DEVELOPING: SECRET SERVICE CONCERN AFTER LOS ANGELES TIMES COMIC DEPICTS 'BUSH ASSASSINATION'

drudge

[ConservativeMan55]

DEVELOPING: SECRET SERVICE CONCERN AFTER LOS ANGELES TIMES COMIC DEPICTS 'BUSH ASSASSINATION'

[TheOtherOne]

It was symbolism, like the cartoon.

Ain't my fault it all went over your head.

[Helms]

This Bears Repeating:

[Joe Hadenuf]

You bet it was.

[clintonh8r]

I don't know what you're talking about. Do you?

[pyx]

I find the cartoon offensive and believe it crosses the free speech line irrespective of the message it tries to convey.

Pyx

[Quick1]

The fact that he was a "bad guy" was not the intent of the original picture. You were supposed to feel bad for the person about to be executed.

[ChadGore]

Re: I find the cartoon offensive and believe it crosses the free speech line irrespective of the message it tries to convey.

Agreed. Why?

1) Gun
2) Temple.

[King Prout]

that's my take on it, too...
a bound prisoner of politics about to be executed by politics.
I am not sure why Dubya is supposedly vulnerable to politics at the moment... unless the cartoon refers to the "uranium thing"

[Quick1]

You still haven't shown precisely how that is illegal. Political speech is highly protected by the 1st Amendment.

[StupidQuestions]

There is no proof that a fair trial cannot be had without a gag order. That's just the easy way out for the Judge. He decides he can trample on the defendant's 1st Amendment right to protect his 6th Amendment rights (remember the defense objected to the gag order).

Courts managed to sit juries on the Oliver North trial and the O.J. Simpson trial without gag orders. It is an expediency. It is intended to make the Court's job easier.

We find juries for trials in many sensational cases without gag orders. Is there any reason why the Peterson case should be different? It's just a lazy Judge at work. Don't let him fool you out of your rights. He can find a jury if he works at it. Publicity makes it tougher but not impossible. He is just taking the easy way out. Unfortunately, he's trampling on the Constitution in the process.

[dogbyte12]

You can repeat gun and temple til you turn blue. It is provocative, not a call to action. What is putting a gun to the temple again? Politics is trying to kill the president. Sigh.

[ChadGore]

Re: The fact that he was a "bad guy" was not the intent of the original picture

Both pictures have guns at temples. This is not legal on so many levels.

[StupidQuestions]

Ah but 'Yellow journalism tabloids' are completely protected by the 1st Amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring the Press to be fair or even accurate. Yellow journalism and even Pink journalism is protected.

[Helms]

And I don't even buy into the premise.

[Quick1]

Finding a cartoon offensive is not grounds for censoring it. Political speech is highly protected in this country, and I highly doubt it crosses that line.

[BagCamAddict]

He has replaced the "man" with "The LA Times" as the holder-of-the-gun.... he has changed the cartoon to show that The LA Times is Assassinating W.

[DoughtyOne]

I wrote a note of displeasure with Ramirez for this cartoon, on the other thread.  In that comment I stated that I do not support anyone depicting the president in this manner.  I do think it is germane to the issue to try to figure out what Ramirez was trying to say.

Is there anyone out there who doesn't think the Democrats are represented here?  They are the ones with the gun to Bush's head over pure politics.

I've been watching Ramirez' cartoons for some time.  Most generally he supports the right side of the isle rather stridently, so it would be out of character for him to be saying anything against Bush here.

If you look at the person holding the gun to Bush's head, it makes (all be it Im-) perfect sense if you see the gun bearer as the democrats.

They are willing to take Bush down by "just about" any means necessary.  If this cartoon is unacceptable, and I too see it that way, what are the actions of the democrats at this time, if not also unacceptable?

While I wouldn't have used this cartoon to get my point across, it's very powerful and not intended to be anti-Bush IMO.

[Quick1]

How is it not legal? Simply repeating that it is illegal does not make it so.

[fightu4it]

"The fact that he was a "bad guy" was not the intent of the original picture. You were supposed to feel bad for the person about to be executed."

Intellectualize it any way you care to.

I know the visual impression it made. I also know this society we live in is very visually oriented.

[Quick1]

Read #457, says it even better than I ever could.