Secret Service party invitation

August 17, 2005 7:09 PM

Whoa. Do we really need what this might bring down on MeFi if it's picked up by some Drudge-type parasite? Yikes.
posted by realcountrymusic to etiquette/policy at 7:09 PM (206 comments total)

I'm sure matt will be hearing from the secret service now.
posted by puke & cry at 7:20 PM on August 17, 2005

Well, I bet JGreyNemo is going to get a "visit" sometime soon, but really, what do you see happening to MeFi itself?
posted by exlotuseater at 7:22 PM on August 17, 2005

ps- I have, of course, never never ever thought about posting something like that, OR EVEN THINKING IT. Do you hear me, Secret Service? Never. Really.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:25 PM on August 17, 2005

Personally, I wish someone would kill Albanian Prime Minister Fatos Nano. I've had enough of that yo-yo.
posted by loquax at 7:26 PM on August 17, 2005

Hold the phone, the Democrats won the July elections and Sali Berisha will be forming a new cabinet. No wingnuts needed!

I'm just kidding too. I love the goomba.
posted by loquax at 7:28 PM on August 17, 2005

I want Oscar the Grouch killed. Leave my trash alone, you hear me!? I did not put that can there for you. [shakes fist]
posted by Tuwa at 7:28 PM on August 17, 2005

Can you not picture the 72 point Druge headline, the sarcastic comments dripping from Ann Coulter's mouth, the tens of thousands of hits the site will receive . . . if someone pegs MeFi as a "liberal blog" (I know it's ridiculous, and you know it's ridiculous, but Sean Hannity won't think so) just picture the shitstorm. We have some collective responsibility not to expose MeFi to liability.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:28 PM on August 17, 2005

Wait. MeFi isn't already pegged as that?
posted by exlotuseater at 7:30 PM on August 17, 2005

if someone pegs MeFi as a "liberal blog"

Wait a second. What?
posted by loquax at 7:30 PM on August 17, 2005

Wait. MeFi isn't already pegged as that?

Yeah, I thought we were a right-wing think-tank?

WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
METAFILTER.
posted by Quartermass at 7:32 PM on August 17, 2005

Oh, right realcountrymusic. No bias here; only fair and balanced coverage of political events here.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:32 PM on August 17, 2005

" the sarcastic comments dripping from Ann Coulter's mouth" would be the height of irony, since it's exactly the sort of thing she'd be likely to say about her political rivals.

Not that that would stop her.

But yeah, it's a little weird to hear someone openly advocating assasination as the answer.
posted by weston at 7:33 PM on August 17, 2005

reminds me of when seanbaby got a visit from the secret service.
posted by puke & cry at 7:34 PM on August 17, 2005

Leaving aside who we're talking about, advocating -- wishing for - the murder of someone out loud, polemic or not, is bad form, right? Exceptions for heinous criminals and ruhtless dictators, perhaps, but even then it's a guilty pleasure to give voice to the thought. I detest the president with every fiber of my being. And I am still deeply offended by JGreyNemo's remarks and think they set back the political cause of working to contain the damage this administration is doing. I don't want this to be a political debate, and I can't believe anyone, left or right, thinks it's ok to do what JGN did in that comment, even in jest (which it didn't sound like to me).

Matt, I hope you'll delete the comment and this thread. I debated calling attention to the comment in the first place, and at first I just flagged it. I for one don't think it's a joking matter. And I don't usually dig stick-up-the-ass callouts in the gray because someone used a bad word.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:35 PM on August 17, 2005

Honestly, rcm, I agree with you. Very poor form. That guy is an idiot. Better to leave the comment up though, as well as all of the comments disagreeing with him. He has a right to his childish opinion, and his relationship with the secret service is his own business. It doesn't reflect badly on the site if nobody agrees with him. Now as for other childish opinions...
posted by loquax at 7:40 PM on August 17, 2005

Further, of course the prevailing sentiments expressed in political discussions here are "biased" to the left, which is one reason I like MeFi. I also like it that there are smart and feisty conservatives here to debate, even ones who can spell and concede a point occasionally. There is a right wing media machine out there (with a much smaller equivalent on the left) that lives for stories like "liberal web community [you know they'll just call it a blog] advocates assassination." If you don't know what I am talking about, you aren't paying attention. I've seen colleagues get chewed up in that machine for injudicious hyperbole before, seen their words exaggerated, taken out of context, twisted and cut with no rejoinder allowed. Whatever, I've said my piece.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:40 PM on August 17, 2005

other childish opinions

Advocating assasination is not merely expressing an opinion, if I understand the law. One can debate whether that's what JDG does, and whether it rises to the level of a threat or an incitement. He disclaims it ("I didn't say *I* wanted to kill . . .") But the wording is very curious. If it can be explained as fiction or fantasy, it's legal speech. It doesn't read that way to me. But beyond that, its potential ramifications impugn our community. And community, I always thought, was the highest value here.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:44 PM on August 17, 2005

There is a right wing media machine out there (with a much smaller equivalent on the left) that lives for stories like "liberal web community [you know they'll just call it a blog] advocates assassination."

So let me get this straight. You'd advocate free speech as a "liberal" value (since it's been noted time and again that Fox News covers up facts that compromise their agenda), and then proceed to cleanse a "lefty blog" of comments that would make us look bad in the eyes of the "right wing media machine"?

Let's call a spade a spade. The comment makes liberals look bad, so you want it removed. This pretense that it "does metafilter a disservice" is just some smoke up our collective asses to rationalize your agenda.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:45 PM on August 17, 2005

The comment makes liberals look bad, so you want it removed. This pretense that it "does metafilter a disservice" is just some smoke up our collective asses to rationalize your agenda.

What? I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, but I can't relate to whatever it is. I would oppose the same sentiment expressed by a right wing poster about a democratic president. To be clear, I think there's a legal basis under which a call to assasinate is not "free speech." It's incitement and threat. I also happen to think it makes MeFi look bad, liberals and conservatives alike. Not because it is directed at this president in particular, but because it is plain assed wrong.

Jesus. Troll much?
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:50 PM on August 17, 2005

I wasn't kidding in that first comment. If that comment stays, matt will be hearing from the secret service. That's why it should be deleted.
posted by puke & cry at 7:51 PM on August 17, 2005

Try reading my comment again, realcountrymusic. I don't think I could've said it more succinctly. Don't accuse me of "trolling" simply because you don't agree.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:53 PM on August 17, 2005

Or maybe you want it to stay up there because you like the idea that it makes "liberal" Metafilter look bad. In which case, who's blowing smoke?
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:53 PM on August 17, 2005

If it wasn't for possible problems for matt, I'd say let it stay. People say idiotic things at LGF and we all point and laugh. It happens on metafilter and lets push it under the rug, as if this came out of nowhere.

Some of the threads on bush are vile. Eventually, it adds up to this. I'm surprised anyone is surprised.
posted by justgary at 7:53 PM on August 17, 2005

I think it was an amazingly stupid thing to say. Does it make metafilter look bad? I don't know. Personally, I lean towards "yes" just because I think the U.S. media frequently can't get a story right even when the facts are known.

Does that mean the comment should come down? I don't think so, though I could see why mathowie and/or Jessamyn might want it to come down (not to mention the original poster, if s/he had any sense).

If it's left there we'll probably get an entertaining anonymous askMe question soon (so there are two men at the door each in sunglasses and a suit and wearing earpiece, and they say they're the Secret Service. Do I have to let them in?)
posted by Tuwa at 7:55 PM on August 17, 2005

I don't think I could've said it more succinctly

Assume I'm stupid and don't have a clue. (Should be easy for you.) Explain it slowly for me. What you call "succinct" I call "cryptic."
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:56 PM on August 17, 2005

matt will be hearing from the secret service

So? If he does, can't he just turn over that guy's IP or whatever they're after, so long as it's a legal request? It has no bearing on Metafilter, or Matt, as far as I can see. The only reason I can think of to delete the comment is to save the Secret Service's time, and prevent further wasting of taxpayer dollars. Assuming they even care about silly, vague, theoretical comments on random websites by guys not using their real names.
posted by loquax at 7:56 PM on August 17, 2005

he's not advocating assassination, and in fact is saying what many on the other side say daily, on all sorts of sites, and in Congress, and on the radio, etc.
posted by amberglow at 8:00 PM on August 17, 2005

Amberglow: he's not advocating assassination

JGN: So somebody kill the president. Please.

Wait a second. What?
posted by loquax at 8:02 PM on August 17, 2005

amber, it's wrong whoever does it.

Saying "somebody kill x person, please" could be construed as incitement, especially when that person is the president.

OK, maybe I live in an alternate universe where this kind of thing isn't normal civil discourse. I give up. Peace out.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:04 PM on August 17, 2005

(Should be easy for you.)

I'm sorry you feel victimized by my comments. I'm not really, but if you want to be a snarky ass, so can I.

What I'm suggesting is that the real reason you brought this here was because of what you've already said:

There is a right wing media machine out there (with a much smaller equivalent on the left) that lives for stories like "liberal web community [you know they'll just call it a blog] advocates assassination." If you don't know what I am talking about, you aren't paying attention.

YOU brought up a "right-wing media machine". YOU brought up the fact that "MetaFilter would look bad". Then you said that if I(we) didn't know what you were talking about, I(we) aren't paying attention (which suggests that what you're saying has to be true, or I(we) are somehow ignorant).

Hell, I agree with you that if it's a legal problem for Matt, take it down. But everything else you've said thoroughly undermines your credibility that you "care about the site".
posted by SeizeTheDay at 8:05 PM on August 17, 2005

That's really lame, and it's not the first time someone has done it (maybe the 2nd or 3rd in six years). I'm going to delete it and lock the dude's account for a while.
posted by mathowie at 8:09 PM on August 17, 2005

undermines your credibility that you "care about the site".

I apologize for sounding snarky.

But I strongly reject that characterization of my motives. I have maintained consistently in this thread that I think the post is offensive and of questionable legality in the abstract, as well as saying that I think it is hurtful to Metafilter's reputation, at least potentially, if it is allowed to stay in the blue. Both sentiments are authentic and sincere. Are you suggesting that I otherwise agree with the sentiment expressed, but only wish to challenge it for reasons of venal exigency? Because if so, that's outrageous. And if so, I'll skip the parenthetical snark and just say screw you.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:10 PM on August 17, 2005

I'm going to delete it and lock the dude's account for a while.

The voice of reason intercedes. Matt, I think you should also delete this entire thread. It's been instructive, and disappointing.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:12 PM on August 17, 2005

Why delete? It wasn't abusive to any members, nor was it "noise", really (albeit quite a derail). It was his personal opinion, one that I completely disagree with, but still somewhat "valid" nonetheless. I don't necessarily have a problem with you locking his account, but why delete the comment? At the very least, the generations will never know of his wisdom. I have to say that I think the deletion of this comment (unless it was done for a specific legal reason) is very disturbing. Of course, it's your site, but I can't understand the logic behind this.
posted by loquax at 8:17 PM on August 17, 2005

Why delete?

Because he's a fucking idiot for saying something like that?

Because it's like yelling fire in a crowded theather?

Because he stuck his dick in the mashed potatoes?

All of the above?
posted by mathowie at 8:19 PM on August 17, 2005

Why delete?

And . . . because it's Matt's website.

Seriously, "he's a fucking idiot" is the truly succinct comment in this thread. Exactly.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:22 PM on August 17, 2005

(albeit quite a derail)

loquax, that alone has been reason enough to delete a comment in the past.

(And, to be fair, it's easy for me to say the comment shouldn't come down, but I'd almost certainly do the same thing if I were running the site. It's one thing to leave a stupid comment there as evidence of someone's stupidity, another entirely when it's suggesting murder and treason.)
posted by Tuwa at 8:23 PM on August 17, 2005

Saying "somebody kill x person, please" could be construed as incitement, especially when that person is the president.

I could dig these up all day: ...when he quotes her, speaking in reference to Bill Clinton, wondering whether it would be better "to impeach or assassinate." (Coulter)

It's more and more common to find comments like that all over the airwaves and in books and tv...why delete them?
posted by amberglow at 8:25 PM on August 17, 2005

Prediction:

JGreyNemo gets no visit from the secret service, FBI, Homeland Security, Forest Rangers, mall rentacops or local Webelo troop.

Also, the vast right-wing media machine—the publicity arm of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC)—will fail to give coverage to the comment, the thread, or this website.

MetaFilter's make-or-break reputation as global trendsetting community blog will fail to teeter to one side or the other, and mathowie's good name will remain unbesmirched.

JGN: So somebody kill the president. Please.
Amberglow: he's not advocating assassination

How is JGN's comment any different than Coulter's?
posted by dhoyt at 8:32 PM on August 17, 2005

It's more and more common to find comments like that all over the airwaves and in books and tv...why delete them?

Because MetaFilter is not, or at least should not be, the lowest common denominator?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:35 PM on August 17, 2005

That's really lame, and it's not the first time someone has done it (maybe the 2nd or 3rd in six years). I'm going to delete it and lock the dude's account for a while.

I think I can recall quonsar advocating the same thing, in less direct terms, at least a couple of times over the years. Perhaps that's what you're referring to, I'm not sure.

It's interesting to me that citizens of a country that is so proud of its free speech laws are so afraid that its own legal enforcers will come down on people for exercising those rights. Fascinating place, America.

Sure, it's not exactly super clever to call for the assassination of your own president (assuming the commenter was USAian) in a public forum. That's clear. But the looking-over-your-shoulder aspects of the response to the dumb comment interest me a lot.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:35 PM on August 17, 2005

Will the American Secret Service come all the way to Australia?
posted by tellurian at 8:36 PM on August 17, 2005

How is JGN's comment any different than Coulter's?

it's on MetaFilter?
posted by jessamyn at 8:36 PM on August 17, 2005

Because he's a fucking idiot for saying something like that?

Because it's like yelling fire in a crowded theather?

Because he stuck his dick in the mashed potatoes?

I see these as good reasons to lock the account (and I agree with all of them), not good reasons to delete the comment. I think there are a lot of idiots posting idiotic things on this site, but I haven't seen comments deleted unless they're pointless garbage, jokes taken too far or abusive towards other members. This was one guy's apparently heartfelt opinion. Are opinions that offend the mores here unacceptable? Until the police ask it to be removed because it's broken the law, why should his opinion be suppressed, no matter how abhorrent? The community seemed to be dealing with it quite properly and rationally. The comment certainly didn't seem to be causing a mass panic among the membership, or ruining the website for other readers. Where is the "public good" in deletion? I've argued the exact same point in favour of ParisParamus and others expressing opinions that others found disgusting, including "incitements to violence" (in certain people's opinions, anyways), why shouldn't those comments be deleted now too? Maybe I'm wrong, and the bottom line is certainly that it is your site.
posted by loquax at 8:37 PM on August 17, 2005

Because it's like yelling fire in a crowded theather?

Well, actually, I don't really agree with that. But otherwise, it was certainly a stupid comment by an ass.
posted by loquax at 8:39 PM on August 17, 2005

I used to follow Democratic Underground fairly closely until it became clogged with illiterate drivel, and over about a year of reading that forum I never once saw anything approaching JGN's comment. It may be normal on LGF or FreeRepublic, but that's setting the bar pretty low.

I'm sorry if I got a little riled up in this thread. I assumed that all thoughtful MeFites, liberal and conservative alike, would find JGN's post cringeful and disturbing. And I assume, still, that all of us care about MeFi as a community that has standards for civility even in discussions on the most controversial topics.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:40 PM on August 17, 2005

Because we don't want to contribute to the coarsening of civil discourse?
posted by kenko at 8:42 PM on August 17, 2005

And I assume, still, that all of us care about MeFi as a community that has standards for civility even in discussions on the most controversial topics.

I don't think anyone (at least, not me) has been arguing with you about that, only whether or not the comment should be deleted. One poster does not a community make.
posted by loquax at 8:43 PM on August 17, 2005

it's on MetaFilter?

What I'm saying is: no matter where the comment was made, are they not both advocating assassination? Amber indicated one was, and one wasn't. I'm not sure what the difference is between them.
posted by dhoyt at 8:44 PM on August 17, 2005

It wasn't abusive to any members

who knows, maybe Mr. Bush has an account here. we just don't know.
posted by matteo at 8:49 PM on August 17, 2005

SeizeTheDay writes "Let's call a spade a spade. The comment makes liberals look bad, so you want it removed. This pretense that it 'does metafilter a disservice' is just some smoke up our collective asses to rationalize your agenda."

Well, you're pretty much the only person on record here who insists that a threat againt the POTUS should be allowed to stand.

Let me savor the irony.... done.
posted by clevershark at 8:51 PM on August 17, 2005

realcountrymusic writes "I also like it that there are smart and feisty conservatives here to debate"

They must spend their time posting in threads I don't read.
posted by clevershark at 8:53 PM on August 17, 2005

who knows, maybe Mr. Bush has an account here. we just don't know
posted by Jimbob at 8:53 PM on August 17, 2005

These are not the conservatives you are looking for.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:54 PM on August 17, 2005

*guffaws*
posted by matteo at 8:54 PM on August 17, 2005

Well, you're pretty much the only person on record here who insists that a threat againt the POTUS should be allowed to stand.

I'm glad to see the clever art of creating strawmen is not lost on you, clevershark. But please, don't let me intrude on your absurd definition of irony.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 8:59 PM on August 17, 2005

It's not incitement and it's not a threat, anymore than any of us saying "i wish someone would just kill that bastard" to a friend about someone who wrongs us. When we use words like that, we're venting, not threatening. Nor are we instructing anyone to actually do it.
posted by amberglow at 9:02 PM on August 17, 2005

Because now I'll never fucking eat mashed potatos again?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:02 PM on August 17, 2005

We should really keep an eye on this guy.
posted by brain_drain at 9:09 PM on August 17, 2005

at least there's no "John Wilkes Boothe" account here (I just checked)
posted by matteo at 9:11 PM on August 17, 2005

Booth
posted by matteo at 9:11 PM on August 17, 2005

Can I admit I wish the president were dead if I use really small type?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:16 PM on August 17, 2005

So... what's the proper way to wish for assassination? Oblique references to Garfield?
posted by klangklangston at 3:40 AM on August 18, 2005

This is a fairly interesting thread in and of itself, if only because it explores the potential extreme extent of the frustration and angst that many of us in the US are feeling as a result of this president, this administration, the rise of the right wing, and all that that entails.

However. The comment needed to be deleted. We shouldn't kill people or ask others to do so. (/irony)

We may indeed be in danger of shining too bright a light on this incident. And I do deplore the lack of freedom of speech that this implies.

We have a festering boil on our collective ass; it's embarrassing, but it will likely heal, in time. Maybe we shouldn't constantly pull down our pants and point at it?
posted by mmahaffie at 4:01 AM on August 18, 2005

It's stupid to think that getting rid of him would solve a lot of problems, Cheney is the VP.

>So... what's the proper way to wish for assassination?

"JFK his ass"
posted by gsb at 4:52 AM on August 18, 2005

Well, here is the definition of what is a threat against the president, but even though it says a threat "is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner," people have been thrown in jail for idle and careless talk.
posted by Orb at 4:57 AM on August 18, 2005

IIHAAN, wishing is one thing. And there are many ways that wish could be granted, hypothetically, that do not involve criminal activity. The thankfully now-deleted JGN post implored "someone" to "kill" someone else. While the tone was Swiftian, there was no overt disclaimer of seriousness. Amberglow, that could indeed be considered incitement legally.

I really don't think this is a free speech issue. I do believe we live in scary times for free speech, and that we're obligated not to be wusses precisely because of Patriot Act (II), Gitmo, and all the rest. But what meaningful defense of free speech is offered by a defense of JGN's comment? This isn't even like flag-burning, itself a rather silly and distracting issue. Freedom of speech has never included the right to incite violence, and at least by very long-standing convention, threats of violence against elected officials have been taken as incitement and threat on a very hair-trigger standard, long before the current regime took power. It diminishes the fight for real freedom of expression to go to the mat defending this kind of thing. JGN may have been expressing a common frustration, or a fantasy to blow off steam, but he wasn't expressing a realistic political agenda that needed to be protected as political speech, or if he was, it was beyond the pale because it is illegal, and rightly so.

And I maintain that there is nothing cynical at all in seeing such nonsense as bad for MeFi, and that as one reason to challenge it.

Finally, clevershark, I won't name names, but if you've ever debate wingnuts on other web forums, you realize MeFi's conservative contingent is downright civilized. I actually do like and admire many of the conservatives who post here.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:20 AM on August 18, 2005

So... what's the proper way to wish for assassination? Oblique references to Garfield?

nope. Lincoln. : >
posted by amberglow at 5:28 AM on August 18, 2005

What if people from Hull start looking on this website ?
Then we're in for some real trouble.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:37 AM on August 18, 2005

It's not incitement and it's not a threat, anymore than any of us saying "i wish someone would just kill that bastard" to a friend about someone who wrongs us.

Saying "I wish someone would just kill that bastard" IS advocating assassination, amberglow. Yet you said "he's not advocating assassination" -- how so? Why do you feel a need to rationalize & normalize his comments?
posted by dhoyt at 5:48 AM on August 18, 2005

I can think of several people here who I'd like shot. Will the Mefi Sekret Police come knocking on my door now?
posted by crunchland at 5:48 AM on August 18, 2005

Someone on LiveJournal made a snarky post about Bush and she got visited by the Secret Service. Mainly because a reader with a personal grudge towards her actually reported the post to SS.

So you never know.
posted by divabat at 5:54 AM on August 18, 2005

because it's a commonly-used phrase that is not meant for anyone to really go and kill someone, dhoyt. Why do you feel the need to turn that phrase into a literal truth? If i call someone a bastard i'm not talking about their parentage. If i call someone a troll, i'm not talking about their home under a bridge. ...
posted by amberglow at 5:55 AM on August 18, 2005

i'm with mmahaffie--making it a bigger deal by posting it here probably ensures that something bad happens. (unless this thread is going to be deleted too?)
posted by amberglow at 5:57 AM on August 18, 2005

Good decision Matt.
posted by caddis at 6:05 AM on August 18, 2005

I can't believe anyone, left or right, thinks it's ok to do what JGN did in that comment

I do. Not "ok" in the sense of "a brilliant comment that I'd make myself," but "ok" in the sense of "something people should be permitted to say in a free society." But then I believe in free speech, as sadly few MeFites seem to. Oh, free speech is all well and good as long as it's decent, polite speech. Why, many agree that even those nasty conservatives should be allowed to have their say as long as they're nice about it. But saying something genuinely disturbing? Censor it pronto! As I said in this thread:

Freedom of speech is a basic right, like freedom to breathe. If you don't have the right to speak "irresponsibly," you don't have freedom of speech.

and:

Free speech is inherently uncomfortable; you don't need to protect comfortable, nice speech. The whole point of having free speech is to allow people to say nasty, vile things that make you want to shut them up—that's how you know it's working.

I should add that I understand, though I don't agree with, Matt's decision to delete; it's his website and he's the one taking the risks. But it saddens me that so many otherwise sensible people are jumping up and down in their eagerness for censorship (realcountrymusic, I'm looking at you).
posted by languagehat at 6:10 AM on August 18, 2005

I'd just like to say , that i've just found mushy peas and some haddock smeared on my front door , presumably by irate hullians , now i know how salman rushdie feels.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:20 AM on August 18, 2005

/me eyeballs the dicked taters suspiciously.

Is the stuffing unadulterated?
posted by loquacious at 6:25 AM on August 18, 2005

True censorship is when your speech is curtailed by the government which was founded to represent us. If a private company, such as publisher, or an individual chooses not to print your comments through their medium, it is merely an editorial choice. I think the word "censorship" is grossly overused, especially on Metafilter. Many users here seem to think it is their God given right to say anything they want and have it remain here inviolate for all time. That's just not the case and we should accept it. Matt is not taking away free speech, merely exercising his editorial prerogative.
posted by Roger Dodger at 6:39 AM on August 18, 2005

Well said Roger Dodger.
posted by Necker at 6:41 AM on August 18, 2005

What languagehat said. Rinse and repeat.

And I'd like to add that I am baffled by the outrage against such an advocation. So let me get this straight: advocating that one single person be killed in the hopes of making the world a better place for it is hugely morally unacceptable if that person just happens to be the President of the US but not, basically, anyone else? Indeed, advocating that dark-skinned civilians in foreign countries be killed by indiscriminate bombing is hunky-dory? I don't understand the moral universe many of you inhabit. Oh, wait, I do: it's one where the foundation is convention and peer-pressure and not reason.

The principle problem with this guy's wish is that it would do more harm than good. Now, were Cheney the target, that'd be different.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:45 AM on August 18, 2005

It reminds me of a classroom discussion about whether, if you were randomly sent back in time to the period before Hitler rose to power, you would kill him while he was still a harmless student. I think there was a movie about that, too.

I suppose that the hypothetical target is still technically alive might make some kind of moral difference, maybe.
posted by sfenders at 6:55 AM on August 18, 2005

Because he stuck his dick in the mashed potatoes?

I'm probably one of the biggest "stop deleting shit" people on MeFi, but there are times when common sense trumps idealism, and this is one of those times. Good call, Matt.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:59 AM on August 18, 2005

Worried about the economy, the debacle in Iraq, and his declining popularity, President George Bush was unable to sleep one night. Finally, in the wee hours, the ghost of President Jefferson appeared before him.

"Thomas, what should I do?" Bush implored.

"Defend the constitution, as I did." Jefferson replied, and faded away.

But the next night, the president still could not sleep. Sometime after midnight, Bush was startled by the ghost of FDR.

"Franklin, what should I do?"

"Take care of the people, as I did." was the answer. Exit FDR.

The third night found Bush awake again. This time it was President Lincoln who appeared before him.

"Abe, what is the best thing I can do to defend the constitution and help the people?"

"George," the ghost of Lincoln replied, "go see a play."

/that is how you do it
posted by LarryC at 7:03 AM on August 18, 2005

I don't understand the moral universe many of you inhabit.

It's not a moral universe. it's a political one. I remember a thread where several MeFites including myself were scolded for wishing violent death upon Osama Bin Laden, and perhaps correctly so, yet this is somehow different. I don't get it.
posted by jonmc at 7:07 AM on August 18, 2005

Another vote for leaving such comments alone -- let the ass be exposed for the ass he is. Why save him from his own idiocy?
posted by pardonyou? at 7:11 AM on August 18, 2005

It's not his own idiocy we're worried about. It's his idiocy combined with the knee-jerk idiocy of the Secret Service (or not, I'm not going to argue threat assessment).

See also: Splatter effect.

Sure, it's easy to say: Well, he's the idiot. He's responsible for his own words. But when the SS and FBI come knocking with warrants (or not) demanding IP and server logs and start maybe even seizing hardware or disks, it suddenly gets real messy and real complicated real damn quick.

You want an infowar? You want revolution or policy change? This isn't the battleground. Sure, we might (and may) discuss so-called metaphorical battlegrounds here, but the map is not the territory.

Go outside. Protest. Vote. Get your own blog. Whatever. There's only one person here who owns metafilter. We're just his rowdy and ill-mannered guests.

Tangential and badly paraphrased from Frank Herbert's God Emperor of Dune, which itself may have borrowed from a real historical tidbit or not:

Once a year the king must don luminous robes and walk unguarded through his darkened city at night, surrounded by his black-clad subjects. It is said if the king lives, he is a good ruler.
posted by loquacious at 7:30 AM on August 18, 2005

Sure, it's not exactly super clever to call for the assassination of your own president (assuming the commenter was USAian) in a public forum. That's clear. But the looking-over-your-shoulder aspects of the response to the dumb comment interest me a lot.

stavrosthewonderchicken: Bear in mind that a lot of these hysterics are motivated by this site's left-wing bias. "Bushitler is taking away our civil liberties. Bushitler doesn't believe in human rights. Bushitler will send his secret service goons to arrest me and throw me in Guantanamo Bay for talking bad about the President".

This is not to say that it's a good idea to publicly call for the assisination of a politician. And, yes, the Secret Service may drop by and ask some questions, and the commenters name may go in a file somewhere. But that would be the end of it, and a lot of the concern here is motivated by a desire on the part of certain leftists to reinforce their vision of Bush the Facist. It's overblown, really it is.

(Other commenters: I'm not trying to provoke a fight here, I'm just trying to point out that people living in foreign countries will get a distorted picture of this country if they try to draw conclusions from this site).

And I'd like to add that I am baffled by the outrage against such an advocation. So let me get this straight: advocating that one single person be killed in the hopes of making the world a better place for it is hugely morally unacceptable if that person just happens to be the President of the US but not, basically, anyone else? Indeed, advocating that dark-skinned civilians in foreign countries be killed by indiscriminate bombing is hunky-dory? I don't understand the moral universe many of you inhabit. Oh, wait, I do: it's one where the foundation is convention and peer-pressure and not reason.

Ethereal Bligh: Interestingly, many of the same points could be made against the condemnation of torture. Should we torture suspected terrorists?
posted by gd779 at 7:31 AM on August 18, 2005

because it's a commonly-used phrase that is not meant for anyone to really go and kill someone, dhoyt.

I doubt Coulter, Limbaugh, etc, meant for anyone to go kill Clinton either, amberglow. Why is it, then, their comments lead legions of internet pundits to say, "X advocated assassination! Isn't that against the law? Shouldn't X be in jail?"

Based on that, I assume you agree that all the of the Clinton-era right-wing blowhards were just deploying a "commonly-used phrase"?

I'm with languagehat. Free speech all the way. Actually assassinating someone, tho? I'm pretty sure that's a jailable offense.
posted by dhoyt at 7:40 AM on August 18, 2005

Will somebody kill amberglow please? It's the only way I can freely think to relieve my frustration and digust with that turd.
posted by Necker at 7:43 AM on August 18, 2005

I have to agree with languagehat and EB on this. I'd also like to suggest EB hurry up and fight GWB in hand to hand combat - I am completely seriousness.

(and a clap for LarryC, a new one to me and ver' funny)
posted by longbaugh at 7:51 AM on August 18, 2005

gd779 writes "people living in foreign countries will get a distorted picture of this country if they try to draw conclusions from this site"
But I like to be distorted. It's a better view.
posted by peacay at 8:02 AM on August 18, 2005

I assume you agree that all the of the Clinton-era right-wing blowhards were just deploying a "commonly-used phrase"?

Chuck Baker got into some trouble for inciting a listener to attempt to assassinate Clinton.

In August 1994, Linda Thompson of the Unorganized Militia of the United States came on Baker's show to advocate an armed march on Washington to remove the "traitors" in Congress: "We have two million US troops, half of them are out of the country. . . .All of the troops they could muster would be 500,000 people. They would be outnumbered five to one, if only 1 percent of the country went up against them."

Baker, broadcasting from a gun shop, responded positively--telling his guest that soldiers "would come over to our side."

A week later, a caller urged the formation of "an orchestrated militia," saying: "The problem we have right now is who do we shoot. Other than Kennedy, Foley and Mitchell, the others are borderline traitors. They're the kingpins right now, besides the Slick One [Clinton]. . . .You've got to get your ammo."

Baker's response was sympathetic: "Am I advocating the overthrow of this government?. . . .I'm advocating the cleansing." Citing the power of the "masses in rebellion," he asked: "Why are we sitting here?"

Later that day, a caller accused Baker of advocating "armed rebellion." The talk host corrected her: "An armed revolution."

Weeks later, in October, a Baker listener Francisco Martin Duran fired nearly 30 bullets at the White House. Nearby, Duran's abandoned pickup sported a bumper sticker: "Fire Butch Reno"--a favorite Baker nickname for Attorney General Janet Reno.

Inspired by Baker, Duran and scores of other listeners had called a local congressional office in August to oppose a ban on assault weapons. So many calls were irate or obscene that Duran's threat to "go to Washington and take someone out" went unnoticed.

As a talk-show host, Baker accepts no responsibility for Duran: "If he thinks I and Rush Limbaugh are the reasons he went there, then the man needs psychiatric counseling."

Is Baker an isolated, rogue element in the talk industry? Hardly. He remains on the air (toned down slightly) and on the advisory board of the National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts.
posted by Balisong at 8:11 AM on August 18, 2005

gd779 wrote: stavrosthewonderchicken: Bear in mind that a lot of these hysterics are motivated by this site's left-wing bias.

Hysterics? It has already happened. To Fark. Some asshat posted something totally asshattery, the SS went and got server logs, and arrested the lackwit.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this thread and the original comment gets the attention of the Secret Service and similar action is taken. It's a small world, and MeFi is a pretty damn big fish.

The Secret Service has publicly and unequivocally stated that this is their mission and mandate, and that they take all spoken, written or recorded threats entirely seriously until proven without a doubt otherwise. They don't fuck around.

To realize this isn't "lefty paranoia", it's just fucking common sense.

If I were Matt and this were my site, not only would I have deleted the comment, I would already have called my lawyers and the EFF to give them a heads up about what might go down, just in case. That isn't paranoia. That's covering your ass.
posted by loquacious at 8:16 AM on August 18, 2005

Weeks later, in October, a Baker listener Francisco Martin Duran fired nearly 30 bullets at the White House.

Duran was apparently a fan of my man Jim Goad, too.
posted by jonmc at 8:17 AM on August 18, 2005

/that is how you do it

That was awesome.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:17 AM on August 18, 2005

sgt.serenity writes "mushy peas and some haddock smeared on my front do"

You are funny. /no sarcasm

I did pass the thread on to some Hull dwellers. They are intent on settling the score, you had better waqtch out. Once they have the bus fare.
Q: What's the best thing to come out of Hull?
A: The M62
Badoom tschh!
posted by asok at 8:29 AM on August 18, 2005

Regardless of the legality of what was said, ending up on the Secret Service's shit list is a very good way to see the site destroyed while they determine what happened.
posted by 517 at 8:31 AM on August 18, 2005

If the SS shut down sites that advocated specific assassinations, Ell Gee Eff and Free repub wouldn't be up today.

Calling for Clinton and Kerry's heads, even after kerry got SS protection as a candidate. The protection is for former presidents, too.. it's for life.
posted by Balisong at 8:35 AM on August 18, 2005

Seriously, I'd suggest mathowie close this thread, keep a log of everything that was said and put everything the Secret Service could possible want on removable media so he can hand it to them the second they want it.

Laws don't have to be broken for things to get broken in the process of determining what happened.
posted by 517 at 8:39 AM on August 18, 2005

I think this thread should be buried in a drum of radioactive waste - preferably one with a half life of several millennia. Perhaps George W Bush could be placed in one of these drums alive and as physically healthy as it is possible for modern medical science to make him. Long live the President-In-A-Drum-Of-Radioactive-Waste!
posted by longbaugh at 8:54 AM on August 18, 2005

Remember -- if you see "The document contains no data", it's because the SS have shut MeFi down.
Seriously though, Matt, good decision.

I really don't understand why people are viewing this as an extreme case of free speech, when there's a specific law involved, as linked above.

18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.

(Of course you can argue that it's unconstitutional, but in any case it's on the books. Or you can dispute "true", but I don't see why that should be Matt's problem.)
posted by Aknaton at 9:07 AM on August 18, 2005

517 and Aknaton make the winning points. Why should Matt bear ANY risk of having to deal with an investigation only to protect some asshat's ramblings? This is a unique situation, and hardly one that results in a less robust marketplace of ideas.

P.S. It is refreshing to see a MeTa callout with actual substance.
posted by brain_drain at 9:22 AM on August 18, 2005

What RodgerDodger said. Matt has had hassles before because of site 'things'. It's always his neck, his money, his time that's first in line to be affected.
posted by peacay at 9:23 AM on August 18, 2005

P.S. - I'm totally cool with Matt's decision since it is his site, I am still to this day baffled however, by a country that has free speech so firmly entrenched in it's very being yet refuses to allow dissent in the form of this one statement.

If the constitution allows you to rise up and overthrow an oppressive, tyranical government then how come you can't make that statement? What if he really was as bad as Hitler or Stalin* - would it be okay to say "okay, cap the motherfucker now"?

*he certainly isn't btw - anyone stating otherwise is indulging in hyperbole.
posted by longbaugh at 9:35 AM on August 18, 2005

You know, I tend to think that if somebody was really serious about offing Bush (or wanting someone else to do it) - as opposed to, say, making a frivolous and possibly cathartic throwaway comment on a website - they would keep pretty damned quiet about it. So this does seem to be something of an overreaction, to me.
posted by Decani at 9:38 AM on August 18, 2005

Also, what longbaugh just said. Presumably there comes a point for most people when a leader is behaving so appallingly it becomes a moral imperative to take him down, if possible? It's an interesting issue, actually.
posted by Decani at 9:40 AM on August 18, 2005

he's not advocating assassination, and in fact is saying what many on the other side say daily, on all sorts of sites, and in Congress, and on the radio, etc.
posted by amberglow at 8:00 PM PST on August 17 [!]


I'm still confused as to how the user was not "advocating assassination", while Coulter somehow was.

Is this a point you can back up, amberglow?
posted by dhoyt at 9:49 AM on August 18, 2005

Wait... The President put his dick in some mashed potatoes?
posted by chasing at 9:50 AM on August 18, 2005

Maybe it should have been posted to Usenet instead. It would have fit in fine on alt.peeves, talk.bizarre or alt.religion.kibology. But not any of the "radical" political groups: those are for wusses.

As for JGN's post, I took it as too over-the-top to be taken seriously in any way, some guy blowing off steam, not any kind of serious threat to anybody; he might as well have been praying for lightning to strike his Unloved One. Practically speaking there's more chance of winning millions in the lottery than somebody assassinating the President because some guy on Metafilter suggested it. For one thing, nobody's gotten close since Hinckley, and that (if those pages about his family's connection with the Bushes were right) was a CIA set-up that failed: regardless of who suggests it where, even if somebody did try it there's a 99.99999% chance that it just won't work. And I think the Secret Secret Service already knows that.

Of course that's not to say that it's a wise thing to post to a privately-owned public forum like this. In the old days people who were not begging for a Secret Service visit posted such ravings to Usenet through anonymous remailers and mail-to-news (or "mail2news") gateways. A lot of them seem to have vanished "since '9/11' changed everything", and even 10 years ago a lot of those remailers were rumored to be "stings" run by various "intelligence" or "law-inforcement" agencies, so I would not advise anybody who has anything to lose to post such a thing even "anonymously". The Powers That Be really hate it when anybody speaks up against them that strongly, and even if it can't be taken seriously as a threat they might pretend they took it seriously just to "make an example" of what happens when anybody does anything like that. (I doubt even 0.5% of the people that Stalin had shot for "treason" really were active supporters of, or even knew a damn thing about, any alleged Trotskyist-Zinovievist plot to assassinate Comrade Stalin and turn the USSR over to Hitler", if there really was such a plot (which I doubt); most of the victims who weren't just picked at random were people who were allegedly overheard in a bar saying something like "because of the forced collectivization of the peasants Stalin would be no great loss to humanity", and I doubt very many of them were actually "guilty" of even that much.)

But one funny thing about this episode tonight is that matthowie's deleting the comment that set off all this talk and locking the guy's account, but the discussion about it is still here so deleting his comment, though it shows that "the proprietor of this establishment does not condone such behavior", really accomplishes nothing: he knows he said it, we know he said, and I'm sure that, whether an automated bot found it first or not, some bozo snitched him out to the "appropriate authorities" scant minutes after it he hit "Post Comment".

Another funny thing about this "controversy" is people who claim "it makes Metafilter look bad!", or who fear someone else will claim that; nobody posted an agreement and in fact y'all all quickly lined up to distance yourself from the idea in one way or another, so I don't know what y'all'd have to worry about. The only person besides the comment poster who might face any unpleasantness for that post appearing here is the proprietor of this site, who has also let it be known that it was just some lone bozo spouting off who does not speak for him as proprietor or Metafilter as his "thing", and I really doubt matthowie's going to hear anything about this from any "Authority" either, since he shortly signalled his submission to their Power.

As for "what 'people' might say", right-wing wingnuts were calling this site a haven for "hippie commie postmodernist fags" long before "9/11" anyway, but that perception opf "radicality" has become more and more incorrect as time goes by, as people surrender more and more of their personal liberties "since '9/11'", as evidenced again by his decision to delete the "offending" post before the right-wing wingnuts on other blogs had even noticed it -- and y'all who practice cowardice without apparently knowing how to define it are still going on about what Bad Thing that post was.

So amberglow is right, as is languagehat and Bligh; this thread might as well be closed -- because all it does now is provide further excuse for Metafilter's "commonsensist" contingent keep baring their throats and widdling on their bellies. As for example 517 just did when he advocated matthowie turning us ALL in for what amounts to lèse majesté, to quote: "Seriously, I'd suggest mathowie close this thread, keep a log of everything that was said [by EVERYBODY in these threads naturally] and put everything the Secret Service could possible want on removable media so he can hand it to them the second they want it." Give them EVERYTHING they could POSSIBLY want the SECOND they want it! Hey you fool, I was (I thought obviously) parodying people like YOU when I called for "re-education camps"; don't tell me that you don't see that your suggestion advocates their creation. If we all turn in our neighbors who make "anti-Soviet" comments, they'll have to put them someplace just so cretins like you can feel "safe"! (Do you really think that when they come for you "But already I turned in everybody I know!" would be good "defense"?) "Yes comrades, we must identify and turn in everybody who does not agree that anyone who says such a thing is a treasonous and dangerous plotter! If you don't agree with turning in everybody who's the least bit 'suspecious' it must be because YOU have something to hide, you closet Trotskyite you!" And akhnation, THAT WAS NOT A "TRUE THREAT"! Did you even READ the "offending" post, you tyrant-enabling nitiwit?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: will all you people who can't stand personal liberty please move to someplace like Iran or North Korea? There are plenty of places where you can submit to tyranny all you want without taking away Americans' freedom further. Deleting the post is not enough, lining up in ritual affirmation of submission is not enough, now you want to start turning people in on the flimsiest of pretexts. Thank you for showing us all the the U.S. definitely LOST the "Cold War" and that Osama's bunch has no reason to hate us for freedoms we keep throwing away.

"Forward comrades to the Cowardist Utopia!"
posted by davy at 9:55 AM on August 18, 2005

*Opens door, looks around, grimaces

Hey, you kids, some pointing at that boil, dammit!

Shuffles out, grumbling about "Damn kids today, ain't got no respect, cutting their hair, getting jobs....."
posted by mmahaffie at 9:59 AM on August 18, 2005

I am still to this day baffled however, by a country that has free speech so firmly entrenched in it's very being yet refuses to allow dissent in the form of this one statement.

...refuses to allow dissent in the form of this one statement.

"Refuses"? I think you're just getting a little too excited about an opportunity to take a jab at the American system. Settle down.

You can dissent all you want. You can even advocate violence if you want. But people will come looking for you... as well they should. It's the Secret Service's job to protect the President (and others). Therefore, they must and will likely investigate any and all real and/or imagined threats. That's what's at risk when someone starts spouting off. Whether this guy we're all chatting about was really putting himself at such a risk is obviously debatable.
posted by Necker at 10:16 AM on August 18, 2005

what davy said.

This is all about not wanting to be hassled by authorities, which means that those in power who want to stifle dissent have won without them even having to lift a finger. We retain the copyrights to our comments as well--they're our responsibility. Look at the bottom of every page.
posted by amberglow at 10:28 AM on August 18, 2005

making a frivolous and possibly cathartic throwaway comment

This is my point. You have to choose your battles and this isn't one I'd want to see metafilter go down for. I wonder if some of you haven't dealt with the humorless arm of law enforcement before. Because when they want to break something all they need is a pretext.

Davy I'll get to you in a second.
posted by 517 at 10:29 AM on August 18, 2005

For one thing, nobody's gotten close since Hinckley, and that (if those pages about his family's connection with the Bushes were right) was a CIA set-up that failed:

What.
The.
Fuck.
Davy.
posted by longbaugh at 10:29 AM on August 18, 2005

davy: There are plenty of places where you can submit to tyranny all you want without taking away Americans' freedom further.

Can you point out to me something that says we have the right to threaten the lives of others? While some point out that it against the law to threaten the president as far as I know it is against the law to threaten anyone. Free speech does not extend to terroristic (terroristic in the regular old legal way, not the new fangled Patriot Act way) threats.

I'm really hard pressed to see where protecting the life of the President (or anyone else) is 'tyranny'. Free speech does not mean that there are no consequences to your words.

I am speaking in general terms and tend to believe that the original poster is a frustrated adolescent venting rather than a legitmate threat to anyone besides himself.
posted by cedar at 10:34 AM on August 18, 2005

My point, which on preview I see amberglow already understands, is that each time you signal a willingness to surrender your freedom, and now that of everyone around you, you make it more likely that power-hungry bastards will take you up on it -- and the more freedoms you give away the more likely they'll take away the rest of them.

And if you think they'll only pick on OTHER people you're wrong. "But Comrade 517," they'll say, "why should you object to us shooting your mother for not kissing the icon of our Dear Leader, after you've already turned in all your non-related neighbors for such things? Now we'll take you too, for the treason of putting your personal feelings above the interests of the Government!"

So to answer Necker, yes, it is the job of the enemies of freedom to take away freedom. So it is wrong to encourage them -- unless Stalin's USSR is a positive goal we should all strive towards. It seems from this thread that many Mefites think it is.

--
(Oh and longbaugh, one of the first things some people were saying after Hinckley opened fire was that it was a CIA set-up to assassinate Reagan and put the elder Bush -- who had been head of the CIA -- in as President; some people still say that, and there have been books and web sites written about it, that you could find information about through your favorite search engine.
posted by davy at 10:44 AM on August 18, 2005

... Give them EVERYTHING they could POSSIBLY want the SECOND they want it! Hey you fool...

The idea is you give it to them or they take it from you. If you don't understand that then you are the foolish one. Have you read some of the accounts where a government agency has gone after a website? They take the entire server and they might return it in a few years.

I doubt that would be the case here, but why risk it for some BS comment.

...I was (I thought obviously) parodying people like YOU when I called for "re-education camps"; don't tell me that you don't see that your suggestion advocates their creation

I didn't read the comment you are referencing but I am willing to bet that I have gone further to the mat for my right to privacy, my right to peaceably assemble and just about every other right there is than you have. Have you been arrest defending your rights? or do you have a monopoly on the wisdom of rebellion?

...want to start turning people in on the flimsiest of pretexts...

I didn't advocate turning anyone in, I advocate quickly and easily complying with any investigation that might arise and preventing other people from saying anything that might attract more attention, as we all are now.

Maybe some more hyperbolic anger would help this situation, davy the ball is in your court.
posted by 517 at 10:47 AM on August 18, 2005

Actually, I take that last comment back, I think I stand closer to you than you think davy.
posted by 517 at 10:51 AM on August 18, 2005

They take the entire server

And it's a brand new server, too, and a really nice one.

Seriously, I don't see what "censorship" has to do with it. Matt is the publisher of this website, and he can publish anything he wants, or not. True, a (well founded) fear of government attention may motivate a decision not to publish something-- in that sense we could say this is an indirect form of "censorship." But anyone who wants to test the limits of freedom of speech can do so on their own blog (or get their own server) and find out whether the fear is justified.

I just don't see why it's a big deal to point out that calling for the murder of *anyone* is at least incivil, and at worst illegal. There are specific laws on the books, and a history of their enforcement, that make this specific conduct clearly illegal.

Free speech is a right, but its judicious exercise is essential to the preservation of that right, the more so in times like these when the exercise of the right to dissent is increasingly targeted for suppression. Publishing on MeFi is a privilege, not a right. Posts are deleted for being off topic, inflammatory, or offensive here all the time, and rightly so. This one was really all of the above. And it was almost certainly illegal, and it exposed MeFi to serious repercussions that do not represent the incursion of a police state, but have been standard practice in the US for a long time. I still do not see why anyone seriously objects to the callout or the deletion.

Calling for murder is not dissent. It undermines the legitimacy of righteous dissent when righteous dissenters fail to observe the distinction between freedom and criminal conduct. And finally, I fail to see why "other people/forums do/tolerate this" is any kind of rationalization for not deleting the comment, or taking offense at it. If I read as direct a threat to the president on FreeRepublic, I'd consider reporting it to the SS. And I'd spread the word that such conduct was tolerated in order to besmirch the reputation of said forum. How much do you want to bet that some MeFi member has already done so? Yeah, maybe nothing would happen, and this is overreaction. It's not unreasonable to be concerned, however, that something might happen to MeFi as a result of this comment, at the very least that Matt might be severely inconvenienced, and at the worst that MeFi would become a target of activist disruption, or end up offline for a long time.

Really, Matt called it. JDG was a fucking idiot to post the comment, it places MeFi at risk, and it offends many members of our community while representing no legitimate civil political position. Deleting it is a no brainer. Leaving it up accomplishes nothing that is worth the potential cost.
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:09 AM on August 18, 2005

Matt is the publisher of this website, and he can publish anything he wants, or not.

This is part of the "problem". I vaguely remember court cases where ISPs have been found responsible for hosting content provided by others, in contrast to the phone company's not being responsible for what gets said over their lines, on grounds that the ISP filters some stuff and hence is responsible for whatever they don't filter. (I am not arguing that the cases should be decided that way, just that IIRC some were.)

Those were civil cases, which probably makes a difference somehow.
posted by Aknaton at 11:15 AM on August 18, 2005

Also, none of us know JDG, right? Maybe he (?) really is a wacko with a basement full of guns, working himself up to do something atrocious. Maybe what most of us would assume was idle stupid blather really is a telegraphing of his intent. Stranger things have happened. So let's say he does make some more clear "true threat" somewhere, or actually does act on his apparent fantasy. At that point, it's too late. How many of you are willing, on faith, to assume JDG is a harmless little fuzzball with a big mouth?
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:19 AM on August 18, 2005

...or an agent provocateur. It crossed my mind.
posted by 517 at 11:27 AM on August 18, 2005

nobody's gotten close since Hinckley

I knew the sixties were really, truly over the day the news came over the radio and my pal Tony and I looked at each other, grinned, and high-fived, and everybody else in the bookstore glared at us as if they thought the pits of hell should consume us right that second. I thought the whole point of America was that the president was just another asshole. But some of us have wanted a king right from the beginning (see: John Adams).

Free speech is a right, but its judicious exercise is essential to the preservation of that right

You just don't get it, do you?
posted by languagehat at 11:29 AM on August 18, 2005

There's a mix of issues involved here and we're probably being too cavalier about addressing them as one. I'll clarify my position, as an example.

In strictly moral terms, what I said above. It was in that context--the context where many commenters were appalled at the original comment--that I am, shall we say, most pro-assassination and pro-assassination speech. I really have never understood how it is that we can seriously advocate and discuss in policy terms the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people without ringing alarm bells but the discussion of the killing of a single, arguably guilty, person is beyond the pale. Let me take that back: I do understand, because most people don't connect the abstract with the real. I do. Most people keep a comfortable mental distance between their ideas and the real-world product of their ideas. Either you condone violence, or you don't. Choose.

In civil liberties terms, while cedar's comments above are completely correct, I think it is certainly does "feel" a little strange that given all the protections built into the US system of government, regarding protecting citizens from a potentially oppressive government, that we can't talk about assassinating a president. As said above, what if we had a President who most USians agree should be assassinated? Then, the only thing stopping that law from being extremely oppressive would be practicality of enforcing it. Or maybe no one would say such things, even then. Isn't that a weird idea?

In pragmatic terms, regarding Matt running his site, I think he should do whatever he thinks he should do to limit potential trouble from authorities to levels he can tolerate. That's his decision, not ours. He can draw the line where he chooses. It's his site--arguably he could be, in the end, much more inconvenienced by a SS investigation than the commenter they interview for an hour and warn and then leave alone.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:29 AM on August 18, 2005

How many of you are willing, on faith, to assume JDG is a harmless little fuzzball with a big mouth?
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:19 AM PST on August 18 [!]

I just assumed he was trolling with his warped idea of what a left-wing extremist would say, and that he caught a number of people on his barbed hook, but that's just me.
posted by Rothko at 11:30 AM on August 18, 2005

forward comrades to the cowardist utopia!
posted by bukvich at 11:31 AM on August 18, 2005

How many of you are willing, on faith, to assume JDG is a harmless little fuzzball with a big mouth?

I am... well, at least until he threatens me. As long as it's restricted to people I don't like I'm fine with "harmless little fuzzball".
posted by cedar at 11:36 AM on August 18, 2005

If the comment was deleted, shouldn't this thread also be deleted, by the same logic?

It's logic I happen to agree with, by the way. Matt doesn't need the trouble, and neither do the many commenters in this thread who have said very foolish things about wishing our (very bad) president harm.
posted by BackwardsCity at 11:44 AM on August 18, 2005

That's a shame that you'd assume he'd be pretending to be a left wing extremist before you'd think of him as an actual left-wing extremist. It would certainly be worth remembering that MeFi is majority left wing and that it's more than likely the case that he genuinely does feel that way.

Conservatives are pretty thin on the ground round here, considering the greeting they often get it's no big surprise.
posted by longbaugh at 11:53 AM on August 18, 2005

Yes, realcountry music, every right-thinking North Korean citizen should indeed assume that everyone who refuses or "forgets" to kiss the icon of our Dear Leader is really secretly planning to assassinate him and turn our Cowardist Utopia over to the Western imperialists! Even if he or she has not made any real overt threats, it is clear that by committing such lese majeste they have shown us they are not just harmless little fuzzballs! We in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should at all costs defend everything about our Dear Leader from anybody who might show us what Freedom means!

As 517 just said, "I advocate quickly and easily complying with any investigation that might arise"

Yes, by turning in to the Authorities a record of every "anti-Soviet" statement made in these threads along with identifying information on who made them. The point is not that that They don't already know this (I'd be surprised if nobody in the Secret Service reads Metafilter on his coffee break, for example), but that you suggest voluntarily giving them -- as YOU put it -- "everything the Secret Service could possible want".

[517 continues] "and preventing other people from saying anything that might attract more attention."

Yes, like I said, you have just admitted you want to muzzle freedom of speech. To shut us up, and to turn us in if we don't. After all, if you are so willing to be a submissive coward, who are we to refuse to be?

I sort of agree with Ethereal Bligh that it's matthowie's call to delete what he pleases: he is "god" of Metafilter after all. I suggest though that, to clarify things, Matt go ahead and make us (or at least us Americans) sign a Loyalty Oath, and that he should clearly list those things that that we are not free to say on his site, whether it is currently still technically legal for us to say them or not.
posted by davy at 11:56 AM on August 18, 2005

Free speech is a right, but its judicious exercise is essential to the preservation of that right

It's people with this kind of attitude that scare me. A right is a right is a right. How about a sentence that read thus: 'female suffrage is a right, but it's judicious excercise is essential to the preservation of that right'?

Who's the lucky chap that gets to decide what is 'judicious'? You? How convenient.
posted by spicynuts at 12:05 PM on August 18, 2005

Comrade davy that wall is so thick and your head is so bloody, why don't you just use the door?
posted by 517 at 12:17 PM on August 18, 2005

That's a shame that you'd assume he'd be pretending to be a left wing extremist before you'd think of him as an actual left-wing extremist.

Yes, it's a crying shame. I'm sure it has never happened before.
posted by Rothko at 12:18 PM on August 18, 2005

It's still legal to advocate assassination of the Pope, right?
Not that I want to, but it's legal to talk about, isn't it?
posted by Balisong at 12:21 PM on August 18, 2005

Can someone just set up www.captehprez.com already so those who need to put their assassination words somewhere can finally be unshackled from the horror and oppression that is Metafilter? Where words cannot run free! Where expression is strictly bound! Where you can't threaten the life of the President, or threaten the life of the President, or even, if you'll believe this, threaten the life of the President! I mean, what kind of meaningful discourse can you have without written threats of POTUS assasination? We'd be better off with Newspeak!

So, yeah. Someone register that website already, and then our long national Metafilterian nightmare will be over.

...

Or maybe we could just acknowledge that, though it's a distasteful commentary on the hard-headedness of federal law enforcement vis-a-vis the welfare of the President, it's totally fucking pragmatic for Matt to delete this one comment that is not worth the potential trouble.
posted by cortex at 12:25 PM on August 18, 2005

davy, why do you insist on conflating the posting of something that is illegal with N. Korea and the Soviet Union?

It's really easy for you to carry on about what should and shouldn't be allowed here. It is also entirely without risk to you. How brave you are making such a bold stand against the man with anothers server. How bold it is of you to defend the right of someone else to say whatever they want.

Here's a thought. Since you are so anxious to fight the power why don't you rent some web space and make a few threats against the President. Invite your friends to stop by your forums and do the same. That way you can let your righteous indignation flow freely when the minions of evil swoop down and haul you off to the gulag.

No matter how hard you try and twist this around to some bizarro world idea of unlimited freedoms, the fact remains that it is against the law to threaten, even tangentially, the President. It should no more be allowed to stand than a link to a warez server or a link to illegal pornography. We don't do that here.

You may not agree with the law as it stands but it wouldn't kill you to show a bit of respect for community norms and the wishes of the guy providing your soapbox. By all means, protest the law and do everything you feel you need to do to change it, but do it own your own dime with your head on the block.
posted by cedar at 12:26 PM on August 18, 2005

True censorship is when your speech is curtailed by the government which was founded to represent us.

And when you fear or hold your government under so much suspicion that you end up practicing an unreasonable form of self censorship? You play into their hands and let them off the hook in one swell foop.
posted by zarah at 12:31 PM on August 18, 2005

Ok, I take back all my previous assassination statements.
None of them were serious. I was just stirring the stink pot.

I hopt Matt has no problems because of this.
posted by Balisong at 12:31 PM on August 18, 2005

Since when did the mainstream media care about the political leanings of a blog?
posted by geoff. at 12:50 PM on August 18, 2005

Cedar, it's hard to point to a post that has been deleted to show it's not illegal, but nevertheless IT IS *NOT* ILLEGAL to post a wish that our Dear Leader would become dead. At least it's not illegal YET; if y'all freedom-surrenderers have your way that might soon change.

Again, it was NOT a "true threat", and nobody here -- not even the right-wingest of wing-nuts -- even seems to take it that way, so the law against making threats does not apply because (as we all agree) it was NOT A THREAT. Get it? Something that is not a threat is not an illegal threat because it is not a threat. See? A brick is not an underinflated basketball because it is not any kind of basketball at all. Understand that?
posted by davy at 1:03 PM on August 18, 2005

Since when did the mainstream media care about the political leanings of a blog?

Didn't you follow the whole kerning-typeface debate that boiled over when Bush was found AWOL during Vietnam? The media loves a good distraction from reality.
posted by Rothko at 1:06 PM on August 18, 2005

davy, I know it's hard to point at a post that is deleted. I'm afraid I don't recall the exact words but remember thinking something about 'incitement' at the time.

Anyway, that wasn't my primary point. My point was that it is foolish to site back and rant about censorship when you yourself are at no risk. This is not a free speech zone and you, or anyone else, does not have the right to say whatever you like. Your words exist at the sole discretion of one person who I trust cares more about this site and is more familiar with potentially harmful posts than you are I.

Get it?
posted by cedar at 1:14 PM on August 18, 2005

Well, I'm glad to see what davy and amberglow really think of Matt and people who don't think threatening the president is cool. Apparently, we're all apparatchiks because we say that, 1. Threatening to kill people isn't actually a right, and 2. It's not really dissent, either. Beyond that, like others have said, it doesn't add anything of value, in fact, I believe it actually brings a net negative to discussion, a true (as said by others,) a coarsening of discourse.

I'm pleased to see that davy has such a great respect for the site, it's owner, and other users that he equates Matt, and others who agree with him, deleting a post because he wishes to avoid unnecessary and annoying legal entanglements, as well having the added bonus of getting rid of something really half-witted and inane, to Stalinists who are intent on turning random people in to the Cheka or something. This shows that davy not only has an amazing grip on history, but that he in no way displays a total lack of perspective or ability to make judgements based on nuance, context, or critical thinking.

Ethereal Bligh:
I really have never understood how it is that we can seriously advocate and discuss in policy terms the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people without ringing alarm bells but the discussion of the killing of a single, arguably guilty, person is beyond the pale. Let me take that back: I do understand, because most people don't connect the abstract with the real. I do. Most people keep a comfortable mental distance between their ideas and the real-world product of their ideas. Either you condone violence, or you don't. Choose.

What do you mean 'we'? There are plenty of reasons to differentiate between the post in question and a discussion of war. Here's one of the top of my head, that unless most posts about the war consisted of "I know it won't change anything, and I have no particular political or humanitarian reason to advocate such, but it will satisfy my anger to kill a bunch of people." No one here was shocked by the violence advocated by the comment, but by it's insipidness, and the fact that it's illegal and may draw unwanted attention. One can talk about the president dying in the context of war aims, because most people can draw a distinction between discussion of war and murder advocacy based on political differences. Most people also don't feel the need to contemptuously self-agrandize do back up their points half of the time.

On preview: Gosh davy, I'm so glad you'r hear to tell us what is and isn't a threat. I'm sure that will satisfy an SS agents into not bothering with an investigation. Just because you don't think it's a true threat, and others may agree, dosen't mean the SS won't want to find out for themselves, which could mean a lot of aggravation for Matt. While I hope your desire to fight for justice isn't based on adolescent machoismo, (no snark intended there,) your desire to do it on Matt's time and dime, combined with your accusation of him as a toady and coward is pretty assholish.
posted by Snyder at 1:26 PM on August 18, 2005

"Again, it was NOT a 'true threat'..."

Again, that doesn't make much difference to Matt if some overzelous fed draws a differing conclusion. This is not a complicated idea.
posted by cortex at 1:37 PM on August 18, 2005

Spicynuts and languagehat, my dear fellow linguist, you need to study constitutional law a little. Free speech is not and never has been an unqualified and unfettered right in the United States. Nor is that any kind of democratic ideal. Some kinds of speech are deemed incitement, others obscene. By the courts. Under the constitution. With precedent. Throughout our history. To imply that I am not fully committed to the right to free speech because I believe it is a right to be exercised within the bounds of long-established laws that limit its absolute application is juvenile. At best. To suggest I'm some sort of fascist toady or scared to test the limits of dissent is just wrong. I do in fact "get it." It's you who do not "get it." No right is guaranteed absolutely and without qualification, not the rights to peacably assemble, bear arms, or speak whatever is on your mind. Exercising those rights entails taking responsibility for the effects thereof, and respect for the laws that limit them.

I was marching in anti-war and civil rights demonstrations when I was 6 with my lefty parents. I marched for farmworkers when I was 11. I marched on Washington when Bush was elected in 2000, and will be there again on Sept. 24. I am a professional writer and cherish the right to free speech deeply. Don't lecture me about democracy and freedom. If you want to test the limits of the first amendment to the constitution, be my guest. I've done so plenty of times in my life. I've been detained by police for protesting, though I have never been actually arrested. Have you?

What JGN did was against the law, for a good reason. If you don't like the law, work to change it. Or violate it yourself and accept the consequences as the price of conscientious objection. Cheering from the sidelines while someone shits on MeFi is cheap. Tossing around words like "Stalinist" is even cheaper. Demonstrating a grade-schooler's understanding of the meaning of "freedom" under the rule of US law is the cheapest shot of all. Ooooh. Who get's to decide what's "judicious?" The courts, that's who, brave fella. And the courts have spoken plenty of times on the legality of threatening or inciting violence against elected officials. The cardinal right in a democracy is the right to vote. If you condone calls to assasinate as a legitimate form of political protest, you essentially say it's ok to deny the right to vote to others. Freedom has its costs and responsibilities.

If you're so brave and righteous in your assurance of the unlimited nature of free speech, post a threat against the president on your own website. Given how much some of you claim to know about "freedom of speech," it should be no problem for you to argue your case yourself when you're charged. Over and out.
posted by realcountrymusic at 2:49 PM on August 18, 2005

"Again, it was NOT a 'true threat'..."

Merely inciting violence can be legally construed as a true threat. Not one person on this thread knows what was in JDG's heart when s/he wrote those words. None of us are in any position to state whether it was a true threat or not. The precedent is plain: such words are taken seriously and treated as a true threat unless they are very clearly qualified as fantasy or fiction, which JDG most certainly did NOT do. The only qualification possible is that he reported the words as his own "thoughts." He even put them in quotes, as I recall, to represent himself "thinking" such things.

If he had attempted to incite people to kill someone you care about, whether in quotes or not, you might feel differently. Make no mistake: I don't care about the current occupant of the white house as a human being, and find his cavalier use of threatening language and his evident pleasure at causing the deaths of others sickening. It is his office I care about. It is protected vigorously for excellent reasons that go to the heart of maintaining a democracy.
posted by realcountrymusic at 2:58 PM on August 18, 2005

"How about a sentence that read thus: 'female suffrage is a right, but it's judicious excercise is essential to the preservation of that right'?"

Female suffrage is not a right. Suffrage itself is a right that was belatedly extended, and properly so, to women. The irony in your statement, as I pointed out above, is that the "right" to incite assasination comes into direct conflict with the right to vote. Any more grade school logic?

And yes, the right to vote should be exercised judiciously. It's an obligation for a citizen in a democracy to vote his or her conscience, not to sell her vote, not to choose randomly (except as a form of protest), etc. What grade are you entering this fall? Your logic slays me. It's like the gun nuts who insist that the right to bear arms includes the right to own an Abrams battle tank.
posted by realcountrymusic at 3:09 PM on August 18, 2005

And in case it isn't clear, to exercise the right to vote "judiciously" does not mean the selective extension of the right to vote as such (though by law it is denied to minors eveyrwhere, and to felons in many states, so it can be legally restrained). It means voting itself should be exercised with the best judgement one can muster. Just so speech. You have a right to say stupid things. You don't have a right to libel or slander someone with them. Or to incite violence or panic. Freedom is simply not binary, nor does it reside entirely in the individual. It is granted by a community ("the state" in classical political theory) or by "a creator" (as in "endowed by their creator") in exchange for its exercise in a manner that is ultimately responsible to that community (or creator), and with all the entailed benefits and obligations required for membership in that community. Matt grants us the right to post our drivel on his website. It obligates us to be civil to each other and to respect the commons he has created. We don't live in a state of nature. We live in a society. Other people have rights too, and where the exercise of our "freedom" impinges on the guaranteed freedoms of another member of the society, our freedom is reasonably restrained by that society. President Bush has a right to live without his physical safety being threatened, just like you and me.

Otherwise, might makes right, and no one is truly free. Basic stuff here. Worth boning up on. This is the essence of (capital-L) Liberal Democracy. No man is an island.
posted by realcountrymusic at 3:18 PM on August 18, 2005

Not one person on this thread knows what was in JDG's heart when s/he wrote those words.

Blood, muscle tissue, and maybe some worms.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 4:23 PM on August 18, 2005

Is it against the law in America to utter the words "I wish someone would kick the president square in the nuts"?

'cause I wouldn't want to be breaking any US laws here.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:44 PM on August 18, 2005

Only if kicking him in the nuts leads to death because of some complication. Then there'd be a problem. Maybe.

How about if I wish that Bush killed himself? Am I inciting Bush to assassinate Bush? Is that against the law? Hmm. "George, this is God. Really. The world would be a much better place if you borrowed one of your agent's guns and put it to your head and pulled the trigger. Do it now." If he fell for it, am I going to be arrested? If he almost falls for it?

By the way, stav, how come you're still around?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:57 PM on August 18, 2005

By the way, stav, how come you're still around?

What does that mean?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:15 PM on August 18, 2005

amberglow writes "So... what's the proper way to wish for assassination? Oblique references to Garfield?

"nope. Lincoln. : >"

I don't think there's too much risk of this President being compared in any way to Lincoln anytime soon. If that happen it would be suspect indeed!
posted by clevershark at 5:22 PM on August 18, 2005

posted by 517 at 6:09 PM on August 18, 2005

realcountrymusic, aren't the fish biting where you live? Go home now. I hear your lefty mom calling. And thanks for turning this Very Important Incident into an mass of backhanded compliments toward those cranky ol' conservatives you would respect so much in the morning if they didn't go to bed so early.
posted by yerfatma at 6:32 PM on August 18, 2005

yah. whatever. ad hominem ad infinitum. bite me.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:50 PM on August 18, 2005

Once again it's hard to point to a deleted comment to show that it was not illegal, that it was not a threat to anyone. I can assure realcountrymusic, who I'm beginning to think never even saw the damn comment in the first place, that the guy did NOT threaten to kill, harm, break a toenail on, or even cast a mean look unto anybody.

What he said, basically, was "I wish somebody would assassinate the President." That's not a threat, it's a WISH, one which is no more likely to harm anyone than buying a lottery ticket will make you a millionaire.

If I posted a wish that someone kill you, would you take it as a death threat? I wouldn't if you wished I would get dead fast, and I've gotten enough death threats in my day to be able to differentiate between a real death threat (whether the person means to carry it out or not) and "oh davy, I'm so tired of your radical shit I hope somebody kills you" -- which while it's not a very nice thing to say is nevertheless nothing I'd feel threatened by. "If wishes were horses beggars could ride." Feel free to join the virtual roomfuls of net.users who hope someone will put paid to my awful self; all that bothers me about that is that it's not making me any money from tickets sales and snack concessions. (Should I start a "Hope Somebody Kills Davy Club" and charge $5 a head? Who wants to design the club's special T-shirt?)

You got that? Him saying "I wish somebody would assassinate that guy" is NOT a threat. He did NOT say "me and my posse from gonna drive down and cap the Prez", nor did he even type a half-threat like "if I ever find myself within 50 yards of Mr. Bush while I'm carrying my bazooka I promise to pop one at him". That's the difference: he did not threaten anybody so he did not break any law against threatening anybody. You see now?

Nor do I have a problem with Matt being the deity hereabouts and reserving the right to delete anything he pleases; I just wish that, if nothing else to than prevent a recurrence of idiotic threads like this one, he would give us a list a things we are not free to post on his site. Then maybe the whole issue of whether wishing somebody would drop a safe from a helicopter on the Roadrunner's head consitutes a death threat won't come up.

No, realcountrymusic, the problem I have with your "argument" is that it's an invitation to tyranny. "Take my rights, please!" Except that the longer this thread goes on and the longer I think about it, the more I think that in your case it's base hypocrisy on your part: I'll bet the truth is you want to take away other people's right to say things you disapprove of. Maybe it's really not belly-widdling cowardice on your part -- maybe it's just that you're confident you're on the "right" side and so your buddies in the In Crowd would never want to keep YOU from speaking YOUR mind. It's kinda like being in no danger than the Assemblies of God will ever try to keep people from praising Jesus or that a direct-marketing association would ever try to prohibit penis-pill spam, except that unlike the Pentecostals or the spammers your side has control of laws and tanks and ear-wired agents in bad suits. But again, hey, even if you love Big Brother, how sure can you be that He loves you back? Remember, Stalin wound up killing off half of his own fan club.

Again: the dude did not threaten anybody, therefore the laws against threatening people do not apply. Maybe you should write to your congressbot and inform it that the current laws against free speech don't go far enough, and that it should henceforth be against the law to smile when one hears the President stubbed his toe or even to point out Dear Leader's grammatical errors. Imagine all the jobs created by a boom in building prison camps that'll need to be staffed with torturers!
posted by davy at 9:31 PM on August 18, 2005

What we need is an acronym, something like SPKTP, or something.
posted by signal at 10:50 PM on August 18, 2005

Next time I need a lawyer, or a lesson in reading comprehension, I'll be sure to go to you, davy.
posted by Snyder at 11:35 PM on August 18, 2005

"Next time I need a lawyer, or a lesson in reading comprehension, I'll be sure to go to you, davy."

To quote realcountrymusic, "yah. whatever. ad hominem ad infinitum. bite me."
posted by davy at 12:08 AM on August 19, 2005

That wasn't not ad hominem, dumbass. Ad hominem would be saying that you're wrong because you're a political flake with an extreme black and white worldview, and whose comparisons of others to Stalinists are like accusations of Nazism by a caveman, not something to take pride or shame in, but simply irrelvant chattering from someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

You're not an authority about the law, and your reading comprehension does suck, as evidenced by your belief the realcountrymusic didn't even read the post in question (which would be neat trick since he started this thread, though I suppose it could be unclear sarcasm,) and that he is somehow on the side of those who control the laws and the tanks and whatnot, which would be pretty damn clear isn't the case if you read his posts here, since it was expressly said in his second one in the thread.

You also seem to have a pretty big trust in the authorites that simply beause it was obvious to you that it wasn't really illegal, it'll be obvious to them to, and they would never persue a marginal case like this. Most likely you don't believe that, but like to have other people fight your battles and accuse them of Stalinst cowards when they don't, which is pretty rich for someone who offers not a whit of contact info in their profile. (See, now that was ad hominem too.)
posted by Snyder at 12:38 AM on August 19, 2005

That wasn't not ad hominem, dumbass.
posted by Snyder at 12:42 AM on August 19, 2005

I don't know who's yelling at who in this thread any more.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:42 AM on August 19, 2005

To be fair, realcountrymusic did say that he cares nothing for the occupant of the Oval Office as a human being, it's the office of President that he wants to protect.

I disagree: There can be no political office in a democratic republic that elevates its holder to a quasi-divinity, or else you don't have a democratic republic anymore. Mr. Bush is not the Avatar of God on Earth, nor is he even primus inter pares; he is simply the highest-ranked civil servant provided for by the U.S. Constitution. A glorified desk jockey, and what's worse, a successfully- marketed politician. And even if we were speaking of the Pope, the Dalai Lama, or the 49th Imam, it would still not be a threat to post "I wish somebody would whack that guy."

Condescend all you want, I don't care. Just don't surrender any of my rights and freedoms without my consent because some folks slop religious awe where it does not belong.

--
And snyder, what in the fuck are you raving about? As far as Metafilter goes, I addressed your point when I said it's Matt's site so he can delete what he pleases; what I'm talking about is what does or does not constitute a) a threat and b) free speech within the parameters set by the U.S. Constitution.

As for whether "the Authorities" agree with me about what a "threat" is and how far "free speech" should be protected, I honestly think they don't -- the general trend "since '9/11'" (and for a while before) has been for the U.S.' rulers to restrict Americans' freedoms every way they think they can get away with. And you're not helping by volunteering a more restrictive definition that takes no account of what words mean.

Again -- for, what, the fifth time in four posts? -- I understand why matthowie deleted the post, though I disagree with his doing it; in fact, my zeal for my personal liberty goes a long way to explain why I keep my life so simple -- i.e. with so little to lose or be held hostage by. Furthermore, realcountrymusic is right, this is not a free speech zone: Matt has no obligation to let anybody use his property in a way he doesn't like. I might protest, but I would not compel if I did have the power.

Public life in the U.S.A. however IS a free speech zone, according to the Constitution anyway, and that's what I'm talking about: I am not complaining about a policy on Metafilter, I'm talking about something far more important and more comprehensive than that. So where's your reading comprehension, cretin?

As for my lack of publicly-available contact information, I dislike hate mail. I don't send it and I don't like receiving it. Nor have I any moral or legal obligation to give you a way to insult me in my own inbox, just as Mr. Bush has no obligation to volunteer for target practice. Calling me a coward because I don't provide fuller contact info does not inspire me to change my profile; instead I'm moved to ask those who do know who I am and how to reach me to deny you that information for the rest of my life.

But I'm hardly in deep cover around here: Mr. Haughie knows who I am because when I signed up I used Paypal, some of our fellow Mefites have even met me, and I'm willing to bet "the Authorities" have heard of me before as well -- and I'm sure that not providing contact info in my Metafilter profile won't keep the SS, FBI, CIA, or for that matter the frigging Coast Guard from ever finding out who "davy" really is.

So Snyder, if you really need to track me down try hiring a private investigator. Every big-city Yellow Pages lists at least a dozen.
posted by davy at 2:10 AM on August 19, 2005

davy, you're the one who seems not to have read the original comment. i linked to it, so you can damn well bet i read it. among various formulations, yes some were "wishes." the egregious line was "won't somebody please kill" and that ain't wishing. that's incitement.

and you are a dumbass.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:40 AM on August 19, 2005

I would also point out that in the first week of Cindy Sheehan's protest, her mere presence as a magnet for more demonstrators was discussed as a "threat to the president" by, I believe, a representative of the secret service. True, they haven't arrested her (if they do it's political nirvana for the left, which is the only reason why they haven't). When you're done looking around inside your own lower intestines davy, look up "attractive nuisance," "incitement," and the case law on people who have been *convicted* of threats against the president.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:44 AM on August 19, 2005

I am surprised no one posted this helpful little article, which summarizes some of the precedents and case law.

The author concludes -- based on an analysis of the precedents -- that " . . . publicly stating a desire to see the President harmed . . . should always be considered threats under the law"

Man do a lot of people here excel in talking out their asses. Like I said, if you are so confident you're right, try it on your own website.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:50 AM on August 19, 2005

Metatalk: I don't know who's yelling at who in this thread any more.
posted by Cyrano at 7:16 AM on August 19, 2005

> Like I said, if you are so confident you're right, try it on your own website.

Can the U.S. government arrest people who make these kind of threats from foreign countries; like the rest of the world outside of America?

I'm just wondering, if all posts are 'copyright the original authors', and their content originates outside America, they could say whatever they want, right? Or is the server host liable, too?

I'm just curious... honest
posted by gsb at 7:17 AM on August 19, 2005

gsb, I'm not sure of the specifics but I recall the US recently managed to seize overseas servers (Democratic Underground, Finland, maybe, hell, I can't remember).

While I expect it would be difficult to prosecute an individual in another country -- I just can't see the UK extraditing someone for a casual post on MetaFilter -- it wouldn't take very much to snatch up a US hosted server for 'investigative' purposes. Once that server is physically taken for all intents and purposes it's gone for good. As far as I'm concerned that is the real issue here. I'm not confident that the alphabet agencies are doing much legal hair-splitting these days and it doesn't take very much to get a warrant.
posted by cedar at 7:43 AM on August 19, 2005

(Democratic Underground, Finland, maybe,

Is "Democratic Underground" a country? Can I move there? Should the Republicans be worrying about a mine-shift gap?
posted by Aknaton at 8:05 AM on August 19, 2005

To my knowledge, DU has never been in that situation. I think I said upthread that in a year or so of following it, I never saw a threat of the sort we are discussing here. You may be thinking of the 2004 federal investigation of IndyMedia. The FBI was able to seize the servers of IndyMedia's ISP -- RackSpace -- in the UK. From what I know, it was never even clear what the violation was, but it shut down a few dozen websites for a good bit of time.

Look, these people don't fuck around. Jackbooted thugs or defenders of the American Way, think what you will. It is neither cowardly nor disingenuous to take that into account when you decide whether to invite their attentions. If you're going to test the limits, know the risk you take. And be brave enough to take it yourself, not to expect Matt or the entire MeFi community to take it with you. And for god's sake do it in the service of something worthwhile, or you tarnish the effect of the exercise of truly dissenting speech that tests the limits of acceptability or legal restraint. Free speech that inflames people to violence is not free speech at all in the end. It comes at the cost of freedom itself. And that is a distinction made firmly under US constitutional law.

Look at how this comment, and my (half-regretted) decision to call it out, has set us all against each other over an issue that is obviously so deeply important to each of us. Polemic has its place in reasoned discourse, but it can also be the enemy of civility. Civility is a necessary condition for the maximization of the right to speak one's mind. Violence advocated is free speech defamed.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:25 AM on August 19, 2005

I wish everyone would kiss and make up.

/closes eyes really tightly.
posted by longbaugh at 8:43 AM on August 19, 2005

Thanks, RCM. Your entirely right, it was IndyMedia and the UK.
posted by cedar at 8:45 AM on August 19, 2005

You have a right to say stupid things. You don't have a right to libel or slander someone with them. Or to incite violence or panic.

No, you have a right to say whatever the fuck you want. In most societies, including the ever-less-free US of A, you are likely to be arrested and punished for saying certain things, but that's a separate issue. Like davy, I will repeat for the slow of comprehension that I understand and accept Matt's deletion of the comment, since it's his site and he's taking the risks. Can we put that straw man to bed now?

As to the rest, you're disappointing me more and more, realcountrymusic. You talk about civility, but you're the one who's been lashing out more and more nastily at those who disagree with you. I've made strong free-speech arguments and expressed the idea that you "don't get it" when it comes to that issue, because the idea that a right has to be exercised "responsibly" is incompatible with the idea of a right, but I have not attacked you personally; davy has (as is his wont) been extremely forceful and used an analogy (to Stalinist police states) that many people don't care for but that is the clearest possible statement of why he and I (and a few others) are so upset by this eagerness to turn over all excess speech and opinions to the Authorities, but he too has refrained from personal attack. You're the one saying things like "What grade are you entering this fall?" and "where's your reading comprehension, cretin?" and "bite me." I understand you feel strongly about it, but so do we all. Try to live up to your own expressed ideals.

Oh yes, and I too have marched, gotten hassled by cops, blah blah, I basically stopped going to classes for a year to concentrate on protesting Vietnam, if we're pulling up our shirts and exposing our strangely shaped scars. So don't condescend to me, thanks.

Violence advocated is free speech defamed.

No, violence advocated is free speech used. Don't like it? Use your own free speech to say something about it. Don't try to shut people up, because that way tyranny lies.

I too am curious by what EB meant by "how come you're still around?"
posted by languagehat at 9:13 AM on August 19, 2005

MeFi.
posted by brain_drain at 9:30 AM on August 19, 2005

I too am curious by what EB meant by "how come you're still around?"

Perhaps he thinks we're all in his head? Are we all in his head?
posted by yerfatma at 9:54 AM on August 19, 2005

...when you decide whether to invite their attentions. If you're going to test the limits, know the risk you take. ...

If you seriously believe that statement was posted "to invite their attentions", there's nothing more to say. Unbelievable.
I would also add that this very thread is inviting more attention than one comment in the middle of another post.
posted by amberglow at 10:19 AM on August 19, 2005

What's always baffled me about the whole "you-can't-talk-about-killing-the-president-because-it's-treason" thing is the belief that the attempt to control the words that other human beings say will make us (or the president) safer. At first glance, this is such a naive, and ridiculous, and quixotic impulse--like when a kid physically tries to close your mouth because you're saying something he doesn't want to hear. Because it's so absurd and impossible, however, those striving for control can easily push it to farther and farther extremes, employing greater and greater violence, and then it becomes scary, dangerous, tragic.
posted by flotson at 10:45 AM on August 19, 2005

If you seriously believe that statement was posted "to invite their attentions", there's nothing more to say. Unbelievable.

Subtle distinction time. I don't believe it was posted with the intention of drawing the attention of authorities, but I do believe it was (is) likely to do so. I agree this thread is furthering the risk, and hope Matt decides to take it down, though I'm sure it's already too late. My point is that if the original comment was a conscious polemic meant to test the boundaries of "free speech," as some here seem to be crediting it with doing, then MeFi has been asked to share a heavy burden. If it wasn't, MeFi was just plain shit on.

I thought that FPP was the dumbest thing I've seen on MeFi.

Flotson, I hear your logic. But the secret service does not. From a linguist's point of view, the interesting thing is the way threats are treated as performative speech, rather than simply referential speech. But that is in fact how threats are viewed, with the likelihood of the threat being carried out declining in significance with the social prominence of the target of the threat. It's like flag burning. The presidency is a symbol that transcends its holder. For one, I think that's necessary in a democracy, though obviously many here disagree and would be willing to live with a more violent political culture in the name of freedom. We must disagree, I suppose. Anyone who knows my posts knows what I think of the administration and how much I champion dissent against its policies. I simply think violence -- even verbal calls to violence -- is not dissent unless all civil social avenues have been exhausted and the government is clearly not responsive to the popular will. At such point, democracy is gone and its freedoms meaningless. Call me naive, but I don't think we're there, and I think our best bet for getting back to something less oppressive in this country still entails reasoned debate and a culture of civility and tolerance for opposing views.

I rest my case. The vigor of this debate, which has entailed no overt calls for violence other than a few polemical jokes, is indicative of the passions violent words can arouse, and the need for civil discourse to contain them. But mostly, I just think someone shit on metafilter with an idiotic post that met every major criterion for deletion, and am glad it's gone. I don't think free speech suffered as a result. I do think Metafilter is better for the deletion, and the debate. Apologies for snarking at a few folks above.
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:03 AM on August 19, 2005

Langaugehat, I hope you accept my apologies (likewise davy) for losing my temper above and saying snarky things. I do think making an analogy to Stalinism is a personal attack as well.

But as I understand it, if something is against the law you do not "have a right to do it" and take the consequences. That is why free speech cases go to the supreme court. And I repeat that because you have a right to do something doesn't make it right to do. Matt is exercising his freedom of speech deleting the comment (as I understand you agree with, or at least accept). I exercised mine in calling out the comment. And we have mutually exercised our freedom of speech, and Matt's, to debate these issues without calling for violence against our antagonists, no matter how snarky we have gotten.

I'm sorry to disappoint you. These are my beliefs.
posted by realcountrymusic at 11:13 AM on August 19, 2005

But as I understand it, if something is against the law you do not "have a right to do it" and take the consequences.

Discuss with respect to the Underground Railroad.
posted by yerfatma at 12:28 PM on August 19, 2005

realcountrymusic: Apology accepted, with genuine appreciation. These discussions do get heated, and I've gone off the rails more than once myself. We obviously differ on the meaning of rights (I reject in the strongest possible terms the idea that they are given to me by a government), but I'm used to that; one of the benefits of holding unpopular opinions is that you get used to smart people disagreeing with you. I respect your beliefs; I hope you can respect mine.

Also, what yerfatma said.
posted by languagehat at 12:46 PM on August 19, 2005

Puke&Cry made me laugh...

I had no idea seanyboy was a comedic genius!
posted by schyler523 at 12:59 PM on August 19, 2005

er...i mean seanbaby.
posted by schyler523 at 12:59 PM on August 19, 2005

First, considering the question of whether or not it's against U.S. law to say "Won't somebody please kill the President," it would be useful to try get some facts on the table. I googled around and found that, according to this site, a statute was passed in 1917 making it a federal crime to threaten to kill the President. Title 18 U.S. Code 871 (a) states:

"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 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 [394 U.S. 705, 706] 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 not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

(The website linked above will let you search the entirety of the U.S. Legal Code, should you be interested.)

Note that, although in popular imagination (and in my own) the story is that "it's against the law to say 'I'm going to kill the President' ", in fact this statute says nothing about prohibiting certain words, but instead prohibits the making of threats. It is left to the Courts, therefore, to decide what constitutes a threat.

The statute was tested in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, in which the Court overturned the conviction of a man who had said during a 1966 public rally that if he was ever drafted, "the first man I want to get in my sights is [President Johnson]." The Court ruled that this remark was "crude political hyperbole which in light of its context and conditional nature did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President." So, rather than simply proscribing certain words, the Court took, in my opinion, a more sophisticated and rational position, by considering the context of those words. As for the MeFi comment in question, in my opinion it's clear from the context that those words also do not constitute a clear and present danger, a threat, to the President, but express a political opinion in expressive, exaggerated language. As such, I am arguing, it is speech clearly protected by the First Amendment.

Another position taken in this discussion is that the comment was in extremely poor taste. This is a fair opinion to hold, but I want to point out that it is just that, an opinion, and not relevant to the question of First Amendement protection. However, I'd still be interested in taking up the discussion. I'm interested in this perspective, but I don't think a clear and persuasive case has been made. The remark has been characterized in extremely disparaging terms, but I haven't see any argument to justify those characterizations.

A third issue, actually a non-issue, is whether or not the site's moderators were justified in deleting the comment. I actually didn't see anyone make an argument against the deletion in the course of this discussion, but I think this, too, is a point worth examining. I understand, on the one hand, being afraid of legal entanglements, and since Matt would be the one whom this would most affect, hypothetically, I would understand his desire to cover his ass. (Which is what we're assuming this is all about, right? Though I've seen no statement from Matt regarding this--did I miss it?) On the other hand, I'd like to present two arguments against this course of action. The first is simply that, as above, I think it unlikely that the comment in question can seriously be perceived as a real threat, and therefore I think the risk of serious legal trouble is very slim. In addition, I would make the more contentious argument that, even if there were a more significant risk of falling afoul of the S.S., (and also, for that matter, if the remark was thought to be in poor taste, or even extremely poor taste), it would still deserve the protection of the First Amendment. In my opinion, the statute in question is impractical and irrational. The President is already protected by the most sophisticated military/law-enforcement/intelligence apparatus in history--what can prohibitions against language add to that? Conversely, what do we sacrifice when we begin to narrow the spectrum of our expression? We are currently heading farther and farther down this path, giving more and more control to an Authority, believing that this will make us safer. It's an understandable reaction, but, I argue, an irrational and harmful course of action. Even if the comment in question was not in itself an especially powerful act of dissent, by self-censoring in this way we cooperate with and contribute to a political and cultural climate that narrows our discourse, and in so doing limits our democracy. The narrower our perception and our discourse becomes, the less we are able to make intelligent and effective decisions, and so, in my opinion, our security is diminished.
posted by flotson at 1:41 PM on August 19, 2005

Discuss with respect to the Underground Railroad.

Civil disobedience and conscientious objection are exceptions, as is revolutionary struggle. The question is when such extreme measures are called for, and obviously in the case of women's suffrage, ending slavery, or (some would say) ending abortion, there is a case to be made for defying restraints on rights. Generally, the case depends on rights being selectively denied on an unjust basis. Extreme measures are called for in the service of liberty sometimes. I hope no one on this forum seriously agrees that political murder falls under that rubric, or thinks we are living in a society in which that is the only avenue for effective dissent or radical action. Consider what it means to dignify a foolish threat like the one under discussion by equating it to the struggle against slavery -- sort of the mirror image of equating my views with Stalinism.

Languagehat, thanks for taking the apology in the spirit intended. But to be clear, in the spirit of Liberalism and guided especially by John Locke and Jurgen Hambermas, I believe not that rights are "given by the government," but that they are granted by a community through a social contract, which deputizes the government to shepherd them, defend them, and adjudicate their scope. I am as frustrated as anyone about the undemocratic tendencies in the US, and in fact believe the electoral process has been greatly compromised in the last 2 presidential elections not just by vote fraud, but by a style of political campaigning (and media coverage thereof) that has cheapened debate and made politics entirely about images and symbols and brute force. That said, I think our government still functions with the consent of the governed, even if this particular government has sorely tested that consent from people like you and me. The government is far more than the Bush administration, but the administration is a central symbol of our social contract that is the guarantor, not the grantor, of our rights. Our founding fathers spoke of being endowed by a creator with rights. I do not believe in a creator, but I believe our rights are endowed by tradition, human nature, and our faculty for reason (via Kant). I believe many specific rights are universal human rights, though not all social liberties normally grouped under the concept of "rights." Indeed, my problem with our present government is in part that it acts as if it grants rather than curates our rights. It just seems to me that violence is inimical to any social contract, and is only called for if the social contract is beyond rescue from injustic, abuse, and oppression. We are not there . . . yet. God help us if we ever are.
posted by realcountrymusic at 1:44 PM on August 19, 2005

Habermas, not Hambermas. Got lunch on the brain.
posted by realcountrymusic at 1:47 PM on August 19, 2005

flotson, thanks for the intelligent analysis. I think none of us can really say whether the comment was a true threat. Probably not, and you make a good case. But a formal process exists to adjudicate that question, in the courts, as you rightly observe, and unfortunately that process is taken seriously enough that it could cause real difficulty for this website. The comments being in bad taste provides an immediate and honorable pretext for end-running the free speech question, since Metafilter is not the government, and not obligated to tolerate any and all speech, so for me your levels are quite linked in reality, though anlaytically separate. If the comments were made as a frustrated joke, I would indeed hope they would be protected as free speech, if stupid and unnecessary speech. But there cases besides the one you cited that have had people saying similar things in what they have claimed was frustrated jest being convicted. It is my opinion that JGF should post them on his own server if his intention is to test the law.
posted by realcountrymusic at 1:55 PM on August 19, 2005

RCM, I think I agree with you partially. I do value judiciousness and prudence in speech. One should as much as possible, in my opinion, be mindful of the greater context of one's speech (and actions), and try to make choices that will contribute to the greater good. And I do give thought to the concern of possible legal problems; I weigh that carefully, more carefully when it's someone else who would be taking the greater risk resulting from my decision.

I think we differ as to our assessment of the real extent of that risk. I truly don't think it's particularly likely that that comment, or the rest of this thread, would result in serious trouble for the site. Although I do feel very concerned about the tightening of the net of social control, I don't expect the President or his staff would be particularly threatened by that particular comment, and they certainly have enough to worry about.

The problem with using "bad taste" as a standard for restricting speech is that it's very difficult to reach consensus as to what constitutes "bad taste." You consider the comment to be in extremely poor taste. I don't find it offensive, and relate to the feeling behind it. Just as a feeling, not as something to be taken literally. It conveys to me a fear and desperation that I recognize and understand. Therefore, for me it constitutes meaningful communication. We can talk about our different perceptions, and that too can serve as meaningful communication. You can attempt to persuade me, persuade the author, and perhaps you'll have an influence. Perhaps even some mutual understanding might grow, and you might come to relate to that comment and those feelings somewhat. Whatever the case, I don't see any fair basis here for restricting the speech of our community, since we are not in agreement about the value of that speech. Even if I agreed with you, I don't see what we would gain by eliminating things we find distasteful. I do however, think we have a lot to lose.

As far as legal precedents go, I'm getting quite interested in this topic, and I would certainly welcome any further information you could provide.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the original comment was made with the intention of testing the law. I personally didn't read it as such. To my mind, the issue of free speech was raised when the comment was deleted. However, I would agree with you, generally, that if one did want to test the law in that way, then of course one should be prepared to the burdens of that decision on oneself.

However, I am also willing to push the argument a little farther and say that, though I respect and understand the perspective that this website is Matt's private property, I'm ready to examine this carefully, and to examine an alternative perspective, that the nature of this discourse renders this site the commone property of the community, at least to some extent. I haven't thought this through completely, so my opinion isn't fully formed, but the way I see it now, there's at least a tension between these two aspects of MeFi.
posted by flotson at 2:53 PM on August 19, 2005

Man gets 37 months for threat
posted by realcountrymusic at 3:07 PM on August 19, 2005

A man who made a remark about a "burning Bush" during the president's March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls was sentenced Friday to 37 months in prison.

Richard Humphreys of Portland, Oregon was convicted in September of threatening to kill or harm the president and said he plans to appeal. He has said the comment was a prophecy protected under his right to free speech.

Humphreys said he got into a barroom discussion in nearby Watertown with a truck driver. A bartender who overheard the conversation realized the president was to visit Sioux Falls the next day and told police Humphreys talked about a "burning Bush" and the possibility of someone pouring a flammable liquid on Bush and lighting it.

"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," Humphreys testified during his trial. "I had said that before and I thought it was funny."

I assume that insane conviction will be overturned on appeal, but it certainly sharpens the point about the direction this country is going, as well as the one about Matt's risk. Thanks for the link, rcm.
posted by languagehat at 4:07 PM on August 19, 2005

I assume that insane conviction will be overturned on appeal

No such luck.
posted by brain_drain at 4:17 PM on August 19, 2005

My first reaction was, "Ooh gross", but brain_drain's link puts a slightly different spin. Multiple threats, bipolar and a prophet. Not a good combo for going in front of a judge.

Discuss with respect to Bill Cowher's chin.
posted by yerfatma at 5:42 PM on August 19, 2005

Wow, but wow. From brain-drain's link:

"But the sentencing judge disagreed, saying Humphreys' barroom remark about his supposed prophecy that Bush would be set ablaze came roughly a month after Humphreys made similar statements in an Internet chat room.

The 8th Circuit agreed, calling the 'single instance' reduction inapplicable because Humphreys repeatedly communicated the threat using various communication methods, including online, by fax to the White House and separately in person to three people.

In the Internet chat-room instance, Humphreys wrote, 'If you hear that a man runs up and throws gasoline and a match to Bush you will know that God did speak through the burning Bush.'

'Humphreys knowingly and willfully made the statement and a reasonable person could view it as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm,' the 8th Circuit ruled."

But, I'd say sending a fax to the White House wasn't such a good idea.
posted by ericb at 5:49 PM on August 19, 2005

And like I said above, we don't know enough about JGN to be sure his post wasn't the third (or the first) in a sequence of statements. That is one reason why we can't decide if it is a true threat in legal terms.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:03 PM on August 19, 2005

flotson: , I'm ready to examine this carefully, and to examine an alternative perspective, that the nature of this discourse renders this site the commone property of the community, at least to some extent.

I didn't want to let that go unremarked on, flotson, but I'm just out of a dental extraction . . . again, from a linguist's point of view, there's something to the metaphorical case, though in an obvious, literal, legal sense, of course Matt owns the website. All of us "own" it in the sense of "owning up" to what we say on its pages. The extent of our freedom of speech here, and the strong role of community standards in enforcing civility and quality of content, is remarkable and one big reason MeFi rocks. Matt made it happen, so in a sense we are each endowed by our creator with certain . . . wait, that means . . . Matt is . . . . god? Must be the vicodin talking.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:11 PM on August 19, 2005

And like I said above, we don't know enough about JGN to be sure his post wasn't the third (or the first) in a sequence of statements. That is one reason why we can't decide if it is a true threat in legal terms.

Strictly speaking, I think I agree, but we can verify precisely what he's said on this site. I haven't gone back and looked at everything he's written, but I'm willing to bet my life savings that we wouldn't find a pattern of comments remotely analagous to the Humphreys case. (Judging by the furor, this is likely the FIRST time that ANY MeFi member has made such a comment, in recent memory.) Point being: the risk to the site is minimal, since there is not a pattern of such statements on the site. If JGN has been sending faxes, or whatever, that's going to be his problem, not ours, not Matt's. Also, as has been pointed out before, the semantics of the statement seem relevant. As I recall, JGN said "Won't someone please kill the P********?" (or something very close to that.) It's a far cry from a repeated (possibly innocent, but creepy) allusion to pouring a flammable liquid on President Bush. . . etc. JGN was not specific and did not express any personal intention to commit violence. The wording of the statement weakens the case that it's a threat.

RCM, I think we're pretty much in agreement about the quasi-private yet communitarian nature of MeFi. I would add that Matt is more midwife or mother (how's that for alliteration?)--he gave birth to it, and now it has a life that is to some extent independent of Matt, or any one of us. If Matt suddenly went Amish, MeFi would find a new home, because the collective will of the community is strong.
posted by flotson at 8:33 PM on August 19, 2005

This thread's still going? And it got even more "involved"? Hoo-boy. I'm not about to study this thread closely; a quick scan, a paragraph or two, and I'm gone. So:

As far as making analogies to Stalinism goes, languagehat's right: I've been reading up on the Stalinists' escapades in the 1930s for the past few weeks, and it seems natural and appropriate to draw parallels to point out how the current U.S. situation is approaching what is supposed to be the opposite of what the U.S. is about. My farcical use of the Stalinists' language is also meant to be parodic, even funny, not to be personally insulting to anybody here.

I did however throw out a few insults, I believe (and I'm not going back over this long-ass thread again) in retaliation for being directly insulted ("you dumbass", etc.); whether I retaliated or struck first, I don't pretend that I'm never an asshole. (So bite me!)

As flotson, languagehat et al. are making pretty much the same points I've tried to make in a more scholarly and polite way that's going over better (LH actually moved RCN to apologize?) I'll move on. I don't much care for arguing about the zigs and zags of the various SCOTUS rulings through history, for example: the Supremes have always shown an amazing facility for twisting the English language, the Constitution and the apparently applicable precedents to suit their agenda of the day (whether I might agree with any particular ruling or not), so I don't place much stock in it. To me they're politicians and glorified ambulance chasers.

I will say though that, if I recall correctly, yesterday people were not arguing that what's-his-name had incited anything, but that he himself had made a threat, which is flat-out silly; the "incitement" allegation might actually be worth debating (though I agree with what languagehat says about it), it's just a pity it took y'all so long to figure out that "It's a threat!" held no water. As for whether "I wish somebody would do x!" might be incitement to commit a crime or not, I refer to a title by a hero from my teen years, Abbie Hoffman.

I will also remind everybody that I never said that was a very wise thing to post to Metafilter, whether it's legal or not: if he ever comes back I'd like him to describe his interrogation. (What book did they flush in your Gitmo cell?) By analogy, I personally see nothing wrong with smoking pot, but I'm still not going to walk in to the cop station and torch up a doobie. "Never volunteer." (An old friend liked reciting what he said is an Abbie Hoffman quote: "The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.")

Now, as I've threatened, I'll defer to my more "acceptable" colleagues. (Thanks, y'all; I've been on the Net for 11 years because this is how I know I'm really not alone.)
posted by davy at 10:19 PM on August 19, 2005

davy:
I will say though that, if I recall correctly, yesterday people were not arguing that what's-his-name had incited anything, but that he himself had made a threat

realcountrymusic (about 19 posts down from the top)
To be clear, I think there's a legal basis under which a call to assasinate is not "free speech." It's incitement . . . .

davy, my apology was sincere. i am sorry for snarking at you. but note that i made the point that under the law, inciting others to commit violence can be a "true threat." i was making this distinction consistently throughout this thread. You have consistently argued that mere incitement is not a "true threat" or does not rise to an exception to "freedom of speech." It does indeed so rise, as the famous "fire in a crowded theater" example makes clear.

the semantic issue (what constitutes a "threat"?) cannot be parsed separately from the legal one (what constitutes a "true threat" under the law?).

and lost in the shuffle, i guess, is that my original callout focused specifically on whether JGN's post shit on MeFi or not, and never even mentioned the question of legality. i think the "shit on MeFi" assertion has been well substantiated, and that has always been a basis for Matt to remove posts. not one person seems to have defended the original JGN post on the grounds that it was a civil, quality contribution to the conversation. that was the reason for my callout. "free speech" was really never the issue.

as for the SCOTUS "twisting words," there is no originalist basis for exempting threats from censure. on the same grounds that you dismiss considering the interpretation of the law by the courts as relevant here, one could dismiss any change to the constitution passed since the 18th century, including the outlawing of slavery, or the extension of the vote to women. there is a law against threatening the president, and a large body of precedents that make it clear the first amendment does not indemnify incitement or threats of physical violence against anyone. but to repeat, my point was always that MeFi is under no obligation to tolerate even the most legitimate challenge to established constitutional precendents. we have our own community standards here, subject to frequent discussion and interpretation. the law is a living thing because it applies to living people. so is the standard of discourse on MeFi.
posted by realcountrymusic at 2:45 AM on August 20, 2005

and lost in the shuffle, i guess, is that my original callout focused specifically on whether JGN's post shit on MeFi or not, and never even mentioned the question of legality. i think the "shit on MeFi" assertion has been well substantiated, and that has always been a basis for Matt to remove posts. not one person seems to have defended the original JGN post on the grounds that it was a civil, quality contribution to the conversation. that was the reason for my callout. "free speech" was really never the issue.

I addressed this, actually. I said:

The problem with using "bad taste" as a standard for restricting speech is that it's very difficult to reach consensus as to what constitutes "bad taste." You consider the comment to be in extremely poor taste. I don't find it offensive, and relate to the feeling behind it. Just as a feeling, not as something to be taken literally. It conveys to me a fear and desperation that I recognize and understand. Therefore, for me it constitutes meaningful communication.

I also said before, and now say again, that you have not justified your characterization that the comment "shit on MeFi." You have made an assertion, but not presented an argument to support it. Interestingly, I find this phrase "shit on MeFi" slightly offensive. I am not, however, going to start advocating that it be deleted. I run into all kinds of things on MeFi that I find to be offensive. For example, all the mean-spirited snarking (not referring to this conversation in particular.) People say plenty of things on MeFi that are not civil, quality contributions to discourse. If we were to make "bad taste" a standard for censuring speech, how would this be arbitrated? And how could this ultimately lead to the narrowing of our discourse. This is, after all, the same sort of thinking that leads conservatives to call for media censorship.
posted by flotson at 11:17 AM on August 20, 2005

flotson, you manage to keep twisting the discussion. you simply overlook being proved wrong on "we never discussed incitement vs. threat." okay. now you say:

The problem with using "bad taste" as a standard for restricting speech is that it's very difficult to reach consensus as to what constitutes "bad taste." You consider the comment to be in extremely poor taste. I don't find it offensive

A standard for whom? You are confusing (on purpose) some abstract "free speech" standard and the application of standards for civility and quality of contributions on MeFi. A comment in "bad taste" (and note I did not say it was *simply* in bad taste; it was in bad taste because it was arguably illegal) has always been a perfectly good reason for Matt to delete comments. Abstract principles of "free speech" don't apply on a privately owned forum. You may not think the comment was in bad taste, but I'll wager dollars to donuts that a majority of MeFites would. And the MeFite who really matters -- Matt -- appears to agree.

I also said before, and now say again, that you have not justified your characterization that the comment "shit on MeFi." You have made an assertion, but not presented an argument to support it.

I have made innumerable arguments to support the assertion, and (to keep going in circles) obviously some of us agree it is a shit post. And Matt agrees. End of story. The abstract constitutional principle of "free speech" doesn't apply here. It's in bad taste -- a nice way of saying it shits on MeFi -- because it offends a lot of people to hear someone threaten the president, including both liberals and conservatives. It also shits on MeFi because, whether you agree or not, it potentially invites trouble with the law for Matt, and thus for our entire community.

I'm trying not to snark again, but if this were an adjudicated debate, I think you'd have lost already. Your arguments are ad hoc, and you change the subject whenever they run into trouble.

If we were to make "bad taste" a standard for censuring speech, how would this be arbitrated?

By posting a callout on MeTa, discussing the matter, and acceding to Matt's wise decision to delete the post. No censorship has happened here. MeTa is not a public square, and Matt is not the government. There are many implied and explicit standards for "censuring" posts on MeFi, and bad taste is one of them. Another is posting a link to a linkfarm site, with no content of interest to anyone, which is why your FPP was deleted yesterday. Another is using an FPP and a second MeTa thread to keep grinding the same dull axe, which you've done.

If you don't like the standards, you can start your own forum. No one is stopping you. You have freedom of speech. It hasn't been diminished one iota by this callout, by the deletion, or by anything I have said here.
posted by realcountrymusic at 1:16 PM on August 20, 2005

People say plenty of things on MeFi that are not civil, quality contributions to discourse

And such posts ALSO "shit on MeFi," which is why such posts are often deleted. When they're not, it is because no one complained, they did add something, or the offense was too trivial to merit the attention. Expressing a desire to see anyone violently killed, not just the president, is offensive to a lot of people. Period. Add to that that this particular threat/incitement/offensive post has a real chance of bringing the law down on Matt and MeFi, justifiably or not, and you've exceeded even the worst of the usual incivil crap that sometimes passes for discourse around here.

You can't come here and say anything you feel like. Never could. That's one reason MeFi rocks. It has standards.
posted by realcountrymusic at 1:28 PM on August 20, 2005

flotson, you manage to keep twisting the discussion. you simply overlook being proved wrong on "we never discussed incitement vs. threat."

You seem to have confused me with davy. This is a point that you were debating with him, not me.

But I'll give my two cents. If I understand your point, it's that JGN's comment could be construed as inciting others to violence, and therefore could be illegal and could bring a lot of trouble to the site. I doubt that this is so (and I made this argument previously, with regards to JGN's argument being construed as a direct threat), because, lacking a pattern of similar comments, I doubt that anyone would take seriously the claim that this site is attempting to incite violence and constitutes a threat.

I think we can put this to rest now. As I pointed out previously, we disagree about this, and I don't think there's anything left to say about it.

A standard for whom? You are confusing (on purpose) some abstract "free speech" standard and the application of standards for civility and quality of contributions on MeFi. A comment in "bad taste" (and note I did not say it was *simply* in bad taste; it was in bad taste because it was arguably illegal) has always been a perfectly good reason for Matt to delete comments. Abstract principles of "free speech" don't apply on a privately owned forum. You may not think the comment was in bad taste, but I'll wager dollars to donuts that a majority of MeFites would. And the MeFite who really matters -- Matt -- appears to agree.

I am *not* confusing my arguments regarding the first amendment and its limits with my arguments regarding community standards and the censure of speech on this website. I am *not* claiming that the first amendment grants JGN (or anyone else) the right to post whatever he wants on MeFi.

When I entered this debate, there were several points of contention that I commented on. The first was the issue of whether or not JGN's comment was illegal, whether or not it violated one of the standards by which the first amendment is limited. I have already told you why I think it was not.

I also wanted to widen the scope of the debate, and I presented an argument that the law in question is irrational and impractical, and therefore not a valid limitation on the first amendment. I explained that I think that laws like this, by narrowing the range of our expression for bad reasons, are a threat to our democracy and therefore our national security.

A second issue is whether or not the comment merited deletion, and what constitutes valid grounds for such censure of speech. As I stated when I entered this discussion, I do not dispute Matt's right to delete the comment, and I am sympathetic to his reasons for doing so.

Nonetheless, I presented arguments questioning that deletion. I did so not because I thought the decision to delete was "wrong" in a black and white sense, nor because I want to "win" this debate. I simply thought that the deletion raised issues worth examining, worth questioning. Just as think we should be very, very careful about the limits we place on the first amendment, I think we should be very, very careful about the limits we place on speech in this forum. I am drawing an analogy, not conflating the two.

We've already discussed the legality of the comment as grounds for deletion, and I have nothing further to add.

A second argument, as I understood it, was that JGN's post merited deletion on the grounds that it was in "bad taste." I argued that "bad taste" is a problematic standard by which to censure speech, because it is difficult to arrive at consensus as to what is in bad or good taste. To illustrate this, I explained that I did not find it to be in bad taste, that it constituted meaningful communication to me.

The point is, people will be offended by different things, so how can we rely on this as a community standard by which to censure speech? Yes, this community does and should have standards, but "bad taste" is not one of them, and lord knows civility sure as heck ain't.

I do not think the post was deleted because it was in "bad taste," or because some found it offensive. It was deleted because Matt felt it posed a needless risk. I've already given my thoughts on this, and have nothing more to say about it.

So, to sum up, I think we should examine carefully the limits we place on speech, in public and private forums both. I think we have done so here, and I am grateful for the debate. It's caused me to think more carefully about the issues and I've learned a few things about first amendment law.
posted by flotson at 4:07 PM on August 20, 2005

You're right, I did confuse you with davy on the incitement/threat point.

Either we don't disagree or I don't understand what your point is anymore. If MeFi is not a free speech zone, then community standards are certainly in force limiting speech here. JGN violated those standards, handily. There really is no argument about that. But I am exhausted with this discussion, as I'm sure you are. At this point, whatever.
posted by realcountrymusic at 4:27 PM on August 20, 2005