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.

Comments

Now that's just stupid.

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Em Emalb]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Pojut]

Love the fact that you cite lack of free speech, yet cite burning the flag and protesting as things that you can legally do in this country.

I swear, most Americans don't realize how good we actually have it.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Pharmboy]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[tophermeyer]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[ScrewMaster]

Love the fact that you cite lack of free speech, yet cite burning the flag and protesting as things that you can legally do in this country.

Yeah ... he didn't actually make his case very well, did he.

I swear, most Americans don't realize how good we actually have it.

No, we don't, and it's that complacency that's virtually guaranteed to lose us everything we have left, eventually.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Pharmboy]

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

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

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[_xeno_]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[operagost]

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

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Pojut]

No, we don't, and it's that complacency that's virtually guaranteed to lose us everything we have left, eventually.

I didn't say things were perfect, just better than most people make it out to be.

Compare living in America to many other countries in the world, and tell me we don't have, in the grand scheme of things, relatively easy and free lives. Could it be better? Certainly. Do we have to be careful that we don't lose that relatively easy and free living? Absolutely. But it's not all doom and gloom...I'd much rather live here than dozens of other countries.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Pojut]

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

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[craftycoder]

If your point is, "If it's not an actual imminent threat, it should just be ignored." that seems like a reasonable point of view. Many people would argue with you, but not I. I'd love to see every single person on the dole involved in this silliness to be fired. When I say the dole, I mean the police and FBI guys sucking on the bloated breast of government when they should go find a real job so this absurd deficit can be done with and those people can be productive members of society instead of just parasites on our society.

Your suggestion that, "you should be allowed to call your elected representatives pricks", only makes sense if young Luke was a citizen which he is not. He is just some rude boy in some country that doesn't bother to teach its youth manners. That he is banned, if it's true (dubious at best I'd say), then good on him. At least someone is trying to teach manners, clearly his parents never bothered. That my tax dollars are being spent to teach him manners bothers me greatly, but not that someone is doing it at all.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Music2Eat]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[oldhack]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[david.given]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[feepness]

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

The constant travel leave you exhausted!

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[GrumpySteen]

> 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!)

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Haffner]

Let me put my opinion into a mathematical analogy (it'll make sense). Let's say there's a big graph. Y Axis is "How great your country is" in some sort of measurement. X Axis is time. We move right on the graph as time moves forward. Right now, the US function may be at/near the top of the graph. However, the derivative of the US function is negative. In fact, if the derivatives of all the nation's position functions were graphed, we would be pretty close to the bottom. Sure, there are some countries (like African ones that just had a coup, or something) that may be falling faster than us, but our derivative is negative and big. And more importantly, our second derivative is negative, and it's also very negative. We are going to get worse faster than we have been, is basically all that means.

Some analysis of that: Position (where we are right now) we rank 1st, let's say. Speed (what's being done right now) we are going in the wrong direction, and we are heading there quickly. Acceleration (what's going to happen to the speed) is also headed in the wrong direction, and its also getting more negative quickly. To translate this to the real world, position is our current set of laws. Speed is the laws that are getting passed that are dropping our position (right to privacy, open government, etc), and acceleration is really public opinion - a positive acceleration with a very negative speed means that the population realizes things are bad, and they are trying hard to change it for the better. An acceleration of zero means people are happy with the direction the country is going in, or at least they don't care enough to change it. Negative acceleration means people are actively setting the stage for the next batch of politicians to be even worse than the current ones.

It may be lengthy, but I like using these three criteria as a means of rating government. When people tell me America is the greatest, I agree, but then explain how it won't be very soon. Most people disagree at first, but after some arguing, most people agree with the acceleration argument, and probably half (democrats, mainly) agree with the speed.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[geekoid]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Score Whore]

Unless you are much much much older than I suspect (like hundreds of years old) you've never had consequence-free free speech. What the US Constitution provides is for the opportunity to participate in the political discourse without the government interfering. There are lots of things you cannot blithely say, you can't threaten to kill people (in particular the president of the us), you can't make false statements about people, you can't lie while under oath, etc.

Besides there's more to this than some kind sending a one liner saying "Hey Obama, you're a punk!" You can tell by the way he claims not to know what he wrote, kind of like you always tell the officer that you don't know why he pulled you over or how fast you were driving.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Deviate_X]

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

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

That was run on "The Sun". They're as trustworthy as the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer.

    Reread the story a few times. Maybe you'll spot the error.

    DHS, FBI, and his local police were all involved to deliver a warning (via the local police). Not very likely.

    The Secret Service protects the president, and investigates threats to him (among other things, of course). Either they would have gone directly to the kid, or they would have gone through Interpol.

    I've seen the kind of mail that comes across the desks of our political representatives. Even the local ones get letters, emails, and phone calls that are an awful lot worse than just saying "you're a prick." If any branch of law enforcement were to start following up on every communication like this, it would be a huge and virtually impossible task. Even still, that kind of follow up wouldn't be by order of the POTUS. He doesn't read his mail or email. Well, I'm sure he sees some, but there are staffers that go through that stuff all day every day.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[IndustrialComplex]

Well, no --- that was what the whole Guantanamo Bay thing was about; the legal fiction was that since the interns were neither citizens nor prisoners of war, and were not held on non-US soil, then constitutional and international treaty rights did not apply.

What Constituional rights? The First Amendment doesn't say "Citizens are permitted to..." It says (paraphrased) Congress shall not.

It grants us nothing. It doesn't matter if someone comes down from the Andromeda galaxy, it is a rule by which the government is forbidden to cross. That they do or have does not change the meaning of the rule, it simply highlights the lack of enforcement applied to that rule.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Pojut]

No, but he volunteered to put his life at risk fighting for this nation, its people and the principles it represents. He has earned the right to speak in support of those principles and defend them further, particularly in cases where they have seemingly been forgotten, misunderstood or taken lightly.

A noble effort to be sure, but serving in the armed forces hardly adds weight to your opinion on domestic matters. International matters sure, since you (the general "you") will have see more than I...but views on the general trials and tribulations of the public in America are not enhanced by service.

A highly unpopular opinion, yet one made by looking at things objectively and attempting impartiality.

This does not make your opinion "wrong" or less valid, though it carries a bit less weight in my estimation, since you offer opinion alone, while his opinion is backed by the willingness to defend it.

So if his opinion was that child molestation should be legal, his opinion would carry more weight because he was willing to fight for it? An extreme example, I know...but you get my point.

You may be equally willing, but we don't know that.

Which was my main problem with his post. He assumed many things about me personally, while simultaneously accusing me of assuming things about him...despite the fact that I only responded to what he had written, and not based on assumptions of his actions or character.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[lgw]

Right, but mere criticism isn't very helpful, and the fact we have it so good means that proposals to change the system should be met with great skepticism and considered conservatively. We have a lot to lose, and so the bar for change should be correspondingly high. Much like any life-safety engineering process, you don't want to just run with some idea that sounds good - and yet, you see people proposing that all the time when it comes to government.

If you live in a hellhole, changing somehting at random is likely to make things better. If you live in one of the best places, changing somehting at random is likely to make things worse. Pointing out that we have things pretty good here is important when considering proposed changes to the way we run the country.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

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

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

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[lgw]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[hondo77]

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

So has every American citizen. Sorry but having served in the armed forces doesn't give one extra special First Amendment rights with a cherry on top compared to those who haven't. You may give his opinion more weight but that is not the same thing.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[AshtangiMan]

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

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[horza]

The 'threatening' part of the article immediately stood out. If you threaten a nation's leader, they are hardly going to roll out the red carpet if you want to visit. Especially if you blank out and can't remember what you are doing when you are drunk, but it involves harbouring violent sentiment to the President. Not encouraging.

I don't see any problem with banning the guy from the country until he grows up.

Phillip.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[russotto]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

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

In the USSR, it was said you could say anything you want, once. :)

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[vertinox]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[rainmouse]

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.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[odysseus_complex]

Actually there are quite a few errors. At no time did the "journalist" have concrete confirmation that the youth has actually been banned, only his assertion that that was the case. Without followup, fact-checked information I am not going to expend any emotional response on this story.

Even by Slashdot's standards this story should not have been posted.

Re:Now that's just stupid.

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

What did he call him?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

A prick?

The first article I read about this just showed it as p****, so I thought it might be pussy.

Just show the fucking word, people. It's not that big of a deal.

Re:What did he call him?

[Pojut]

"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

Re:What did he call him?

[elrous0]

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.

Re:What did he call him?

[Andrewkov]

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

Re:What did he call him?

[xaxa]

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?

Re:What did he call him?

[elrous0]

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

Streisand effect

[Jailbrekr]

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.

Re:Streisand effect

[Ironhandx]

Quick! Someone alert 4chan!

Hey, Obama.

[Sean_Inconsequential]

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

Just called him a "p***k"?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

He THINKS he knows

[IndustrialComplex]

"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.

What *exactly* did the e-mail say?

[Marx_Mrvelous]

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.

Re:What *exactly* did the e-mail say?

[kevinNCSU]

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.

Where is the entire e-mail?

[Blindman]

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.

Re:So, when?

[craftycoder]

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?

Change we can believe in?

[wonkavader]

I can't believe how little changed. What has seems for the worse.

What a colossal disappointment this administration is.

Re:Change we can believe in?

[satoshi1]

Yeah, I am so upset that he hasn't undone Bush's eight years of work in a quarter of the time!

Original article is from the Sun, and not true.

[abqaussie]

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.

Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true.

[locallyunscene]

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'.

Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true.

[Nimey]

It's the New York Post that's owned by Murdoch.

Re:Original article is from the Sun, and not true.

[Nimey]

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.

The Sun has no credibility

[Nimey]

I'm not saying that this *didn't* happen, but the Sun is gutter trash with as much credibility as the National Enquirer.

The Sun is also owned by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame.

I'll need to have a report from a trustworthy source to believe this one, especially around election time.

Re:The Sun has no credibility

[moosesocks]

Concur. The Sun's source for the "banned from the US" claim is the word of the kid, allegedly based off of what some local cop told him.

So, yeah. I'd actually be willing to bet money that this story is fabricated.

Re:So, when?

[bluefoxlucid]

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!

Re:Land of the free, home of the brave?

[larry bagina]

Maybe he'll invite him over to have a case of beer or two.

Re:Verification, please

[JSBiff]

"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.

USSR joke

[roman_mir]

There was a joke in the former USSR, it went like so:

An American and a Soviet are arguing who has more freedom in their respective countries.
American says:
-In USA anybody can just stand in front of the White House and yell "Down with Reagan!", nobody will do anything to do him, it's legal.
Soviet says:
-In USSR ANYBODY can just stand in front of the Kremlin and yell "Down with Reagan!" too, and nobody will touch him either.

-----

But of-course this kid was not an American standing right in front of the White House and yelling 'Down with Reagan!', I suppose that's the difference here.

Re:USSR joke

[Culture20]

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.

Bad Slashdot summary

[Futurepower(R)]

The usual: Bad Slashdot summary. The facts: Police said the e-mail to the US president was full of abusive language.

Re:Bad Slashdot summary

[maxwell demon]

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.?

Re:Bad Slashdot summary

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Fox News is often full of abusive language towards the President. Can we ban them? :)

Re:Bad Slashdot summary

[IshmaelDS]

ya I realized after I posted that I was a moron.

Re:Bad Slashdot summary

[StikyPad]

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.

Re:Bad Slashdot summary

[BobMcD]

Visiting here is a privilege (in the legal sense of the word), not a right.

I don't intend to derail this conversation, but I'd like to point out that this seems to depend greatly on your nationality. Juxtapose these:

A) White kid from Britain wants to be here - Privilege, not a right.

B) Mexican wants to live and work here - Civil Rights issue.

Go figure...

Re:Bad Slashdot summary

[BobMcD]

Fox News is often full of abusive language towards the President. Can we ban them? :)

Not only is this not funny, nor informative, but shockingly dangerous.

Suggesting we ban press outlets is decidedly anti-American, whether you personally consider them of any value or not. Change the channel, not the law.

Re:Bad Slashdot summary

[The Wild Norseman]

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.

Re:Bad Slashdot summary

[The Wild Norseman]

They knew exactly who this kid was, I'm sure right down to his shoe size and what his girlfriend wore to the dinner date they went on last Friday night. They would have pulled his school records and his medical records for any history of mental illness. They would have found all that out and then some to make sure they were accomplishing their task of presidential protection.

Then the feds called the local cops, they went and knocked on his door, the kid 'fessed up. According to the law I quoted, the feds damn well knew this kid was nowhere near "beyond a reasonable doubt" able to fulfill the legal requirements of the crime, so they did what they could to punish him. I use the term "punish" loosely in this case because the kid obviously doesn't care -- yet.

More broadly, however, and what I believe to be much more important is the resulting so-called chilling effect on speech around the world regarding our Dear Fearless Leader.

Re:So says the Sun?

[jbeaupre]

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.

Its from the Sun

[Hungus]

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.

BBC News

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's also on bbc news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303

Acceptable news source?

[tombazza]

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.

rupert murdoch

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Original Source

[Javez]

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"...

Re:Obama ISN'T his elected representative

[fishexe]

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.

Hardly an onerous punishment

[SuperKendall]

He can just walk in from Mexico any time he likes.