Replies

>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.

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.

You must be a liberal; your argument is based on pure emotion. Nobody will contest that the cartoon depicts an illegal act, but where's the advocacy? What about it makes you think the artist is wishing for GWB's murder?