Are there actually laws against it though? (Not exactly a law student and I'm too damn lazy to google it) I'm not saying that doing so is right by any means - indeed I'd find it quite concerning myself, but I'm pretty sure that doing so could be a conflict between the right to freedom of speech and laws concerning threatening acts (in which case Bush is more than guilty, even if they are "justified threats"). I'd agree with your last point though, it probably is required for police to report something like this to the SS, especially after the events of 9/11. I really have mixed opinons about something like this. Yes it seems like a huge overreaction to a little thing, and although we can all be quite confident that nothing would have come out of it had it been overlooked, there is always that .0001% chance that he really is a crazy kid and would act on his ideas in such a manner. The fact is that if we don't react to something like this, then on the occasion that something DOES happen, we're spending months and months trying to figure out why something hadn't been done earlier (look at ANY large scale tragedy, they never stop asking the same question). So I suppose it's better that we wasted our time doing something than having something bad come out of it and know that it could have been prevented. Kind of a bit of rambling in there but I hope you get the main point: better we overreact to everything and stop a tragedy than "not waste our time" and let something terrible happen as a result.
i think not only is the patriot act a load of crap, this censorship thing was taken too far even before. people need to not care so much what is said and done as long as it is not shoved up in their faces. political correctness is the dumbest thing ever. i think if everyone used swear words and racial slurs, we would get desensitized and i wouldn't have to hear about how evil dave chappelle is, or how chris rock is degrading, or blah blah blah. we all know about racial stereotypes, and as long as we don't take them seriously, it's fine.
It is against the law to knowingly threathen the President, Vice President or their successors. It is a very specific law concerning only threats to the the Presidential Office but is intentionally wide open when it comes to what constitutes a threat. Even something like "God will judge your actions Mr. President!" is considered enough to warrent an investigation. If the investigation found that the person is an actual threat and not just an offhand comment/letter - they are fined and/or imprisoned. I linked the law in a previous post, but here it is - bold is mine.
Just because there is someone else in the world who shares my views on a particular topic does not mean that I stole them. I do not think what my friends nor do I think what my parents think. I think what I think. In fact, I oppose many of my firends' and families' views on many topics (South Dakota is conservative. I am otherwise). After all, do you then think that you have unique beliefs? What makes you any better than me?
I never said anyone stole another persons idea. I said people base their ideas on their environment. This does not mean your ideas will match your environment - only that your ideas were affected by your environment. If you cannot see how one belief could reinforce the opposing belief, then I think Nexxo would be better at explaining that. Of course my beliefs are not unique and I don't believe any creature is better or more important that any other.
ok this picture showed bush with the weapon. He wasn't the one at risk. And now some kid is getting fried over his artistic freedom. There are stupid people, the school and the art teach are some of these people.
That's not all he drew though, did you read the actual story that was linked in the first post? The drawing that drew the most notice showed a man in what appeared to be Middle Eastern-style clothing, holding a rifle. He was also holding a stick with an oversize head of the president on it. I don't think anyone minds about the bomb picture. I still think it's OTT though.
Whoa, Halgy3000, dude, relax! It is very hard to have an original idea (as writers and inventor know all too well). As inmate909 says, most of our thinking is based on our environment and life experience (upbringling and living in that environment). So we are influenced by our parents' ideas and values, peer opinions and values, cultural influences, media... you name it. Within that we construct belief systems that can be congruent or contradict these values and ideas. Moreover, our brains are wired the same way, so humans will tend to come up with similar ideas in similar situations. For instance archeology and anthropology suggest that most human cultures invented the bow and arrow independently from each other at around the same time in history... You don't conform to majority views (good for you --who says we have to go along with the crowd?) and this appears to be important for you in terms of asserting your independence and unique identity (hence your anger at the suggestion that your thinking is influenced by your parents and peers, and your linking independent, unique thought with "superiority"). But contradiction is not necessarily independent thinking, its just contrary thinking --the other side of the coin. There are processes such as psychological reactance (popularly called "reverse psychology": by making someone believe they have no choice but to do this, you cause them to 'assert their independence' and do that instead), reaction formation (strongly asserting the opposite because you don't want to admit to yourself you secretly feel the same --see cases of extreme homophobia), cognitive dissonance reduction (changing/modifying your opinion to make your actions or experiences feel more acceptable --"OK, I lost it and hit my kid, but I got beaten by my parents, and it did me no harm --it made me the man I am today..."). All our thinking is influenced by our interactions with others. For instance there's projection (attributing your own beliefs and expectations about someone's actions to their internal motives), transference and counter-transference (where one subconsciously attributes attachment feelings to the other, and the other responds accordingly --e.g. rebelling against your boss like you did against your dad, and him responding to you like you were his wayward child --whilst both forgetting you're adults), transactions (you agree with your peers because you want to please them, or you disagree because you want to assert your dominant status or unique identity in the peer group), and so on, and so forth. Trust me, no man is an island. We're all parts of the whole.
but the law says "knowingly and willfully". suppose this child willfully drew this caricature, but did not consider it to be a threatening statement towards the president? sure, there was implied violence, but no actual threat. he did not draw himself holding the pres' head on a stick. it's the difference between "i hope something bad happens to you" and "i'm gonna do something bad to you". one is an expression of ill will, the other is a direct threat.
Implied violence =! threat? What about? "Better watch your back, something might happen ya know" - isnt that an implied threat worthy of your attention if directed at you? The difference between an idle offhand comment and a real threat cannot be discovered without further investigation. That is exactly why the police department did the right thing - allow the SS (organization with the authority in this situation) to make the distinction - there was no real threat.
Do you honestly believe that the Secret Service has nothing better to do than interrogate 14-year old children? Honestly. Where the hell is the COMMON SENSE in that? I want to see news clippings of a government official being INJURED by a kid that young, much less KILLED. Show me.
Regardless of age - if he was mature (or immature depending on your view) enough and 'old' enough to have strong feelings about government policy, enough to draw a picture of the president dead - then no, the SS does not have better things to do than investigate potential threats to presidential office. What does it matter if the person in question is 15 or 35? SS is under obligation - especially with terrorists still actively planning attacks and most especially since it is near election - to investigate ALL matters, period. One in nine murders were commited by 'children' under 18 in 1999. What difference does it make if it was a government official or not? What are you implying if you say teenagers don't kill government officials and would it still apply if that teenager was obviously opposed enough about government policies to draw at least two violent pictures?
Was the kid middle eastern? If no the what was the big deal? Who cares, this is just too much honestly.
I guess you have to have some comprehension of how a child's mind works... so I guess you've never been one... I was. And I did very similar things when I was. Did the Secret Service come interrogate me? NO. Why? Because everyone understands that a 14-year-old DOES NOT POSE A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE WELL-BEING OF THE PRESIDENT. HOW is a 14-year-old going to pose a threat to the President? Tell me that. What's the scenario? Does he go in like a Gremlin? <bush>Hey there little fella..AAAAHHHHHHHHHH!</bush></bush>?
We've had similar situations at my school regarding the pledge of allegiance. There was a kid in my art history class last year who would refuse to stand during the pledge of allegiance. He would often talk, heckle, or even sing while other people were doing the pledge. The teacher would allow him to carry on like this because it was "his choice." That's ridiculous(sp). What he did was irreverent. Now, in my U.S. History class, we have a Russian student who refuses to say the pledge. He told the teacher that he chose not to pledge to the American flag because he is a Russian citizen, but he still stands with the class and reverently remains silent. I'm kind of rambling, but the point is that there's a diference between reverent and irreverent protest. We have to respect every person's freedom of expression, just as they have to respect others', so depending on the way this kid actually went about his protest, he may have actually deserved what he got.
Of course, Chrizzle, what you're suggesting would be the difference between him putting it in his art journal and him posting a 4'x8' poster of it in the hallways...
