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'

[martin_fierro]

I am REALLY surprised at this; I usually LOL at his work.

Ditto that. Ramirez's been noted in the past because he's a CONSERVATIVE hispanic editorial cartoonist.

I spoke to him once by phone, and he said that it can be "a grind" coming up with good material several times a week.

In fairness to him, I think what he may have intended to be a statement sympathetic to Bush (Bush being summarily and unfairly killed by politics) got lost in the translation.

[martin_fierro]

Thanks for the meeknmingping! <|:)~

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks EatB, it's nice to know that not everyone thinks I'm a pompous ass. Heh heh heh... You take care.

[Hank Kerchief]

...1st amendment. It does not protect all speech!...

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...."

From: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

abridge

TRANSITIVE VERB:

1. To reduce the length of (a written text); condense. 2. To cut short; curtail. See synonyms at shorten.

If the no law can be made that will condense, cut short, curtail, or shorten freedom of speech, what speech is not protected? How can any speech be forbidden without cutting short, curtailing, or shortening freedom of speech?

Why are you afraid of freedom of speech?

Hank

[Luis Gonzalez]

Why do I not just point you to all the LewRockwell.com articles posted here, all the crap posted by Justin Raimondo, all of RLK's dribble, all of Tancredo fanatics crap, the "hold his feet to the fire" moron squad, sheltonmac...

You have got to be the most disingenuous posters on this forum.

[StupidQuestions]

What prompted you to become nasty and personal? I try hard not to be insulting or condescending here. You bring no credit to yourself or your position by calling me names because you disagree with my posts.

There is no great insight possible on this issue. It is really cut and dried. The political message of the cartoon is irrelevant. The Secret Services interest (if any) is irrelevant to the journalists involved. There is nothing the SS can do about the cartoon because it is absolutely protected speech and everyone in power at the L.A. Times surely knows that.

So far, in my career as a broadcast journalist, I’ve been threatened with Contempt of Court on three occasions. Each time I laughed and dared His Honor to try it. Each time, the Judges backed down. The most recent case was because I broadcast interviews with dismissed candidates for a big case jury. The trial Judge objected and threatened but the fact is he had no authority over interviews conducted outside the Courthouse or over my broadcasts. I explained to him that it is not my job to make his selection of a jury easy or hard --- it is my job to cover the story as I see fit and he is powerless to intervene. His Honor had to drop the threat.

No major league journalist is going to be cowed by a Judge or the Secret Service. The protections for the Press are broad and steeped in historical precedent. You think the cartoonist wouldn’t dare draw such a thing again if the Secret Service pays him a visit? I doubt he would even discuss his cartoon with the Secret Service if they were to be so stupid as to visit him. What can the SS do about it? Lock him up? That’s not going to happen and the LA Times, the cartoonist and the SS know that. That is the nature of the protection enjoyed by the editorial cartoonist. You can quote United States Law until you are purple but the simple fact is the 1st Amendment trumps any law restricting editorial content and working journalists fully understand that.

[cherry_bomb88]

Thanks for the ping, Meekie....

This goes WAY beyond Freedom of Speech!!!!

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

I made a plain statement, I said that it was not only the Democrats trying to do that, that there was some of that going on here.  If you don't think that's a true statement, you are nuts.

In post 565, in a response to TheDon's comment: "If the cartoonist had ANY balls, he would have replaced Politics with Demorats.", you stated: "Except, Democrats are not the only ones tryiong to kill Bush politically. Look around in this forum."  565 posted on 07/20/2003 8:18 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)

702 posted on 07/20/2003 11:44 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)

I objected to that mischaracterization and I still do. I don't know of anyone on this forum who is trying to kill Bush politically.  I do know a lot of them who disagree with his vision of what it is to be a conservative politician.  And the discussion of those views seems reasonable to me, not at all the stuff that you and others make it out to be.  What they would like to see is Bush take actions that can be characterized as conservative, on issues that matter to conservatives.  That isn't trying to destroy the man and you know it.
 

I stated to you...

This should be real easy to prove then Luis.  Please point me to places on the forum where people are taking the president to task for lying about WMDs.  Please point me to places on the forum where people are backing the several poiticians who have called for Bush's impeachement.  Please point me to just a few places where people on this forum have been backing Ted Kennedy's, Tom Daschel's, Hillary Clinton's and other leftist's comments about Bush.

Thanks in advance.

707 posted on 07/20/2003 11:57 PM PDT by DoughtyOne

This was your response.
 

To: DoughtyOne

Why do I not just point you to all the LewRockwell.com articles posted here, all the crap posted by Justin Raimondo, all of RLK's dribble, all of Tancredo fanatics crap, the "hold his feet to the fire" moron squad, sheltonmac...

You have got to be the most disingenuous posters on this forum.

766 posted on 07/21/2003 12:26 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)
 

Luis, I'm going to do something rather unique for you.  Once again, I'm going to respond to your comments rather than go off topic or change the premise  to make whatever comments I want.

I mentioned those calling Bush a liar with regard to WMDs.  I mentioned those calling for Bush's impeachment.  I mentioned Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschel, Hillary Clinton and other leftists.  I asked you to provide evidence of support for their comments and goals here.  You response included a number of people and groups, none of which are trying to take Bush down like the Democrats, which was your original premise.  If you get a chance, you might actually try addressing the words I type for you instead of ignoring them and trying to dodge your main premise I'm trying to address.

I don't read many LewRockwell.com articles.  If they were completely over the top I believe Jim would ban them like he has Justin Raimondo's (at least that's the last disposition I remember regarding Justin's comments).  I've not been a particularly big fan of Justin's.  I don't remember a body of work by RLK that supports a judgement on my part.  As for holding Bush's feet to the fire, I don't think that's an unreasonable premise for any of our elected officials.  Obviously you do.  I'm not sure which moron squad you're referencing, but it seems to me there are adequate representations of morons on a number of topics and sides of issues on this forum.  Those are not exclusive to the folks who take Bush to task, so you'll have to be a little more specific there.  As for SheltonMac, once again I can't remember having read enough of his works to make a judgement.  All of this is rather academic, since I didn't ask you to link those who criticize Bush for not being "conservative" enough.  I asked you to provide links to comments of a nature that I specificly listed for you, namely trying to kill Bush politically just like the Democrats.  That was your inference.  Would you like to support your claim or not?

Do you want to know why I'm riding you on this Luis.  It was your inclusion and terminology used to describe "all of Tancredo fanatics crap".  It didn't come up until later on this thread, but I've discussed the issue enough with you to know exactly where you come down on it.  And your underlying disrespect for other citizens who recognize the issue for what it is, leads me to question your grasp of any issue.

Luis, the United States Constitution Article IV, Section IV states that the president will protect the states from invasion.  Leaving all other issues on this topic aside, which are critically important to the well being of this nation on a number of sub-issues and levels, you still refuse to recognize that tens of millions of people pouring across our borders is an invasion. You see it as the invading hordes inalienable right to do so.  I do not.

If you think the raising of this issue is simply a way to boot Bush out of office, you are refusing to understand the elemental concept of pleading your case with other conservatives and hoping enough of them contact the president and urge him to change his policy, that his policies will be affected.  Isn't that how our system is supposed to work?  How can you characterize the attempt to change Bush's policies on this and other issues as simply trying to kill him politically?  Yet that is exactly the case you made.

[Rennes Templar]

Personally, I think the cartoon would have been much clearer and more effective if instead of the word "politics" the writer said: "Anti-Republican/anti-Bush paleocon/paleolibertarian/buchananite/rockwellian/anarchist movement and the Democrat/French/German/Iraq pro-terror axis."

[jagrmeister]

Your naive assumptions about the first amendment are amusing. As I said earlier, a political cartoon can be seen as advocacy - the author certainly believes in the portrayal or would have not otherwise drawn it. As the portrayal involved assasination of the President, the cartoonist will be informed of the limits of the 1st amendment. You should apprise yourself of them as well. If you want to have the last word and repeat yourself an 18th time on this thread, go ahead. I've discussed this matter to my satisfaction.

[jagrmeister]

>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.

The context of that statement was specific to political advocacy. Playing television footage is not construed as advocacy. In contrast, political cartoonists and columnists make political statements and their portrayals can most certainly be construed as advocacy. Depicting a presidential assasination in the medium of political advocacy can run afoul of the law and constitute threatening speech. Hiding behind the 1st amendment will do no good- the 1st amendment, like any right, is not absolute.

[jagrmeister]

Perhaps I missed them. Could you reference or link to them?

[Quick1]

#746, as one example.

[Modernman]

In contrast, political cartoonists and columnists make political statements and their portrayals can most certainly be construed as advocacy.

Agreed, mostly. But, you have to look at a cartoon, book, movie etc, and ask the question of what, if anything, is it advocating. Is the situation in this cartoon advocating the killing of the president? I don't think so- it's taking a historical picture and turning it into a symbolic point about political attempts to ruin the president. It's all a question of context- if the cartoon simply had a picture of a guy holding a gun up to the president's head, then I would agree that it crossed the line to advocacy. However, the word "Politics" on the executioner's back and the other elements of the picture make it clear the the cartoonist is trying to do something other than advocate the murder of the president.

Political cartoons are supposed to stir the pot, and this one seems to have done its job.

[DoughtyOne]

I liked the rich texture of that cartoon. The detail work was stunning. I'd love to see some of those in today's marketplace of ideas.

[Rennes Templar]

It is rich but GW looks more like Dick Nixon IMO.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm not opposed to that comparison, but try not to get too deep in on subjects of presidents from that long ago. As for Watergate, that's something I think we can agree to strike down in the comparison. To this day I think Nixon got a raw deal with regard to Watergate. The Clinton administration certainly reinforced that theory.

[sultan88]

I agree. That cartoon is sooo out-of-bounds!!

[lainde]

bttt