Free speech is one thing. THIS should be a crime in and of itself.

[Stinky The Clown]

Steny Hoyer was just on our local nooz talking about this. I agree with him. I don't care who the face is. There is NOTHING about this that is appropriate. Nothing. The Congress needs to make the use of such images a hate crime.

[lunatica]

1. Jeez! Where did you get that?

Something should be illegal about it even if it doesn't make it into the hate crime level. Perhaps a hate crime is when physical damage or death occur because of treatment incurred for being a minority. Pictures like this are easily explained as free speech. But no one has been injured or killed yet.

As afraid and outraged as we may feel about what may happen, it doesn't rise to the level of hate crime. But something about it should be illegal (and maybe is)

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Hoyer was talking about it on teevee. I found it on the google

"Obama picture target"

It is from a blog. But according to Hoyer these images are making their way across the cyberworld.

[crikkett]

71. Heyheyhey! Congratulations on propagating it!

If I were you I wouldn't have posted the image, encouraging others to copy and repost it.

Way to help the lunatic fringe. Propagate that Meme!

:thumbsup:

[gateley]

2. Oh my God -- where was this from?

It's getting scarier every minute.

[tekisui]

3. I really hope this cycle ends quickly.

This could turn into a major distraction or much worse. Nothing good comes from this kind of stupidity.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. this stuff almost never ends quickly

it almost always has to spiral out of control first.

[tekisui]

10. I'm afraid you're right.

The best we can hope for is a major unrelated story knocking this crap out of the news. It can get stuck in a feedback loop, until it does get out of control.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. It is already out of control

[Warren Stupidity]

4. A muslim person who gives money to a charity

that indirectly ends up aiding anyone or any organization that is remotely linked to extremist muslim organizations or individuals can be arrested and imprisoned for violating the patriot act.

A christian person actively involved in an organization that is openly promoting violence against individuals for ideological reasons can do so with impunity.

[Dr Morbius]

5. I'm pretty sure there's no need for such legislation.

It is already a federal felony to depict, suggest or promote violence to the President of the United States.

It's called treason.

The Secret Service is likely investigating the idiot who created this even as I write these words.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. What if that picture were on Stupak?

Or Kucinich?

Or Grayson?

Or Weiner?

Is that still "treason"?

No ...... this needs its own law. Make the picture/do the time. Treason is far more complex and subtle crime. This one is real simple.

[Dr Morbius]

37. You simply can't legislate hatred away.

If we were a better people, none of us would gravitate towards a picture with cross-hairs over a person's face.

Freedom isn't easy. Is this wrong, morally? Sure. But the law cannot be a barometer of morality; the law cannot correspond to right and wrong. The law must be about justice. And while I can certainly argue it does harm to depict cross-hairs over a face, the fact is that no one is being harmed until someone actually gets shot. The freedom to speak means a freedom to be disgusting, to be morally repugnant, to show the Virgin Mary in urine or whatever.

Now, IF:

someone shows Dennis Kucinich in cross-hairs, AND
someone else shoots Congressman Kucinich, AND
it can be demonstrated that the second person did so inspired by the first person, THEN
the first person bears some legal responsibility for the harm done. But not as much as the shooter.

Meanwhile, we as a people have to be better than this. We have to reject such images as disgusting. We have to call out those who create such pictures and demand they defend or remove these pictures. But offensive though they may be, calling such pictures "hate crimes" doesn't wash.

[Kali]

43. welcome to DU

I agree with you.

[iamjoy]

7. What Is Wrong With People?

On what planet could someone think this is acceptable humor?

:wtf:

[kestrel91316]

29. They didn't make it as humor. They made it as a threat. People think that

as long as they don't actually say "Kill the President" or "I'm gonna kill the President" that they can get away with it.

I'm pretty sure it's considered a direct threat.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. You're absolutely right. This was not intended to be humorous.

It may not have actually been intended as a serious threat, but it was surely meant to condone and encourage such thoughts.

[iamjoy]

39. Oh, I Know That

I don't believe this was meant as a joke. However, sometimes people make threats and then try to claim they were only kidding around - they weren't serious. Well this isn't funny. It's sick and frightening is what it is.

[Kablooie]

63. It was intended to encourage someone else to do it.

[izzybeans]

8. A work of sarah Palin?

[EFerrari]

14. And if a similar image was made using Barbie, her lawyer would be filiing suit

within 24 hours.

[Raschel]

9. Where is this from? Of course we know who started the crosshairs - Palin.

[Subdivisions]

13. It's from a blogger at Rockford Register Star

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2009/12

The image properties shows it's from Dec, 2009. But I don't see it on that page. They're hosting the image though.

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/about/

[Raschel]

57. Thanks

:hi:

[BlueStater]

16. Thank you, Palin, for helping to inspire these nuts.

In a sane world, she'd be in jail right now for inciting violence against members of Congress.

[951-Riverside]

17. Threatening the president is a crime no need to bring free speech into this. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

23. What if this same picture had someone else's face on it?

Some other elected official?

Does that change it?

A threat to the president is a federal crime. That sort of picture, no matter whose face, is the very same threat and therefore ought to be a crime in and of itself.

Don't be so blithe with your blowoff. This is serious and widespread.

[kestrel91316]

31. Defending the terrorists AGAIN???

[ecstatic]

33. The OP said "I don't care whose face it is"

= FAIL.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. So pointing out that it's already a crime is defending terrorists? mmmmkay.

[ecstatic]

32. +1.

[Dappleganger]

18. Sarah Palin told them it was OK. nt

After all, she did it first with US representatives all over the US caught in the crosshairs.

[jkshaw]

19. From the image information, it looks

like it originated in 2009.

[spanone]

20. is it not a crime to threaten a member of congress...or anyone else for that matter?

[Stinky The Clown]

26. This sort of crap has often been "protected" under free speech.

Creating such images deserves a specific crime definition, even it has no threat is made.

[Kievan Rus]

21. The Secret Service needs to get on this right away

[Kali]

22. eh, I don't think it should be a crime.

lots worse in everyday movies/videogames

[BlueStater]

25. What video games let you kill the President of the United States? n/t

[EFerrari]

27. If a Muslim website were hosting this image, they'd be dark by now. n/t

[Kali]

41. no doubt

but that could arguably fall under a contextual issue - consistent inciting or some such - the image itself is just an image

I see it like the way the system handles drug paraphernalia - a mirror or a razor blade is a simple everyday object BUT if it is found in the CONTEXT of a vial of white powder - that becomes mush more suspicious - then if that vial turns out to be an illegal substance...the mirror and razor become paraphernalia.

A box of cold tabs is just a consumer medical product until it is found in the context of other things.

[EFerrari]

50. Well, these violent @ssholes are building up their context apace.

[Kali]

36. I don't doubt there is one, but that wasn't my point.

Sure, take a look at source and context of such an image, but that is all it is - an immage. Our culture uses the terminology of death and warfare all over the place 0 cross hairs, target, blow it out of the water, kick ass etc etc. There is so much violence in our entertainment that an image of somebody (yes even a president) in imaginary crosshairs just isn't a big deal.

Please note that context is VERY important - this could be a very real threat to be taken seriously, or it could be some kind of editorial cartoon. Think that should be a crime?

What about a humorous dartboard with a president's face (or anybody for that matter)? Tasteless does not equal crime.

[iamjoy]

44. And Words Are Just Words

I mean, if an image is just an image aren't words just words? So if some one actually uses certain terms in relation to the President is it just a reflection of the terminology our culture uses?

Showing President Obama being shoved out of the White House by a boot is an editorial cartoon. I may dislike it, but I know it isn't a crime. Showing President Obama as a member of the aped family is tasteless, but not a crime.

Dartboards with the President's face are not humorous. Pictures of the President with crosshairs or other images of violence may be construed as a threat. Therefore, it may be a crime.

[Kali]

53. that is context

and you may be right

[laughingliberal]

42. I'm pretty sure it is a crime

Threats against the life of the President are a crime. One man spent significant time in prison for telling the 'burning Bush' joke in a bar during the Bush years which I thought was a bit of an overreaction. That picture, however, will earn the originator a visit from federal LE.

[Kali]

45. I am not familiar with the "burning bush" story

can you give me a link or more info?

I suppose a "threat" is almost as hard to define as "obscenity".

I have no problem with a reasonable investigation of somebody promoting that image, but of in and of itself being illegal? No. (Stinky would be in trouble for showing it.)

[laughingliberal]

46. Here you go

http://www.holysmoke.org/kh/kh582.htm

The originator of that picture on the internet will very likely be visiting with some federal agents. Seriously.

[Kali]

56. like I said

no problem with investigating/checking the shit out - in fact ignoring it would be irresponsible, but that guy going to jail for what is reported he said? Wrong.

[kestrel91316]

24. I'm pretty sure that is considered a direct threat. Report it to the FBI and

let them decide.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. As in the OP, Hoyer was talking about such images. They are well aware of them.

[kentuck]

30. Can someone photoshop this??

And put Sarah Palin behind the crosshairs?

And put Rush Limbaugh behind the crosshairs?

And put Dick Cheney and daughter Liz behind the crosshairs?

Let it go virus!

[Stinky The Clown]

38. No.

This is not a partisan issue. This is, in my view, a crime no matter who gets their mug in the picture.

[Quantess]

34. okay...this is really getting out of control.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. This image is being hosted on a site called e-rockford.com, apparantly a blog site owned by ......

The Rockford Register Star. The RRS maintains a newspaper web site, too .... here:

http://www.rrstar.com/

[liberalmuse]

47. That's barbaric.

This man is a husband, father and OUR MOTHERFUCKING PRESIDENT. These people better take a long, hard look at themselves, because they truly are starting to behave like monsters.

[Stinky The Clown]

48. ".... because they truly are starting to behave like monsters."

I'll bet they don't see it that way.

[Rage Inc.]

49. It's stupid, hateful speech

But that's not illegal. I've seen much worse on various websites.

[ChicagoSuz219]

51. I didn't need to see that.

The only good thing is that when they emerge from their holes into the light, it makes it easier for the FBI/Homeland Security to track them.

[rve300]

52. This is why you can not regulate/criminalize thought...

Your mind has added the gun, the bullet, the shooter and his intent.

Do you have any proof of the intent of the person who created it other than the photo itself?

No, but it doesn't matter cause you just know in your heart what they were thinking.

Creating this photo is not a criminal action, no matter what the creator was thinking at the time.

[laughingliberal]

54. These sorts of things are taken seriously where the President is concerned

A lot are not arrested but a whole bunch of 'em receive a visit from the Secret Service. You wouldn't think telling the 'burning Bush' joke would have been a crime but a man served 3 years in prison for it.

[rve300]

61. You are right....

But the SS first investigate/interview then make a decision on whether the individual is a threat or not. The act of creating the photo is not a crime. In the case with the "burning Bush" joke. I had never heard of this before and I can't find any source for it other than posts on forums such as this.

[laughingliberal]

70. See my post below regarding the burning bush joke/conviction

Posted a link to a newspaper article when it happened. There was some MSM coverage at the time it happened and I remember it well. Post #69

[Kali]

64. there doesn't seem to be any evidence he served - I am betting it got overturned on appeal

but I couldn't find anything on that either - odd that snopes hasn't covered it, because it seems like it would be a big deal - I e-mailed an inquiry to the ACLU about it.

[laughingliberal]

69. He did serve time. I remember seeing the news story when he was released

I'm surprised people don't remember this. It was covered pretty well and talked about at length on left leaning and Democratic websites. Snopes didn't cover it is likely because it's not an urban legend or rumor.

On edit: Here's a link from another story when he was convicted.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20020907&id=irUaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KEUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1738,5291313

[Stinky The Clown]

67. Thanks for sharing.

[Mira]

55. Sorry I can only recommend this once.

I believe exactly in what you say.
If it were not so dangerous I would say give them rope to expose their ugliness and hatred and ignorance and let them hang themselves with it.
But we can't have this kind of anarchy start in the country.
It's very very very tricky.

Ask me how glad I am I have a grownup in the White House. We must keep him safe.

[johnaries]

58. That's hate speech, not free speech. Worse,

it appears to support a treasonous act. You're right, it doesn't matter who the face is - it is a hate crime.

[Dr Morbius]

59. Look, I'm sorry, I mean no disrespect, but...

... it would only qualify as a hate crime if you could argue that any African-American would be threatened by the cross-hairs over the President's face.

I mean, let's face it, murder is never a friendly, benevolent act. There is always some element of hate involved. A hate crime, poorly named but whatever, is a crime much like terrorism. It's the use of violence or the threat of violence targeted against specific groups, simply for being members of that group. This is a subtle suggestion to kill the President of the United States. Let's be fair, too: the more extremist Republicans would want him dead if he was a white guy, instead. They hate him for not being a Republican much more than they hate him for being black. This is a case of engineered hatred. They hate President Obama because they've been told to hate President Obama. And they wouldn't if he had not been elected; had Mrs. Clinton won the election, it would be her face in the cross-hairs.

No, without disrespect, this is in my view a crime all right but not a hate crime. It's treason.

[Emit]

60. Where is this from?

Where was this posted?

[Behind the Aegis]

62. Couldn't that be seen as illegal; a threat to the life of the President?

While I worry about him, I really fear for Speaker Pelosi. The level of hate I have seen on-line is greater than I have seen in a great while. People have lost their damn minds.

[dashrif]

65. nice

I hope they have an alarm set for 3am when the secret service knocks down the door and points sub guns at them........ I hope they shit the bed :puke:

[dashrif]

66. double post

self delete

[Hollywood Hills]

68. This Photo was circulated during the campaign.

It was disturbing then, and it's disturbing now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Where did the image come from?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. That is a crime in and of itself.