ban Fox for saying anything they don't agree with so why should they be able to ban this kid.

    66. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 0

      Why go to Florida ? Does he need oil that bad. Or does he have a thing for "older" ladies

    67. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      Regardless, as long as that kid didn't do anything illegal - like making concrete threats to the president - freedom of speech should protect him.
      The fact that he's from UK should be irrelevant. He can easily win the appeal at any US court.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    68. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by the_arrow · · Score: 1

      I use the term "punish" loosely in this case because the kid obviously doesn't care -- yet.

      This is the part that I haven't seen anyone thinking about yet. Banning the kid for life severely limits the choices of this kid for his future life. For example he will probably never get a job in a US company operating in Europe because of this, as it might involve traveling to the US. It is a punishment that is way more than a slap on the wrist as someone else above thought it was.

      --
      / The Arrow
      "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    69. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Avenger_Mullah · · Score: 1

      Yeah because there is no way parent was joking... If only he had done something to make it clear, maybe adding a smiley to his post somewhere?

    70. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      We're pissing £10 million away on the Pope's visit. Compared to that, this is nothing.

    71. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by master_p · · Score: 1

      Since when the U.S. president accepts emails?

    72. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Fox is NOT a press outlet. It is a propaganda machine. There is a difference. Propaganda should be banned.

    73. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Your argument that only opinions with legal authority are worthy of analysis and rebuttal is equally idiotic. Further, it is off topic.

      Learn to read, stupid. I only said Slashdot posts have no legal authority, like say, subpoena power. Not that they are of no theoritical value. Yours actually don't have much value for this, and several other reasons, including but certainly not limited to the following.

      Have any charges been yet brought?

      No, I specifically pointed that out (learn to read). And the fact that no charges have been brought is not proof that there is no wrongdoing, nor that it's not feasible to get a conviction. Politics play into the legal system, in case you've never watched television. That's why the Bush administration has not been appropriately prosecuted for a number of crimes, such as the treasonous Valerie Plame incident. Obama's

      Go read the paper I've linked

      Yes, yes. Very nice, you linked a research paper. That's only one opinion, backed by nothing but the guy's credibility. The problem is it's nothing but opinion, and he admits that he doesn't know how to gauge public opinion (though he's more honest than politician who falsely claim to, and mentions bad pollsters which produce useless numbers). His claim that presidents cannot lead the public is dubious: is it only elected ones, or does a candidate for office count, in which case Obama is clearly a counterexample; is it only the executive, or are politicians at large incapable of leading opinion, in which case the Tea Party is a prime counterexample. He points to historical record, which is quite short when you assume that to mean the 'bully pulpit', and significantly shorter when you consider Obama's modern visibility. In short, don't push this two week-old paper on people as if it's holy scripture.
      The paper also lends nothing at all to the dictator claim at hand, which you'd also know if you could read. When he writes "On his own authority, [Obama] altered federal rules in areas ranging from stem cell research to the treatment of terrorism suspects." he neglected to point out that Bush had done just the same thing, so if Obama is to be defined as an absolute ruler, he's not along in deserving such a title. That's what you little pinheads don't get. There's nothing new in this administration, other than a (half)black man in the Oval. Connect the dots, either way Republicans come out looking like idiots.

    74. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox news is not press.

    75. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly. I also know from limited, non-personal experience that ICE (Immigration and ... erm... Citizen Express or whatever the new INS stands for) disallows people from entry who have certain misdemeanor crimes. My understanding is that if that crime is resolved in the home country and they no longer have it on their record, then they can visit the US; I could be wrong on this point however.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    76. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just a miserable old republicunt.

    77. Re:Bad Slashdot summary by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      First Obama wets himself because a bunch of goatfucking moon cultists get a bit angry (as if they aren't always angry about something anyway, the miserable cunts. They should have a few pints, they might lighten up). But I digress.

      And now he hides under the table because some little scrote has a bit too much cider and starts gobbing off.

      Seems he's a big old scaredy cat. Hey, Obama - BOO!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  30. He's unlikely to be a complete prick by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    after all, most men here are circumcised.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  31. Post retraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edit the article with the retraction (a la Gizmodo) or you have no integrity:

    http://gizmodo.com/5637203/drunk-email-to-obama-gets-british-teen-banned-from-america-for-life

  32. Its from the Sun by Hungus · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  33. BBC News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  34. Obama ISN'T his elected representative by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1, Troll

    I know this is hard to grasp for an American, but England is NOT a state of the United States of America. Not yet anyway. So Obama is NOT his president. And since he is 17, he hasn't yet voted for anybody either.

    The US is not obliged to allow anyone in.

    And I would think that the Brits have NOTHING to complain about since they have blocked Geert Wilders from entering because they didn't like what he had to say.

    So the US can't keep out of a drunk teen, but the UK can keep out an elected citizen of an EU nation and a Nato ally?

    Double standards, thou name is Britain.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American, I hold my own country to higher standards. It's stupid that the UK blocked someone from entering, but I can't really complain as that is a different sovereign nation.

    2. Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative by craftycoder · · Score: 1

      Don't blame the Brits for the complaining. I suspect most if not all the people here who are aghast this boys treatment are good old-fashioned Americans. Confused or extraordinarily generous Americans who want to give their rights to citizens of other nations but not require that those same people share in our responsibilities. Honestly, I am completely stumped that the majority opinion on this story is that the boy was mistreated rather than: I can't believe the government is wasting it's time with this, or good for them for keeping the tripe out of our land.

    3. Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you look, it's mostly Americans saying that it's silly, not brits.

      To a brit being banned from America is gonna be something of a badge of honour. This kid won't care.

      Anyway, carry on with all the hypocrisy talk.

    4. Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, after submitting I realized I wrote that poorly and that it reads like I thought this happened in the US. (I swear, there's something different about Preview that makes you miss minor things like that.)

      I considered immediately replying to try and correct that, but I thought most people would be able to figure out that I didn't mean that; the point is that a US citizen calling the President a prick would be a complete non-event (see Fox News). Anyone should be allowed to call US politicians names, regardless of country, and without being banned from entering.

      I still find it hard to believe that this kid said anything worth a ban, no matter what was in the email. Sure, I'll believe the email contained death threats, but I find it hard to believe that this kid is in any way a credible threat to the President.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    5. Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative by Anonymous Coward · · 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".

    6. Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      To a brit being banned from America is gonna be something of a badge of honour. This kid won't care.

      Doubt it. Bush is gone, and Obama is President - so the world likes us again. Well except for North Korea. :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    7. Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative by fishexe · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    8. Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how many Brits have actually complained about this? Not even the kid himself seems bothered by it?

      A lot of US based posters seem very upset as they trumpet their freedom of speech lines - but the funny thing that a lot of them might not know is, this is actually illegal in the UK. You're not allowed to use the Royal Mail to send abusive (different from offensive/critical btw), harassing or threatening communications.

      Now while I don't actually support this level of intrusion into my rights (one of the few thing left that I admire the US for is its few ideologies like this) - I do think this kid is lucky that this all the happened to him. There are certain regional police forces that wouldn't be as lenient.

    9. Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative by russotto · · Score: 1

      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".

      And in neither case is that "old english". Speaking with thees, thys, and thous is simply using obsolete forms of modern English.

  35. The Sun? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    The fucking son? are you shitting me? what next the world weekly news? Yeah I know it doesn't exist anymore, but you get my point.

    Man, people are going to stupidly extreme crap to find anything on this man.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:The Sun? by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      The fucking son?

      No, The Sun & I'm guessing they copied it from his local newspaper; besides the BBC are reporting on it now, so it's probably true. Just not quite in the way that the sun reported it.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  36. Actions have consequences by egburr · · Score: 1

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

    This consequence may be a bit overboard, but maybe this will help you learn that your actions have consequences. Being drunk is no excuse; you still performed the action. Even if you never would have done such a thing while sober, unless someone held you down and shoved a hose down your throat, you willingly chose to get drunk. Now you get to live with the result.

    If only we could be so strict about people driving while drunk or on other drugs, instead of letting them off with a slap on the wrist and a small fine every time until they kill someone. But this kid who sent a threatening email gets banned from the US for life. The consequence doesn't seem proportional to the crime.

    --

    Edward Burr
    Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
  37. banned over threatening email by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    "The individual sent an email to the White House full of abusive and threatening language. We were informed by the Metropolitan Police and went to see him. He said, 'Oh dear, it was me'." - from the article

    If you threaten the US President, you may find yourself on the US threat list.

    It's simple, logical and not any kind of abridgment of free speech.

    It is pathetic slashdot runs a yellow headline, saying the letter was only 'obscene' when the authorities involved say it was more than obscene, but threatening.

    Slashdot, next time you decide to run a story from a tabloid known for its garbage stories, remember that when you run the story you are also making yourself into a tabloid.

    As an additional note, The Sun is owned by News Corp, owners of Fox News. Congratulations on being a mouthpiece for them.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:banned over threatening email by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      The Sun is not the originator of the piece. Try http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Teen-is-banned-from-USA-over-Obama-hate-email.htm - the Sun is just one of many larger news outlets reposting it.

      And if you - young, drunk and foolish - threaten the US President with a nasty email, you shouldn't be banned for life from an entire country.

  38. Maybe we can work with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question is, how can we keep the p***k in his own country ?

  39. You want to see something interesting? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Go to Google and do a search on:
    "obama banned from the US UK"
    (no quotes)

    Look at the sites that are quoting an article in the Sun. It's a whose who of people whose job it is to be anti Obama.
    You could probably map it to all the fallacious anti-Obama's sites. Owned buy Murdoch and the Koch brothers.

    http://noliesradio.org/archives/21658

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  40. Re:Land of the free, home of the brave? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Though if you'd rather blame a couple rogue bureaucrats for these shenanigans, we're left with the question why the UK police was so obliging.

    I for one am glad that the law enforcement resources of two countries were used to protect me from this obvious terrorist threat. /sarcasm

    Jesus, just because YOU CAN doesn't necessarily mean YOU SHOULD. Talk about over-reaction. How much did this cost again, taking into account the time spent by the email-readers in the White House, the FBI, the police in the UK, etc? My opinion is there is more than one prick in government...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  41. Read the article... More than calling him a prick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There seems to be more to the email than JUST calling him a prick...

    "The individual sent an email to the White House full of abusive and threatening language."
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3135327/Obama-rant-Brit-banned-from-US-for-life.html

    Its hard to tell what else might have been in there. The fact of the matter, they would not ban some one for just calling the prick a prick...
    There must be something more to it.

    As far as freedom of speech goes... You have the right to free speech and that is protected. But the freedom of speech does not mean you can say what ever you want and get away with it.

    If you make a threat on some ones life using your freedom of speech it is likely there will be consequences... If you read the article it says the email was full of abusive and threatening language.

  42. Acceptable news source? by tombazza · · Score: 2, Informative

    I would suggest that those thinking this story is false because of it being published in The Sun would perhaps like to check out the article at BBC News? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303 Sounds like the Metropolitan police were involved in this as well, which seems more likely than the FBI getting in touch with a smaller police force.

  43. Uhm... by Derosian · · Score: 1

    A. Doesn't the FBI have something better to do than ban children from entering the US?
    B. I wonder if this will stir up the old hate machine?

  44. Fear Bigbrother's Intervention by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

    Oh boy, you did it too. In a short while you'll hear footsteps then a few loud bangs on the door from the police, delivering your life long ban from the land of the free.

    Can you wait a moment? Someone is knocking on my door...

  45. rupert murdoch by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, 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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:rupert murdoch by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

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

      It's not that hard to figure out. He gets away with it because he has money. He has a metric fuckton of money. He has more money than you have posts void of capital letters. When you are as rich as Rupert Murdoch, people don't take action against you. It's not because it is impossible. It's not because they accept you. It's because if anyone does try to take action, like trying to get his news sources labeled as fiction, then all he has to do is sue and/or buy the entire movement into oblivion. I guarantee you that if there was a huge public push to get his crap labeled as fiction, and some political group took up that cause, and it gained any momentum, that same political group would start having all sorts of trouble, from legal issues to 'scandals' involving its core members. When you have as much money as Rupert Murdoch, you get to run the world, not the other way around.

      The funny part is that the quickest and simplest way to undo a position of such power involves a simple high-energy delivery gadget that society fears and loathes these days.

    2. Re:rupert murdoch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I believe in Free speech but I think he (it's not even him that directs editorial content, if you think he does you're a retarded twat) should have to say things because of society!!!1".

      You've mastered the art of doublespeak comrade!

  46. Alternate News Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I quite like the way that the local paper says he was "drunk and high" but this is left out of the "Nationals" http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Teen-is-banned-from-USA-over-Obama-hate-email.htm

  47. Well in that case... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    ... let's deport the tea party, half the GOP, and the staff at Fox News.

    Oh, and is Rupert Murdoch allowed to enter the US?

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Well in that case... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Oh, and is Rupert Murdoch allowed to enter the US?

      Better yet, he lives there and is a full citizen.

      Yours Sincerely,
      An Australian

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  48. Good by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    If nothing else he's a rude little wanker who by the mere fact of calling an elder this shouldn't be allowed to visit anywhere but his bedroom for a while.

    1. Re:Good by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      But he was talking to a corporate tool. I feel that even if he didn't really mean it, worthless politicians deserve it.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  49. Sad, sad, sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is good to finally know that the WH reserves First Amendment free speech solely for terrorists, fascists, socialists, Marxists, and radical Islamics. Everyone else -- please shut up now!!!

  50. As an American by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1
    I am ashamed of how heavy handed and insane our government has gotten. I do my part, but not enough are. Even if the kid made threats, unless they are credible threats chalk it up to stupid. I hear abusive and threatening language about any dozen politicians in a given day. It's just a fact of life. If it isn't credible then chalk it up to stupid. Sadly the insane notion of "zero tolerance" is alive and well, with no wiggle room.

    To those who say the kid would have a copy of his email, that may not be so. I use yahoo mail for a lot of things, and have it set to not save a copy of the email in my sent folder. I'm sure I'm not the only person on earth who doesn't want the annoyance of a sent folder.

  51. Would Obama be allowed to call him a tosser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would Obama be allowed to call him a tosser? You know, free speech and all that.

    No, he'd be yelled down as unstatesmanlike or rude.

  52. The importance of RTFA by fishexe · · Score: 1

    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?

    Maybe we believe people in any country shouldn't be allowed to threaten our leaders. See the police statement in TFA, and also here. I normally take police statements with a grain of salt, but am more apt to trust them than a drunken teenage attention-whore running to a tabloid to tell his story.

    Low hanging fruit, I guess. As if a drunken teenager's ramblings constituted some credible threat against the President.

    Any threat against the President should be treated as a 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?

    Threatening the head of state is probably in illegal in every country.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    1. Re:The importance of RTFA by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Threatening the head of state is probably in illegal in every country.

      Make that "is probably illegal in every country." Not "in illegal", which makes no sense. Sorry.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  53. inappropriate for what statement? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Do you have the statement?

    You have made up a situation where the response indicated is not appropriate. Did you stop and think that since you don't know what the email actually said that perhaps the response was appropriate and the mistake is your own for making up a situation where the email is assumed to be innocuous?

    It's bizarre that the less information people have, the more convinced they are that they are right and the people who were handling the situation and had the actual information as to what happened are wrong.

    Why? Why do people do this? I just can't understand it. Are people somehow deriving pleasure from calling other people wrong and thus have to find more ways to do it?

    This is one aspect of human behavior that drives me crazy. Why are more people more quick to condemn than to understand?

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:inappropriate for what statement? by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

      Slow your roll buddy. My statement was based on the email containing what he says it contains. Whether that's the case or not, the comment is still valid for the scenario prescribed. If that's not what it contained then this whole discussion is purely academic anyway.

  54. Original Source by Javez · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 It also says he was "drunk and hgh" conveniently left out of the "Nationals"...

  55. you're all pricks. by kae_verens · · Score: 1

    can I be banned now?

    what email address would I need to end this to?

    1. Re:you're all pricks. by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      No sorry, you have to implicitly imply that the president is a prick, not just a generalisation.

      Awesome idea for a prank though, send an email as someone else, and get them banned.....

  56. Sounds like it's gonna be easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's gonna be easy for this guy to pick up chicks.

    Look, baby... I can't come back with you. My ass is banned in the U. S. of A.

  57. I call bullshit by Brandonski · · Score: 1

    FTA: ""I don't remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k"

    bullshit.
    You would think after the cops came he would take a look at his sent mail.

  58. If he was US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand, if he lived in the US he'd be facing jail time. Maybe we should extradite him?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/07/bruce-shores-jim-bunning-_n_707589.html

    1. Re:If he was US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should extradite him?

      Sorry, he's been banned from the US for life - any extradition request would have to be denied.

    2. Re:If he was US citizen... by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      Too late now, cant be extradited. because he is *BANNED FOREVER*. He can argue that in court against being extradited.

      "Sorry your Honour, can t go, been banned, I don't want to commit another crime..."

  59. Threats!=protected speech by Dasuraga · · Score: 1

    I don't think threatening people is protected speech(completely normal) and I'm pretty sure threatening the president is illegal (not as normal, but why are you doing it anyway?)

  60. Ben Quayle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ben Quayle, Dan Quayle's son, Called Obama "The worst president ever" in a recent campaign in Arizona. It was very funny. We all have our opinions, big deal, that is enough to ban us from the country?

  61. I'd like to see the email by Satanboy · · Score: 1

    I read over 7 articles on this fiasco and have yet to have seen the content of the email.

    I think that would let us know if it was indeed threatenting or just obscene.

    I will reserve comment on the situation until I can read this, as I think most folks should.

  62. In the U.S., "prick" is not obscene. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    In American English, prick(slang) just means stuck up snob.

  63. Punk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Called him a punk? So what?

  64. Not even a p**k like O'Bama would do this... by elkstoy · · Score: 0

    I have a hard time believing this about the USA or any sitting president, even O'Bama. I would hazard a guess that the story changed by the time it reached the media...Otherwise I might as well go home and wait for the speech police to come and get me for the last tea party.

  65. It could have been worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could have been worse. Obama's reaction is quite moderate when you remember when a previous president was called "The Wimp President", the receiver of that accolade INVADED THE COUNTRY.

    This is rather tame in comparison.

  66. This is America! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    And, as a Briton, he lost any right to come here whenever he wants in 1776.

    Part of having your own borders means getting to decide who gets to cross them.

  67. I SMELL BULLSHIT by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Any and ALL presidential issues get handled by the Secret Service.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  68. The headline is also false by voss · · Score: 1

    He wasnt banned from the US for calling the president a bad name he was banned for writing a letter "full of abusive and threatening language" language towards the president.
    The moment anyone who not a citizen or a resident of the US uses threatening language towards the president of the United States it is quite reasonable to keep them
    out of the country. The fact that the british police thought it important enough to come talk to the kid and take his picture says something.

    If a non-resident sent a threatening message to the queen or prime minister of the UK, they would do the same thing...bar the person from the country.
    Its common sense.

     

  69. Why are the UK police doing the US' dirty work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most troubling thing about this is that the UK police acted on the fears of the Secret Service and showed up to photograph the kid, no doubt forwarding the photo to the US authorities.

    I suspect a threat was made, it is simply not enough to insult the POTUS, they generally follow up on threats or emails that can be construed as such.

  70. treasury Agents DO NOT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOUR by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    As the budget for the agency was limited due to us having just finished a war a "sense of humour" was left out of the budget (this being in 1865 just after the "Civil" war). As the scope of the agencies role was expanded it was decided that a "sense of humour" was in fact not needed at all (money and the "protected persons list").
    if this young gentleman said anything that remotely threatened the POTOS then he is lucky he was just barred from US soil and not thrown in jail until he grew up.

    Oh and since they got flipped from Treasury to DHS they really don't have a sense of humour.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  71. No worries for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering how much information the Department of Homeland Security had about the undie bomber before his attempt and how they were *still* unable to stop him, this guy can probably visit the US whenever he feels like it.

  72. In response to this story... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...our resident expert made the following statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs

    http://gizmodo.com/5637203/drunk-email-to-obama-gets-british-teen-banned-from-america-for-life

    This story reported by the Sun is not true and we apologize for having published it.
    The FBI doesn't call the local police of a 1,729-people village in Bedfordshire, England, to tell someone is banned from entering the United States.

    According to Homeland Security rules, if you are banned from entering the United States, they don't ever tell foreign nationals about it.
    They just deny you entry at the border because it shows up in your file.--JD

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  73. If he was a citizen... by T.E.D. · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If a US citizen had written the same email, he'd instead get a visit from Fox executives to talk to him about getting his own show.

  74. Not illegal if it is true... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    It seems, from the analysis in this well-founded paper ("One-Click Download"), that Obama is indeed, a p**k. And an arrogant one, at that...

    In all seriousness, though, it makes for an excellent read. Sorry about the clumsy segue...

  75. Reading obituaries, maybe by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

    Umm.. But if they read the obits, then they would know who was dead. And if they subsequently went to their polling place to vote and happened to see the name of a person whose obit they had read on the voting rolls their heads might explode.

    Unless the name on the voting roll was Samuel Clemens of course.
    Or maybe it would be OK if they were in Chicago.

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't
  76. Obscene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a shame the full contents of the email is not available. In TFA the word "threatening" was briefly used. This is quite a separate matter from calling the president obscene names. Precisely the type of mischaracterization that I come to expect from news media and trolls.

    Does Kim Junk Ill have an email address? One without bang paths?

  77. Hardly an onerous punishment by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  78. 1980s by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    I grew up in a western European country in the 1980s and it was known that if you participated in demonstrations/street protests against the US (this would be during the Reagan / Bush Sr. years) it seriously endangered your chances of either visiting or going to live in the US. The assumption was that the US had agents keeping a record of those involved in such demonstrations. It all sounds very cloak and dagger, but considering what we know these days about what 'diplomats' get up to in the countries they are assigned to it doesn't seem too far fetched to me.

    However, in this case it seems to me that the US has overstepped and miscalculated. Wouldn't it make more sense to ask for an apology before banning the stupid kid from the country and let him know that if he intends to enter the US at any time his application to do so will be considered in the light of his past indiscretion? Too reasonable I suppose...

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
    1. Re:1980s by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      You all realize, of course, that the underlying story, and the /. post publicizing it as well, is just one greasy sweaty pile of grinning troll flesh right? Come on. Really.

  79. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought in Soviet UK, you could stand in front of 10th Downing street and call US President whatever you wanted.

  80. From what I got, now USA=Kremlin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I notice that USA also sends it's soldiers into foreign countries to pretend to be tourists, even expecting them to use their Social Security Numbers and regular bank accounting for transactions on the street, and they take full advantage of the political atmosphere as well as exploit every aspect of the societies there.

    Meanwhile in Florida, a Cuban can't do this because the USA runs Cuba into the ground with it's CIA-installed dictator. Now that Dictator Fidel Castro is admitting that he never was a Communist, and has been payed to say that Communism doesn't work because the CIA's obviously-flawed "experiment" didn't work under the ant-farm environment they've upheld with Naval Forces against other countries from trying to assist their being independent.

    I've heard a lot of jokes in my life like Copyleft, Credit River Monopoly/Erie Doctrine, Just-is/Just-us, Federal Communications Act abridgements of 1st Amendment, and how the United States classifies a gun as being vessel-mounted weaponry while a fire-arm as non-civilian weaponry of invading Americans preventing the government from regulating the 2nd-Amendment. When is the United States going to stop being a consolidated power trader? When is the United States going to stop challenging the authority of the Sheriff? When is the United States going to remove all the municipal courts it installs to introduce lawsuits outside of constitutional guidelines to make prosecution easier against defendants assumed no rights?

    I wish I can go home, but the United States says my home is their subject to my use of it. I wish I can board an aircraft to live up in the sky, but the United States claims the sky as their domain. I wish I can get in a yact to live out in the sea, but the United States sends out it's Navy to assert the National Security of boaters in it's waters. Ever since the United States arrived in the world to deliver it's form of government, I think it was realy a fallen angel pulled down by Earth's gravity until it could refigure how to get back into Space.

    The United States is just another dictator under it's own self-control, only it forces everyone to be represented by it and counts it's own votes just to make it feel fair. The votes are realy a suggestion of where the surrounding domesticated foreigners feel it should best spend it's time and what legislation it should be using, which proves that standard operating procedure resembles nothing in the Codes.

  81. So can I get others banned from the US? by xiox · · Score: 1

    Dear Barack - You're a prick, Yours Tony Blair and David Cameron.

    Forge an email and stop someone entering the US for life!

  82. uh-huh by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

    Lets see how much he doesn't care in, say, twenty or thirty years when he'll get that great job offer he'll have to turn down, or wants simply visit some friends or family.

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  83. Someone is probably having their laughs by suman28 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if some "kid" decided to see what kind of crap /. would put up, and decided to run a story from the UK version of the "National Enquirer" and there are a 3000 comments from people saying "that us just wrong".

  84. hey asshole by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    if you shoot the man, another merely fills his place. you've also turned murdoch into a martyr. fucking wonderful

    the idea is to discredit the activity, not the man himself: rupert murdochs are a dime a dozen. so are loser internet tough guys talking about assassination and revolution

    let's put it as clearly as a moron like yourself can understand it: as evil as rupert murdoch is, for what you just wrote, you are far worse

    we want to discredit the ideology murdoch engages in. not adapt a thuggish mafia ideology far worse than murdoch's. you don't beat murdoch by being even more evil than him. got it you fucking retard?

    go overcompensate for having a small penis some other way, you slimy piece of shit

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  85. The real reason he got banned by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

    When the young lad was confronted, he said the FBI were a bunch of yanks.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  86. Seems like Obama is against freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to remember all sorts of nasty things sent to the younger Bush without anyone making a fuss - seems this President if mighty thin-skinned if you ask me...

  87. How idiotic by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    What about free speech? Oh, wait, that doesn't matter anymore! Wait! Some guy over the internet insulted me and spouted profanity! He must be banned from the USA. Or does that only count for the president (who is a huge baby who can't handle mere words)?

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  88. Re:Read the article... More than calling him a pri by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    "But the freedom of speech does not mean you can say what ever you want and get away with it."

    What? I don't believe that you know what "freedom of speech" actually is. Especially in circumstances where it obviously doesn't hurt anyone. By hurt, I mean put someones life at risk, not offend. That is the *only* time I can see censorship being used.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  89. And that's why america is dangerous by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Good thing it has jumped the shark.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  90. Probably not true ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt this story is true. The President of the USA doesn't have the power to band you for life from entering the country. That is not how our system works. We aren't some 3rd world country with a defacto dictator who gets anything he wants with just a comment. In my travels to foreign countries, I'm amazed that people believe the US President can actually do much with just a wave of a hand. 80% of his decisions have already been made for him by "policy."

    We have laws.

    Ok, with that said - threatening the President of the USA is against the law. It doesn't matter if you do it over a phone, via email or on a blog. You can call the President anything you like, just don't threaten him.

    I live in the USA and I'm a citizen. I vote. I did not vote for the current President, but out of respect for the office, he is "Mr. President" or "President Obama" to me, even if I think he is a p**k. As a middle aged man, I can't think of the nasty word those 4 characters represent. I certainly don't want any harm to come to him and more than I want physical harm to come to any of the presidents/dictators/PMs in other countries, including N. Korea or Venezuela.

    Free speech doesn't remove any consequences for the content, even if you are stupid. There are limits to free speech in the USA, but those limits are generally around causing panic or lying to a police officer performing his duty.

  91. Read the damned article by stomv · · Score: 1

    It is written that the young man states that all he did was call Obama a p***k.

    A Beds Police spokesman said: "The individual sent an email to the White House full of abusive and threatening language.

    Abusive language? Fine. Threatening language? Nope. That's verboten. You get to call the President all kinds of names you like. However, if you threaten harm to the POTUS, you're in trouble. If you're subject to US jurisdiction, you'll be placed under arrest. If you're not, don't think you get to enter my country if you've threatened my president, be he Republican or Democrat.

    If you believe the kid who was drunk at the time and doesn't seem to have a copy of the email he sent, the big bad US government is silencing free speech and going overboard. If you believe the UK spokesman, the young man threatened the President of the United States, and shouldn't be surprised that he's not allowed to enter the United States as a result.

  92. You know.. by Stormie · · Score: 1

    ..the shit would have REALLY hit the fan if you'd heard what us foreigners all said about your LAST president..

  93. Obama got called a prick? by dogzdik · · Score: 0

    How about "The FBI are fuckwits"?

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  94. Hello World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easier to detect such 'threats' and parade it around like some trophy... but doing something real, like dealing with early warnings of 9/11 or merging databases (wut?) to find that a suspected al-qaeda proponent has boarded a US plane, now that, that is outside their ****ing skill?!?!

  95. Good, I'm glad he's banned... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

    ...because we have a plague of kids here in the UK who do not understand about responsibility & the consequences of their actions.

    No, it's not all teenagers by any means & the press doesn't report on the good kids.

    But we do have teenage gangs, teenage pregnancies and teenagers walking around with knives on the street - bad education, crap parents, whatever the reason, they need to stop, take a deep breath and think about the consequences of what they're thinking of doing.

    Fortunately it doesn't happen very often but one of the most disgusting things that kids can get up to is put objects on railway tracks or drop objects from road bridges onto car windscreens. I don't think any of these kids realise they may end up randomly killing someone but our legal system needs to stop pussyfooting around and give them a short sharp shock - if it was me in the chair, I would put them out with the motorway or transport police for a few days; these people deal with motorway fatalities & railway suicides, let those kids see what a dead person actually looks like.

    As to the drunk teenager and the Obama email, I say "Deal with it! If you can't control yourself when you're drunk, then don't drink."

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Good, I'm glad he's banned... by crimperman · · Score: 1

      > But we do have teenage gangs, teenage pregnancies and teenagers walking around with knives on the street - bad education, crap parents, whatever the reason, they need to stop, take a deep breath and think about the consequences of what they're thinking of doing.

      You did a nice job of pre-empting most of the traditional comebacks that a post like yours will get but you missed one. It's not just teenagers. We also have adult gangs, pregnancies* and adults walking around with knives on the street. They also need to "stop, take a deep breath and think about the consequences of what they're thinking of doing". They should also know better.

      *that have similar consequences to the teenage ones you are referring to.

  96. Yes. by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    Free speech.

    Come on, it wasn't even a threatening email or anything.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.
  97. Re: terrorists by michaelok · · Score: 1
    I'm thankful for the UK government in photographing this individual and keeping him out of the U.S. Our country will be safer. Sending a threatening e-mail is one step away from a threatening action for these unhinged individuals. Hopefully he will be monitored. The U.K. is a terrorist hotspot with many immigrants from Pakistan, India, Africa plotting their nefarious deeds.

    We need to be super-vigilant these days, with radio hotheads like Limbaugh making inflammatory comments, who knows when some crazy will take him up on it? Don't be 'embarrassed', these actions must be nipped in the bud. No appeasement here, that did not work with the Nazis. Sorry for the heavy hand, but America must be kept safe. We must fight them over there, so we are safe behind our sovereign borders.

  98. Wrong Direction by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I am so upset that he hasn't undone Bush's eight years of work in a quarter of the time!

    How do you "undo" something by amplifying every aspect of it?

    Obama has greatly amplified the over-spending that Bush started.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley