Is voicing a desire for the president to be assasinated against the law? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

cowlick · 09-14-2003, 09:04 PM

In a conversation, some friends said that saying you want someone to kill a US president is against US law. Is this true?

Randerolf · 09-14-2003, 09:22 PM

Yes.

There ARE limitations on speech.

"Hey, I'm gonna go shoot the ......" and yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater are two popular examples.

I'm not sure what are the specific court rulings that refer to these, but to answer your question: yes.

maximusveritas · 09-14-2003, 09:37 PM

There was a great sketch by The State on this very topic. That's all I remember.

smooth · 09-15-2003, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cowlick
In a conversation, some friends said that saying you want someone to kill a US president is against US law. Is this true?

If it wasn't before the PATRIOT Act it is now.

You should probably be more worried about Cheney becoming the leader rather than the legalities!

meff · 09-15-2003, 03:34 AM

Uhm, even if it were "legal" I'm sure the US would still find a way to prosecute your ass, so better safe than sorry lately in the US, eh?

I wouldn't run around saying this

prb · 09-15-2003, 04:42 AM

What if you said, " I sure would hate it if someone were to shoot the President" and then you winked?

Superbelt · 09-15-2003, 04:44 AM

Then the Justice Department swoops in and secretly takes you to Dick Cheneys undisclosed location for an indefinate stay of detention.

Bill O'Rights · 09-15-2003, 04:45 AM

Y'know...even if it weren't illegal (which it is, by the way) you would have the government so far up your ass they could tell that you missed the back of your teeth, when you brushed this morning. Not something that you really want.

Besides, you've got to be pretty damn hardcore in your belief structure to want him dead. I mean, I want him out of the Oval Office as fast as possible. I personally believe that he is a danger to this country, and the rest of the world. But to actually want him killed? No, that goes against everything that I stand for.

lurkette · 09-15-2003, 05:33 AM

Even if it's not illegal, better watch who's listening when you say it. A guy in Chapel Hill was reading an article about Bush in the local indy paper and somebody saw him reading it, thought he looked too Arabic (he's actually Jewish) and a few days later the FBI showed up on his doorstep. Nothing came of it, of course, but it's still a little creepy. People are watching and listening and squealing to the Feds about it.

You can read the whole sordid tale here:
<a href="http://indyweek.com/durham/2003-07-30/cover.html">http://indyweek.com/durham/2003-07-30/cover.html</a>

rgr22j · 09-15-2003, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
If it wasn't before the PATRIOT Act it is now.

You should probably be more worried about Cheney becoming the leader rather than the legalities!

To be honest, I don't think it's illegal; the Supreme Court decision (as in the "FIRE" in a crowded theater scenario) is supposed to limit free speech that would directly injure (or cause mass panic, leading to possible injury) another person. Wishing someone would kill the president probably wouldn't raise too many eyebrows over at the Secret Service, I have a feeling they're more concerned over direct threats to the president.

Just to set the record straight, the PATRIOT Act does not limit free speech. If it did, you can be sure that the ACLU would be all over it. Instead, the ACLU filed its lawsuit against (particularly), sections 213 and 215. 215 expands the federal government's power to inspect business records from stuff like to library books. Previously the government could only inspect a narrower range of things like hotel bills. 213 allows the federal government to inspect a citizen's home and delay notification. This does NOT allow the government to "sneak-and-peek" without a warrant. In both cases, 213 and 215, the government is required to get a judge's approval, a fact that the ACLU somehow missed. The ACLU (and know-nothings in the major media) are so clueless about the PATRIOT Act that they even object to section 216, which empowers the government to use the Internet (and check e-mail headers, but not content) with, again, a judge's approval. 216 merely updates it so the government can check a terrorist's "e-mail records," similar to how it can already check his/her phone records.

-- Alvin

EDIT: I discovered that the government only needs a court order (with judge approval) to "sneak-and-peek." A warrant is not needed. Legally speaking there's a difference, but the main point remains: the feds still need to go before a judge. My apologies for the error.

Lebell · 09-15-2003, 08:21 AM

From The United States Code (USC) TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > Sec. 871.

Quote:

Sec. 871. - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a)

Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b)

The terms ''President-elect'' and ''Vice President-elect'' as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase ''other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President'' as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20

From US v Ogren

Quote:

United States v. Ogren, No. 00-0169 (Section 871(a) of Title 18, United States Code, prohibiting threatening the President of the United States, requires that the Government prove two essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the threat rendered was a "true" threat, and (2) that the threat was knowing and willful).

United States v. Ogren, No. 00-0169 (under Section 871(a) of Title 18, United States Code, prohibiting threatening the President of the United States, only “true threats” satisfy the statute’s threshold of criminal conduct and put the conduct beyond the protections of the First Amendment; whether a statement is a “true threat” is determined by (1) the context, (2) whether the threat is expressly conditional in nature, and (3) the reaction of the listeners).

United States v. Ogren, No. 00-0169 (under Section 871(a) of Title 18, United States Code, prohibiting threatening the President of the United States, the threat must be “knowing and willful”; whether a threat is knowing and willful is determined by an objective test requiring only that the defendant intentionally make a statement, written or oral, in a context or under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm upon or to take the life of the President).

United States v. Ogren, No. 00-0169 (appellant’s threats against the President of the United States, made while appellant was in pretrial confinement, where legally sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that appellant threatened the life of the President, in violation of 18 USC § 871(a), where: (1) the threats were “true threats” in that they were not conditional and the specific context as well as the reaction of the listeners set these words apart from appellant’s other expressions; and (2) the threats were knowing and willful because appellant should have reasonably foreseen that his threats would be understood to be more than a crude method of responding to his confinement).

So what while you may not be committing a crime by "wishing" that someone would assasinate the president, if the authorities catch wind of it, you WILL get a visit from the Secret Service investigating whether or not (1) the threat rendered was a "true" threat, and (2) that the threat was knowing and willful).

Remember, they don't know if you are kidding or not. Hence, they WILL investigate you.

Arc101 · 09-15-2003, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Remember, they don't know if you are kidding or not. Hence, they WILL investigate you.

I wonder how long it would take to investigate everyone in the world who wants Bush dead. Here in England they don't investigate people who wish politicians would drop dead, after all it's hard to investigate 99% of the population

Lebell · 09-15-2003, 08:48 AM

There is a difference between wishing someone dead and telling people you wish someone dead.

Bill O'Rights · 09-15-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
A guy in Chapel Hill was reading an article about Bush in the local indy paper and somebody saw him reading it, thought he looked too Arabic (he's actually Jewish) and a few days later the FBI showed up on his doorstep.

If this is true, and I have no reason to question that it isn't, ( I trust lurkette) then this goes way beyond scary.

Bill O'Rights · 09-15-2003, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rgr22j
To be honest, I don't think it's illegal...

Yeah it's illegal. It's called Communicating a Terroristic Threat. And it's not limited to the POTUS, either. If you threaten anybody with physical violence, this is what you will be charged with. And this was on the books way before 9-11, or the so called Patriot Act.

seretogis · 09-15-2003, 11:47 AM

A good general rule of thumb is this: "If it sounds like something that would be stupid to say, it probably is."

rgr22j · 09-15-2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill O'Rights
Yeah it's illegal. It's called Communicating a Terroristic Threat. And it's not limited to the POTUS, either. If you threaten anybody with physical violence, this is what you will be charged with. And this was on the books way before 9-11, or the so called Patriot Act.

Could you point me to a reference? The only ones I can find (such as South Dakota SB19 and Massachusetts SB2122) are fairly recent (i.e. 2002). SB2122 in particular "establishes the crime of Communicating a Terroristic Threat."

Rather, I would think that if you threaten anybody, and it is deemed credible, then maybe it would fall under assault. And if you follow through, either battery or manslaughter/murder, those sorts of things. But, I am not a lawyer. However, on the basketball court I've threatened to kick someone's ass and been threatened to have my ass kicked, and so far nothing has come of it.

-- Alvin

Sun Tzu · 09-15-2003, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rgr22j
Could you point me to a reference? The only ones I can find (such as South Dakota SB19 and Massachusetts SB2122) are fairly recent (i.e. 2002). SB2122 in particular "establishes the crime of Communicating a Terroristic Threat."

Rather, I would think that if you threaten anybody, and it is deemed credible, then maybe it would fall under assault. And if you follow through, either battery or manslaughter/murder, those sorts of things. But, I am not a lawyer. However, on the basketball court I've threatened to kick someone's ass and been threatened to have my ass kicked, and so far nothing has come of it.

-- Alvin

I think Labell did a pretty good job of reference material. Overall its probably as smart as yelling bomb on an airplane; after all its a free country right?

I dont know how much truth is in the link below. There are many sites about it. If this technology is old I wonder what the upgrade have been. In anycase saying things can get you labeled as a terrorist these days.
http://www.iis.ee.ic.ac.uk/~frank/surp99/article1/fb97/

MuadDib · 09-15-2003, 10:14 PM

So is it illegal to suggest it in manner or merely through mail?

Conclamo Ludus · 09-19-2003, 12:05 PM

If you hate an elected official so much that you want somebody to kill him, I think you should probably find a hobby. Fast. Your hatred will tear you apart.

BigGov · 09-19-2003, 04:33 PM

Actually, it's been against the law probably long before any of us have even been alive.

A threat towards a person defined as assault.

Stare At The Sun · 09-20-2003, 10:10 AM

^Its not a threat, its making a wish....

You're not saying that you're going to do it, just that you would like to see it done by someone else.

seretogis · 09-20-2003, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnlikedOne
^Its not a threat, its making a wish....

You're not saying that you're going to do it, just that you would like to see it done by someone else.

Wishing is for children. Learn to shoot and do it yourself, if you really think that it would change anything. To save you the effort, I'll tell you this -- nothing would change for the better. Whatever calibre of rifle that you used, would instantly be branded a "President-killer" and banned. Any legal gun owner who had it would be forced to turn them in to be destroyed, since there's "no reason for them to have such a powerful weapon." America would become even less free, just as planned.

Sparhawk · 09-20-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Wishing is for children. Learn to shoot and do it yourself, if you really think that it would change anything. To save you the effort, I'll tell you this -- nothing would change for the better. Whatever calibre of rifle that you used, would instantly be branded a "President-killer" and banned. Any legal gun owner who had it would be forced to turn them in to be destroyed, since there's "no reason for them to have such a powerful weapon." America would become even less free, just as planned.

People still trade, buy, and sell the Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, so there goes that paranoid theory.

I sometimes think that if someone is so paranoid they think their gun is going to be taken away by the federal government, then the federal government NEEDS TO TAKE THAT PERSON'S GUN AWAY. Because that guy is a little

Randerolf · 09-20-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
People still trade, buy, and sell the Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, so there goes that paranoid theory.

I sometimes think that if someone is so paranoid they think their gun is going to be taken away by the federal government, then the federal government NEEDS TO TAKE THAT PERSON'S GUN AWAY. Because that guy is a little

heh, I'd laugh, but everytime I see it "snowing" ashes of Jews in the movie Schindler's List , I think of the organization, Jews for the Perservation of Firearm Ownership.

09-14-2003, 09:04 PM	#1 (permalink)
cowlick Insane Location: Seattle	Is voicing a desire for the president to be assasinated against the law? In a conversation, some friends said that saying you want someone to kill a US president is against US law. Is this true? __________________ "It's a long story," says I, and let him up.

09-15-2003, 03:34 AM	#5 (permalink)
meff Vanishing, like I do.. Location: Austin, TX	Uhm, even if it were "legal" I'm sure the US would still find a way to prosecute your ass, so better safe than sorry lately in the US, eh? I wouldn't run around saying this __________________ Toy-like people make me boy-like.

09-15-2003, 04:45 AM	#8 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Y'know...even if it weren't illegal (which it is, by the way) you would have the government so far up your ass they could tell that you missed the back of your teeth, when you brushed this morning. Not something that you really want. Besides, you've got to be pretty damn hardcore in your belief structure to want him dead. I mean, I want him out of the Oval Office as fast as possible. I personally believe that he is a danger to this country, and the rest of the world. But to actually want him killed? No, that goes against everything that I stand for. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

09-15-2003, 05:33 AM	#9 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Even if it's not illegal, better watch who's listening when you say it. A guy in Chapel Hill was reading an article about Bush in the local indy paper and somebody saw him reading it, thought he looked too Arabic (he's actually Jewish) and a few days later the FBI showed up on his doorstep. Nothing came of it, of course, but it's still a little creepy. People are watching and listening and squealing to the Feds about it. You can read the whole sordid tale here: <a href="http://indyweek.com/durham/2003-07-30/cover.html">http://indyweek.com/durham/2003-07-30/cover.html</a> __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

09-15-2003, 08:48 AM	#13 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	There is a difference between wishing someone dead and telling people you wish someone dead. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-14-2003, 09:22 PM	#2 (permalink)
Randerolf Fireball Location: ~	Yes. There ARE limitations on speech. "Hey, I'm gonna go shoot the ......" and yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater are two popular examples. I'm not sure what are the specific court rulings that refer to these, but to answer your question: yes.

09-14-2003, 09:37 PM	#3 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	There was a great sketch by The State on this very topic. That's all I remember.

09-15-2003, 04:42 AM	#6 (permalink)
prb Psycho	What if you said, " I sure would hate it if someone were to shoot the President" and then you winked?

09-15-2003, 04:44 AM	#7 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Then the Justice Department swoops in and secretly takes you to Dick Cheneys undisclosed location for an indefinate stay of detention.

09-15-2003, 11:47 AM	#16 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	A good general rule of thumb is this: "If it sounds like something that would be stupid to say, it probably is." __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

09-15-2003, 10:14 PM	#19 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	So is it illegal to suggest it in manner or merely through mail? __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

09-19-2003, 12:05 PM	#20 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	If you hate an elected official so much that you want somebody to kill him, I think you should probably find a hobby. Fast. Your hatred will tear you apart. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

09-19-2003, 04:33 PM	#21 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	Actually, it's been against the law probably long before any of us have even been alive. A threat towards a person defined as assault. __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

09-20-2003, 10:10 AM	#22 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	^Its not a threat, its making a wish.... You're not saying that you're going to do it, just that you would like to see it done by someone else.