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.

16 of 555 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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!
    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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 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.

  4. 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 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. 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.

  6. 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!

  7. 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!
  8. 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.