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.
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.
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.
Technoli
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?
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!
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
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.
"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.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
Yeah, I am so upset that he hasn't undone Bush's eight years of work in a quarter of the time!
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.
Quick! Someone alert 4chan!
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!
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)
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".
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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