Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.

Debate.

Secret Service investigating university student
latinprep12
post Sep 8 2005, 06:58 PM
Post #1


M.a. x.
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,913
Joined: Jun 2005
Member No: 148,641



Twenty-one-year-old Phillip Bailey is being investigated for suggesting President Bush being shot.

Bailey is chairman of the University of Louisville Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee.

He says he posted a message on a Web site in response to someone else who suggested that looters in New Orleans should be shot. Bailey wrote that many people were simply trying to find necessities to stay alive. His posting called for shooting -- in his words --"every cop, national guard and politician who stands in your way, including George W. Bush if need be."'

The Secret Service says it'll be up to the U-S attorney's office to decide if Bailey is charged with making threats against the president. That offense can carry a five-year prison term. ohmy.gif

The Link I looked this info up and well i hope you understand...well tell me what do you think
 
 
Start new topic
Replies
ComradeRed
post Sep 10 2005, 08:38 PM
Post #2


Dark Lord of McCandless
******

Group: Member
Posts: 2,226
Joined: May 2004
Member No: 16,761



And it should perfectly be legal. It's just expressing an opinion. If you say that saying "Bush should be shot" should be illegal, so should saying things like "We should invade a country". In an invasion, people die and property is destroyed. But once again, just because someone says they think it's a good idea to invade a country, doesn't mean he's going to raise a private militia and start killing and causing mayhem.

We can see the result that prosecuting him would have, just as in Britain, Parliament is debating a law with a good chance of passing that would criminalize voicing support for the terrorists, or even publishing articles that justify terrorism (i.e. it would be illegal in Britain to write an article that says the root cause of terrorism is bad foreign policy, a perfectly valid political position, just because it might be "threatening" to national security). Threats against the government are perfectly valid ways of ensuring the checks and balances system stays intact. To use a historical example, the South Carolina Nullification Crisis ultimately forced a compromise that prevented Northern mercantile interests from imposing an unduly high tariff on the South. Or to use a more modern example, people threaten their local governments every day with the prospect of "moving with their feet" if local governments do not change their policies. We can see that, a criminalization of threats against the government would turn very broad and scale and lead to the loss of self-government in favor of a majoritarian tyranny.

Nor was I trolling the Internet for case law. Black v. Virginia was a big case, that is fairly well-known, not some obscure one that I would have had to look up.
 

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: