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'

[Gritty]

The cartoon unmasks and exposes the media/left tactics and slander on so many levels simultaneously.

Re your #525:

...of course! Why so many feel this is a threat to physically assassinate the President is beyond me. It is an illustration of an assassination in progress, a political one, and not with a gun!

[Modernman]

Any potrayal of assasination of the president is illegal and the offending party will be notified. Let's just say I'm confident this guy won't make the same mistake again.

That's not true- portraying an assasination of the President is not illegal- We've all seen the footage of JFK getting shot, or re-enactments of the Lincolns assasination. Similarly, there are plenty of movies and books out there where someone tries to kill the President (in one of the Tom Clancy books, he wipes out the President and most of Congress). Are all these things illegal? I doubt they could be, First Amendment and all that.

What's illegal is threatening to kill the President or advocating the same. Nobody in their right mind could say this cartoon is doing that.

Anyway, what's going to happen is that the Secret Service might call this guy (I actually doubt they'll bother) and they'll end up talking to half a dozen of the LA Times' $500/hour first amendment lawyers who will politely, but firmly, tell them to go shove it.

[Joe Brower]

It is hardly asking to be "spoon fed" to request that you provide proof of your assertations. Save your condescending remarks for someone who they'll effect; they only weaken your argument. You mentioned these other cartoons; you back it up. I don't have the time to do your homework for you.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter who is depicting the President, any President, being mortally threatened. Whomever authors and/or publishes such works can count on themselves being subject to strict scrutiny. End of story.

[Modernman]

They just threatened the life of the President of the United States. Not to mention being a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.

And you base this on what? Any attempt to prosecute this guy would be laughed out of court by any judge with half a brain. The most the Secret Service might do is call this guy or pay him a visit. The LA Times' firt amendment lawyers would send them packing with their tales between their legs.

Clear and present danger to the Republic? If the US is in danger from a political cartoon, we're in serious trouble down here.

[Quick1]

t is hardly asking to be "spoon fed" to request that you provide proof of your assertations.

Yes, actually, it is asking to be spoon-fed when the evidence is readily at hand. But because it's early, I'll give you a hint and point you at post 679, where Grant is clearly depicted as about to be assassinated.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter who is depicting the President, any President, being mortally threatened. Whomever authors and/or publishes such works can count on themselves being subject to strict scrutiny.

If I write a book about the President being assassinated, will I be subject to scrutiny? No.

[huck von finn]

[Joe Brower]

"the evidence is readily at hand."

If the evidence was so "readily at hand", you would have immediately provided it without first attempting to offload the task. You did not. Your own actions refute your words.

I see the cartoons you mention, and while some of them fall into the same category as the one currently under discussion, except for the one with Lincoln's servered head a la Hamlet, none of them are as explicit as Ramirez' depiction of an impending point-blank pistol-shot to the temple. What happened to that cartoonist? Who knows?

"If I write a book about the President being assassinated, will I be subject to scrutiny? No."

I say you are wrong. Why don't you give it a go and let us know how it turns out?

[Modernman]

Bottom line, it doesn't matter who is depicting the President, any President, being mortally threatened. Whomever authors and/or publishes such works can count on themselves being subject to strict scrutiny. End of story.

Not at all. Any attempt by the government to harass someone for writing a novel where someone attempts to assasinate the President would probably lead to lawsuits being filed against the government (violation of civil rights, abuse of process etc.). The Secret Service has lawyers who know these laws backwards and forwards. They'd be foolish to want to pursue this. You're also reversing things- strict scrutiny is the level of protection given to protected speech (as this cartoon surely is). The government would have an incredibly high bar to reach if it wanted to prosecute this guy.

[Quick1]

Why don't you give it a go and let us know how it turns out?

I don't even have to write a book. I simply need to ask one question: Is Tom Clancy in prison? A Simple yes or no will suffice.

[Joe Brower]

How about "I don't know". I am guessing he's not. Whatever situation in whatever book he wrote, I am not familiar. Was it as utterly explicit as the cartoon currently under discussion?

You seem to be so intent on argument that you are missing the fact that I am in agreement with some of your points, and at the same time purposefully ignoring mine. If you think that such a graphic depiction as this cartoon portrays will not give some borderline crazies out there some bad ideas, you are kidding yourself.

And as I previously stated, the Secret Service does not play games. Have you ever worked with them as I have? They can not and will not ignore such a graphic statement of violence against the President, however it was intended.

[Joe Brower]

strict scrutiny is the level of protection given to protected speech (as this cartoon surely is)

Perhaps. A shame the courts failed in this duty in other cases, such as the BCRA. In any case, I was not using the words "strict scrutiny" as a term of art.

I stand by my statements that the Secret Service can and will investigate and scrutinize any and all depictions against the President of the United States. Such is part of their mandate, their sworn duty, and to do otherwise would be to fail that duty. If you do not believe this to be the case, why not give them a call and ask them?

All in all, it's a shame that Ramirez wasn't more explicit in using the label "DEMOCRATS" on the shooter's back, instead of "POLITICS". Not that such would exempt him from garnering the attention of those whose primary charge is the protection of the President. Personally, I expect and hope that Ramirez will end up with, at most, a stern talking-to, and that will be that.

[Quick1]

How about "I don't know". I am guessing he's not. Whatever situation in whatever book he wrote, I am not familiar. Was it as utterly explicit as the cartoon currently under discussion?

I know, and he's most definitely not in prison. I would think writing about planes crashing into the White House, killing the President, Cabinet, and most of Congress, is fairly explicit enough.

You seem to be so intent on argument that you are missing the fact that I am in agreement with some of your points, and at the same time purposefully ignoring mine. If you think that such a graphic depiction as this cartoon portrays will not give some borderline crazies out there some bad ideas, you are kidding yourself.

So does TV make people violent? What happened to personal responsibility? I don't agree that it will make crazies out there want to kill the President any more than they already did.

And as I previously stated, the Secret Service does not play games. Have you ever worked with them as I have? They can not and will not ignore such a graphic statement of violence against the President, however it was intended.

I can honestly say I've never worked with the Secret Service. It doesn't suprise me at all that the cartoonist would be investigated, but I highly, HIGHLY doubt anything would come of it, especially when they discover the intent of the cartoon.

Also, it's early in the morning, and I haven't had my coffee yet. So if I come off argumentative or bitchy, deal.

[Quick1]

I stand by my statements that the Secret Service can and will investigate and scrutinize any and all depictions against the President of the United States. Such is part of their mandate, their sworn duty, and to do otherwise would be to fail that duty. If you do not believe this to be the case, why not give them a call and ask them?

Like I said in my other post, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would investigate. But it's highly unlikely that anything will come of it.

All in all, it's a shame that Ramirez wasn't more explicit in using the label "DEMOCRATS" on the shooter's back, instead of "POLITICS". Not that such would exempt him from garnering the attention of those whose primary charge is the protection of the President. Personally, I expect and hope that Ramirez will end up with, at most, a stern talking-to, and that will be that.

My guess is that he thought the liberal editors at the LAT wouldn't let him get away with that one. Either that, or he's noticed the increasing amount of conservatives criticizing the President, as well.

[SerpentDove]

Aye.

There's nothing wrong with "aquired taste."

[Joe Brower]

Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement then as what the actions and eventual outcome of this matter will be. See my post to "ModernMan" at #751. And it wouldn't surprise me if, as you point out, the word "DEMOCRATS" wouldn't have made it past the L.A. Times' editors.

As for "it's early in the morning, and I haven't had my coffee yet. So if I come off argumentative or bitchy, deal."

As good an excuse as any, I suppose. Apology accepted. $;-)

[CanadianLibertarian]

Extra-judicial action by the Secret Service. Not talking courts. And by the way - you don't seem to realize just how much trouble your Republic is in. How it is to be saved without force of arms I do not know.

[Charlie OK]

The reference to the 35 year-old LIFE Magazine cover is going to be too obscure for most Americans. Frankly, I can't believe that the Secret Service is concerned about this.

Weird. I am a 25 year old guy, and I have seen the original photo more than a dozen times. Now, I only learned the entire story a few years ago (thanks FR!), but it isnt as obscure as some of you think.

I happen to agree that it is a Pro-Bush cartoon, and it is extremely shocking, but I think it is good because it creates dialogue and makes people think. If some nut was thinking about killing the president, a cartoon isnt going to throw him over the edge.

[fish hawk]

This is one of the reasons I really love FreeRepublic, that is, I saw something and didnt really understand it and then I read others take on it and see a whole different picture. Nothing like being around smart people. Thank you all. I guess that's where the old saying comes from, "two heads are better than one".

[Blzbba]

thank you for post #161. I've been saddened to discover just how many completely-ignorant conservatives there are in this thread. I always kinda thought "we" were brighter than the idiot liberals, but sadly that doesn't apply to every conservative.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I think it helps to post the comments you are replying to in italics (or color or whatever).

Makes it easier to follow!