I've looked and looked and looked and still cannot find 1 word of any Secret Service investigation of an adult, convicted felon, who is quoted on his radio show as saying,

Link:http://archives.cjr.org/year/96/2/books-kurtz.asp (Among other places)
In fact there was never any appology issued. I have looked and Googled, and Yahooed and Mamma.com'd and nothing.

I believe there would be some form of public record. I guess not.

So until someone can show me where Giddy, a CONVICTED felon, got into any hot water whatsoever with the government then I will continue to contend that the Secret Service went way overboard. Investigating maybe, confiscating the project.... that smells of censorship. Of course, this is an administration that has tried to censor Stern and othe shock jocks and is declarting war on porn.

I truly believe the supposed "liberal media" would have feasted on Liddy, if there'd been an investigation. However, not a word online about it.

And I maybe wrong, I thought it was federal law but maybe just Ohio..... Felons cannot own guns or be in the possession of such.

Borla,

"'Off with his head' is technically saying they wish death upon him, which IS illegal. "

No it isn't. Its only illeagal to plot to kill him, or to actively incite others to do so. It is not illeagal to say you wish he were killed.
You people should actually read the B.o.R.s sometime. It is interesting how much our own government does that is contrary to its intent. (Re The Patriot Act, and some other stuff.)

You're only partially right, SERPENT7. It is legal to say "I'll kill you" ... only if you do not give an indication of time. Saying "I'll kill you next Monday" is illegal.

Furthermore, just because the individual in question didn't specify a time doesn't mean that the Secret Service shouldn't investigate him - a complaint was filed, and so they have regulations to follow and so they investigated him. They found no cause for indictment, gave him a verbal warning, and went on their way. End of story.

Pragma,

"Furthermore, just because the individual in question didn't specify a time doesn't mean that the Secret Service shouldn't investigate him - a complaint was filed, and so they have regulations to follow and so they investigated him. They found no cause for indictment, gave him a verbal warning, and went on their way. End of story."

This sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I did not get the impression any actual complaint was filed at all. (If there was one, why is Wal-mart the one that gets to decide if the photo-clerks name is made public? It would be a matter of public record if he filed a complaint.) No crime was commited, they were investigating someones veiws not his actions.
Also, "I was just following orders" is the shortest path to a tyranny i can think of.

From the original article:
No complaint was filed? That sounds like a complaint was filed to me. Wal-mart can choose to publicize the informant's name or not, because obviously they know the name. However, the Police Department was probably asked (by the employee) not to release the name. I'm sure if you care enough, you can FOIA it.

I really don't see what your last comment has to do with the article .. at all.