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.

29 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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!
    6. 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.

    7. 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!

    8. 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
    9. 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

    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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)
  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.

    1. 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. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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!

  8. 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.

  9. Bad Slashdot summary by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. 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!
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  10. 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!

  11. 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