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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[feepness]

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

The constant travel leave you exhausted!

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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?

[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.

Hey, Obama.

[Sean_Inconsequential]

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

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.

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.

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!

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

[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]

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: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.

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

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.