NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/38768.html
:rolleyes:
EDIT: well the links are being goofy so i'll just put it here

The latest Sacramento resident to be questioned by federal agents in possible threats against President Bush is a 14-year-old girl with a heart on her backpack and braces on her teeth, a freckle-nosed adolescent who is passionate about liberal politics and cute movie stars.

Her name is Julia Wilson, and she learned a vivid civics lesson Wednesday when two Secret Service agents pulled her out of biology class at McClatchy High School to ask about comments and images she posted on MySpace.

Beneath the words "Kill Bush," Julia posted a cartoonish photo-collage of a knife stabbing the hand of the president. It was one of a few images Julia said she used to decorate an anti-Bush Web page she moderated on MySpace, the social networking Web site that is hugely popular among teenagers.

The Secret Service refused to answer questions about the case or even confirm an investigation. Eric Zahren, a Secret Service spokesman, said the agency does not discuss its work "due to the sensitivity of our mission."

But Julia's mother, Kirstie Wilson, and an assistant principal at McClatchy High said two agents showed them badges stating they were with the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security.

Federal law prohibits making serious threats against the president, and Julia and her parents say what she did was wrong.

The couple are disturbed, however, that federal agents questioned a child at school -- without her parents present. And First Amendment lawyers question whether the Secret Service over-reacted to a 14-year-old's comments on a Web site made for casual socializing.

"I don't condone what she did, but it seems a little over the top to me," said Julia's father, Jim Moose. "You'd think they could look at the situation and determine that she's not a credible threat."

Earlier this month, federal officials arrested two Sacramento-area men for allegedly threatening the president. Elk Grove resident Michael Lee Braun has been charged with sending two threatening letters to the El Dorado Hills country club where Bush recently made an appearance. Rocklin resident Howard J. Kinsey is accused of threatening the president through a text message.

Here is how Julia Wilson's family tells their story:

Two Secret Service agents arrived at their Land Park home about 2:30 Wednesday afternoon, Kirstie Wilson said. They told her they wanted to speak with her daughter about threats to the president that she had posted on MySpace.

"She was in molecular biology, and I said I really didn't want to take her out of class for this," Kirstie Wilson said. "I said I'd make sure she came right home from school."

She asked the agents to come back in an hour, and they left.

Then Wilson sent her daughter a text message instructing her to come straight home from school.

"... there are two men from the secret service that want to talk with you. Apparently you made some death threats against president bush. Dont worry youre not going to jail or anything like that but they take these things very seriously these days," Kirstie Wilson wrote.

"Are you serious!?!? omg. Am I in a lot of trouble"? her daughter replied, using common teenage shorthand for "Oh, my God."

Kirstie Wilson called her husband. While they were on the phone, she received another text message from her daughter: "They took me out of class."

It was a 15- to 20-minute interview, Julia said. Agents asked her about her father's job, her e-mail address, and her Social Security number. They asked about the MySpace page she had created last year as an eighth-grader at Sutter Middle School.

"I told them I just really don't agree with Bush's politics," Julia said Thursday. "I don't have any plans of harming Bush in any way. I'm very peaceful; I just don't like Bush."

The MySpace page under question was a group page, similar to an online club.

Most of the groups Julia is a part of are fan clubs for movie stars like Jake Gyllenhaal and Ewan McGregor. The group that got her in trouble was called something like "People who want to stab Bush" -- Julia said she doesn't remember the exact name because she soon changed it.

After an eighth-grade history lesson in which she learned that threatening the president is against the law, Julia said she changed the group name to "So Bush is an idiot but hey what else is new?"

The group primarily consisted of her teenage friends who share her liberal political interests, Julia said. She deleted the group page over the summer when she decided that MySpace was juvenile and taking up too much time.

Moose and Wilson say they had no idea what their daughter had posted online.

"I was more than happy to have them talk to her about the severity of what she did. But I wanted to be here with her," Kirstie Wilson said.

McClatchy Assistant Principal Paul Belluomini said he usually does not notify parents when law enforcement officials come to school to interview students.

"Parents usually interfere with an investigation, so we usually don't notify them until it's done," he said.

Sacramento City Unified School District policy calls for parents to be notified but doesn't say whether it should happen before or after a student is interviewed. State law doesn't require parental notification.

In any case, said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Julia Wilson's post did not sound like a "true threat" to the president, making it political speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

"The courts have to distinguish between political rhetoric and hyperbole and a real threat," Brick said. "A reasonable person would have to interpret what was said as indication of a serious intent to commit harm."

Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said in the current political climate, "the threshold that brings (agents) in has gotten lower."

"It's a cautionary tale for kids who are on MySpace that putting something on MySpace like 'Kill the President' is not the same as saying it on e-mail or over the phone," Scheer said. "The government is not systematically listening to all phone calls or going through e-mails, but it probably does search the Internet."

Ok, better now! Don't worry about that.

You never know if the braces will activate some kind of bomb. Better safe than sorry, eh?

What? That you have to register to a site? What's so odd about that?

weird.... when i looked at it it did not ask me to register,google
teen investigated about kill bush picture
click on the first link...sorry about that

weird.... when i looked at it it did not ask me to register,google
teen investigated about kill bush picture
click on the first link...sorry about that

Or click here. :p

Actually, disregard that. For some reason, linking to the article won't work, even though cutting and pasting the address works fine...

Just to help, according to a Yahoo news search...

"The latest Sacramento resident to be questioned by federal agents in possible threats against President Bush is a 14-year-old girl with a heart on her backpack and braces on her teeth, a freckle-nosed adolescent who is passionate about liberal politics and cute movie stars."

http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=U.S.+Agents+Question+Teen&c=

Great for the scrapbook. "Baby's first federal inquery."

Federal Agents always take any threat against the President serously, no matter the source. It has been this way for a long time and has produced many odd instances such as this one.

anyways, all the agents had to do was threaten that if she kept up the talk about killing Bush, they would kill Justin Timberlake. that would of shut her up.

Great for the scrapbook. "Baby's first federal inquery."

:p :D
mommy and daddy must be so proud

McClatchy Assistant Principal Paul Belluomini said he usually does not notify parents when law enforcement officials come to school to interview students.

"Parents usually interfere with an investigation, so we usually don't notify them until it's done," he said.

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this policy?

A kid in my school sent hate-mail regarding affirmative action to a michigan legislator using a school computer. The FBI interrogated him and he lost all his computer privileges...I don't know if they charged him with anything.

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this policy?


their kids can get abortions without parental notification. *shrugs*

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this policy?

when combined with the following line...
Sacramento City Unified School District policy calls for parents to be notified but doesn't say whether it should happen before or after a student is interviewed. State law doesn't require parental notification.

unfortunatly, it is up to the School's administration...

I do think they choose badly...

However, any threat needs to be dealt with, and while the parent did ask to wait till after school, the chances of that person running after getting a text message is too great a risk to chance.

and all threats to the President needs to be investigated.

Federal Agents always take any threat against the President serously, no matter the source. It has been this way for a long time and has produced many odd instances such as this one.
I'll agree with that to a point. Regardless of a President's policies, the President is the single most important person in the United States. Though our government is set up to prevent total chaos if one is killed or seriously wounded, it's usually a really bad thing anyway. Not to mention it would lead to some absolutely horrendous leaders had it happened at inopportune times-Qwale, for instance, or Cheney...

But there's a point to where it IS ridiculous. Once they found out she was a 14 year old, they shouldn't have questioned her at school. At most, they should have spoken to the parents about it.

when combined with the following line...


unfortunatly, it is up to the School's administration...

I do think they choose badly...

However, any threat needs to be dealt with, and while the parent did ask to wait till after school, the chances of that person running after getting a text message is too great a risk to chance.

and all threats to the President needs to be investigated.

I have ZERO problem with the kid being questioned. What I have the problem with is the school's not calling the parents immediately and informing them that their kid's being questioned until after the fact.

I have ZERO problem with the kid being questioned. What I have the problem with is the school's not calling the parents immediately and informing them that their kid's being questioned until after the fact.

Assuming that a child has the right legal representation to the same degree as an adult, and that a child cannot legally consent to waive that right, it would seem to be a gross violation and that whoever is responsible has deprived the accused of a fundamental right.

If this is the case, that principle should at the very least lose his job and probably be imprisoned or fined.

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this policy?
No way!

I'd be friggen ropable if my boy's school let some law enforcement agency remove him from class and (while supposedly in their care), interview him with the intention of investigating him for a possible crime, without either his parent/s and/or a legal representitive present.

That the law doesnt require them (the school) to better protect the child's interests (in this context) while the child is in their care is disturbing, and further doesnt in any way shape or form mitigate the school's moral and ethical duty...just because the law doesnt force you to act ethically, doesnt mean you shouldnt.

As a Bush hating and quick tempered Bush hater I must say that even questioning the kid seems extreme. I mean, what about freedom of speech? I mean, if she had a detailed plan for killng Bush I would understand, but a crude photoshop, puh-leez. This is just getting retarded, this in the same week a young girl was arrested for racist talk in England...

Assuming that a child has the right legal representation to the same degree as an adult, and that a child cannot legally consent to waive that right, it would seem to be a gross violation and that whoever is responsible has deprived the accused of a fundamental right.

If this is the case, that principle should at the very least lose his job and probably be imprisoned or fined.
That's what I thought, but I figured (based on what actually happened and the response of the school to the parents' criticism) that my assumption regarding the legal right of the child must somehow be erroneous.

So does anyone actually know the case specific rights of a minor in this scenario, because frankly it seems both strange and very disturbing that the rights New Granada describes do not apply?:confused:

Really, I don't have a problem with this. Because 1. The parents should've paid more attention to her activities online, and 2. Comon, having "Kill Bush" and then showing the action on your MySpace can be takenn as a threat. Although, one does have to wonder why the Feds did not question the people who made an entire movie about killing Bush.

As a Bush hating and quick tempered Bush hater I must say that even questioning the kid seems extreme. I mean, what about freedom of speech? I mean, if she had a detailed plan for killng Bush I would understand, but a crude photoshop, puh-leez. This is just getting retarded, this in the same week a young girl was arrested for racist talk in England...

Look, I hate Bush too, mainly because he's not a Conservative, but I don't want to kill him. I think it's ok to say that you hate Bush, in fact if you do, let it out! However, to say that you want to kill him could and probably should be taken as a threat. There's a reason you don't yell fire in a crowded theathre.

With the freedom of speech, comes great responsibility, you must be held accountable for your action.

Although, one does have to wonder why the Feds did not question the people who made an entire movie about killing Bush.
Probably because

A. It was a "docudrama."

B. The filmakers were United Kingdom citizens.

Probably because

A. It was a "docudrama."

B. The filmakers were United Kingdom citizens.

I thought it was filmed in Canada.

Look, I hate Bush too, mainly because he's not a Conservative, but I don't want to kill him. I think it's ok to say that you hate Bush, in fact if you do, let it out! However, to say that you want to kill him could and probably should be taken as a threat. There's a reason you don't yell fire in a crowded theathre.

With the freedom of speech, comes great responsibility, you must be held accountable for your action.
While it could be taken as a threat it isnt true that it should. Satire and hyperbole are recognised forms of expression. To be considered an actual threat there has to be grounds for a reasonable person to reasonably interpret that some harm is actually being promised or implied as likely to happen.
In fact stating that one wants to kill is not necessarily a threat even when the statement is in earnestness. What is necessary to construe a threat is some indication that the person is expressing an intention to act on the want. It isnt a crime to want to harm someone, nor should it be a crime to discuss that desire.
To put this in perspective a group called 'Autism Speaks' put out a (rather aweful) video production in which a mother is filmed discussing her desire to kill her own daughter, the daughter is in earshot at the time. If merely expressing a desire to kill (without expressing any intent to act on the desire) were a crime then why has this women (whose statement has been widely disseminated throughout the public domain) not gotten a knock on her door from law enforcement? Given the person she was stating she had a desire to kill was present this is a much more likely case of 'threatening to kill' if her comments dont constitute a threat to kill in the legal sense, then the hyperbolic cartoon accompanied expression by this teen certainly doesnt.

I'll agree with that to a point. Regardless of a President's policies, the President is the single most important person in the United States. Though our government is set up to prevent total chaos if one is killed or seriously wounded, it's usually a really bad thing anyway. Not to mention it would lead to some absolutely horrendous leaders had it happened at inopportune times-Qwale, for instance, or Cheney...

But there's a point to where it IS ridiculous. Once they found out she was a 14 year old, they shouldn't have questioned her at school. At most, they should have spoken to the parents about it.

unfortunatly, there is nothing preventing a child of any age from carrying out any form of threat. wasn't it teens that did the shooting in Columbine? what if that child was part of a radical group who would use a child like that? after asking the mother, and getting the child's whereabouts, of course they're going to the school to question her. as the article stated, the mother texted the child after the agents left, letting her know that the Feds wanted to question her. what if it was more sinister in nature, that girl could've ran and there goes a suspect.

I have ZERO problem with the kid being questioned. What I have the problem with is the school's not calling the parents immediately and informing them that their kid's being questioned until after the fact.

the principal did state they normally don't call the parents when authorities interview, not interrogate or question, but Inteview a student. however, we don't know if a counslor or another member of the faculty/staff was present during questioning. so we cannot assume that the child's interest wasn't looked after.

I agree, the parents should've been called when the nature of the questions became obvious.

Then again, the girl did text her mother when the feds arrived. "they took me out of class" so if the faculty member did ask the student... "Do you want us to notify your parents and if she said "I texted my mom" it could be that they (admin) thought the mother was on her way... and they honestly could've thought that the parent was informed... and she in a way... she was.

now another question... assuming it doesn't take 10 - 15 minutes for a text message to traverse from one point to another... why didn't the mother text back "tell them I told you not to answer anything till [I/my lawyer] gets there." assuming that she couldn't call the school and give the same instructions...

the Agents cannot force the child to answer... she does not fall under Alien Enemy Unlawful combatant. thus she is still protected by the rights afforded to her by her citizenship.

While it could be taken as a threat it isnt true that it should. Satire and hyperbole are recognised forms of expression. To be considered an actual threat there has to be grounds for a reasonable person to reasonably interpret that some harm is actually being promised or implied as likely to happen.
In fact stating that one wants to kill is not necessarily a threat even when the statement is in earnestness. What is necessary to construe a threat is some indication that the person is expressing an intention to act on the want. It isnt a crime to want to harm someone, nor should it be a crime to discuss that desire.
To put this in perspective a group called 'Autism Speaks' put out a (rather aweful) video production in which a mother is filmed discussing her desire to kill her own daughter, the daughter is in earshot at the time. If merely expressing a desire to kill (without expressing any intent to act on the desire) were a crime then why has this women (whose statement has been widely disseminated throughout the public domain) not gotten a knock on her door from law enforcement? Given the person she was stating she had a desire to kill was present this is a much more likely case of 'threatening to kill' if her comments dont constitute a threat to kill in the legal sense, then the hyperbolic cartoon accompanied expression by this teen certainly doesnt.

Well while it's most likely the girl was trying to be "humerous" or whatever, it still should be looked into. I know if someone post a picture of me getting my throat slit on MySpace, I know I would want it to be looked into. I wouldn't find that funny myself, and I doubt the Secret Service, and the President found it funny. Also, yes that mother should've been arrested, I mean jeez!

While it could be taken as a threat it isnt true that it should. Satire and hyperbole are recognised forms of expression. To be considered an actual threat there has to be grounds for a reasonable person to reasonably interpret that some harm is actually being promised or implied as likely to happen.
In fact stating that one wants to kill is not necessarily a threat even when the statement is in earnestness. What is necessary to construe a threat is some indication that the person is expressing an intention to act on the want. It isnt a crime to want to harm someone, nor should it be a crime to discuss that desire.
To put this in perspective a group called 'Autism Speaks' put out a (rather aweful) video production in which a mother is filmed discussing her desire to kill her own daughter, the daughter is in earshot at the time. If merely expressing a desire to kill (without expressing any intent to act on the desire) were a crime then why has this women (whose statement has been widely disseminated throughout the public domain) not gotten a knock on her door from law enforcement? Given the person she was stating she had a desire to kill was present this is a much more likely case of 'threatening to kill' if her comments dont constitute a threat to kill in the legal sense, then the hyperbolic cartoon accompanied expression by this teen certainly doesnt.I think the mods will agree to this. It's extremely difficult to the point of it being almost impossible to determine if a threat is Hyperbole, Satire, the truth or some crude joke when dealing with WRITTEN words. who knows what else was printed on that website.

as for your video analogy... the Feds were dealing with a threat to the President, not just any threat to anyone. so if this video was displayed in a way that did question the mother's intent. say on a private website, sent to someone and that person alerted the police... you can bet your bottom dollar that she would've gotten a visit by the POLICE or at least Child Services. however if it was part of a presentation to demonstrate something or other. then it's more reasonable that it was a staged or mock threat unless the presenter states that it wasn't.

and how do you know she didn't get questioned about it?

Well while it's most likely the girl was trying to be "humerous" or whatever, it still should be looked into. I know if someone post a picture of me getting my throat slit on MySpace, I know I would want it to be looked into.
That's an entirely different kind of incident. It is a well accepted (as in legally recognised) fact that people in 'the public eye' are considered differently to private persons when it comes to public expression.

I wouldn't find that funny myself, and I doubt the Secret Service, and the President found it funny.
Whether or not they find it funny is utterly irrelevent.
Also, yes that mother should've been arrested, I mean jeez!
Given it doesnt appear any crime has been committed I fail to see why.

I think the mods will agree to this. It's extremely difficult to the point of it being almost impossible to determine if a threat is Hyperbole, Satire, the truth or some crude joke when dealing with WRITTEN words. who knows what else was printed on that website.
It can be difficult in some cases, this doesnt appear to be such a case.

as for your video analogy... the Feds were dealing with a threat to the President, not just any threat to anyone.
The who isnt materially relevent to the analogy since the analogy was dealing with the construction of what constitutes a threat rather than what should be done in regards to a particular instance of a threat. Were it a matter of 'well in one case of an actual instance of a threat X happened' you might have a point.

so if this video was displayed in a way that did question the mother's intent. say on a private website, sent to someone and that person alerted the police... you can bet your bottom dollar that she would've gotten a visit by the POLICE or at least Child Services.
The video is displayed on a private but publically accessable website (ie materially the same circumstance as publishing on myspace). As I recall off-hand more than one person claims to have reported it to child protection agencies.

however if it was part of a presentation to demonstrate something or other. then it's more reasonable that it was a staged or mock threat unless the presenter states that it wasn't.
It was an interview. There is no indication that the comments were in any way staged or intended as mockery, there wasnt for instance a cartoon picture displayed indicating humour was intended as there apparently was in the case of the myspace page.

and how do you know she didn't get questioned about it?

It would be a newsworthy incident if she were given the circumstances, such an event would have been reported, but it hasnt been.

It can be difficult in some cases, this doesnt appear to be such a case. did you see the site? perhaps they're following up on someone who is taking it seriously and they needed to assertain that she is not involved? we really don't know.

The who isnt materially relevent to the analogy since the analogy was dealing with the construction of what constitutes a threat rather than what should be done in regards to a particular instance of a threat. Were it a matter of 'well in one case of an actual instance of a threat X happened' you might have a point.actually it does. the Feds are monitoring web sites... the police are not. thus something like your analogy wouldn't concern a Fed and if one did notice it, all they could do is forward that video to the proper authorites who can follow up.

The video is displayed on a private but publically accessable website (ie materially the same circumstance as publishing on myspace). As I recall off-hand more than one person claims to have reported it to child protection agencies.so again, how do you know they didn't question her. if the Media prints a story everytime the police questions people, believe me, you would be sick of hearing about it.

It was an interview. There is no indication that the comments were in any way staged or intended as mockery, there wasnt for instance a cartoon picture displayed indicating humour was intended as there apparently was in the case of the myspace page.link please?

It would be a newsworthy incident if she were given the circumstances, such an event would have been reported, but it hasnt been.no it wouldn't. breakins are not always reported on the news, neither is car thefts or accidents, it would if it was a "Slow news day" but not as a matter of course.

did you see the site? perhaps they're following up on someone who is taking it seriously and they needed to assertain that she is not involved? we really don't know.
That's right, neither of us 'knows' any more than the other, hence my use of the word appears (as in what it looks like based on what can be seen).

actually it does. the Feds are monitoring web sites... the police are not. thus something like your analogy wouldn't concern a Fed and if one did notice it, all they could do is forward that video to the proper authorites who can follow up.
The analogy is about whether or not the act itself meets the legal definition of 'threatening to kill' not about how law enforcement agencies might follow up it if it is a threat to kill.

so again, how do you know they didn't question her. if the Media prints a story everytime the police questions people, believe me, you would be sick of hearing about it.
Because the person concerned would make any such questioning newsworthy. She and her family are prominant, they are in the public eye. When prominant people in the public eye get questioned about serious crimes by police the media do not treat it the same way they treat the same occurance in regards to an 'average person'. If for instance average Joe gets caught shoplifting while in unlawful possession of valium, it doesnt tend to make the news in quite the same way it does if the shoplifter is say Winnona Rider...

link please?
Google it, ('autism now' is the name of the organisation that produced the video concerned), there's actually a lot of discussion about it across a range of web-forums so you're better off having a look for yourself if you want to get the full picture.

no it wouldn't. breakins are not always reported on the news, neither is car thefts or accidents, it would if it was a "Slow news day" but not as a matter of course.
I'm really astounded you dont understand that the media treats incidences involving prominant people and occurences differently than they do 'every day stuff'. The person concerned is a prominant person in the public eye coming from a prominant family in the public eye and the entire incident is a fairly prominant event that has received public attention. Do you really fail to understand how this effects the amount of media attention generated or are you just pretending to be obtuse because otherwise you dont have an argument?:confused:

That's right, neither of us 'knows' any more than the other, hence my use of the word appears (as in what it looks like based on what can be seen).unfortunatly, the Feds can't just rely on Appears.

The analogy is about whether or not the act itself meets the legal definition of 'threatening to kill' not about how law enforcement agencies might follow up it if it is a threat to kill. the threat itself falls under "terroristic threatening" and if someone wants to pursue it, it could be persued. however, it is on a case by case basis. Pointing a gun, even a toy gun is a threatening action. however, the choice to peruse the legal definition of Threat to kill is up to 1) the person receiving the threat and 2) the lawyers.

Because the person concerned would make any such questioning newsworthy. She and her family are prominant, they are in the public eye. When prominant people in the public eye get questioned about serious crimes by police the media do not treat it the same way they treat the same occurance in regards to an 'average person'. If for instance average Joe gets caught shoplifting while in unlawful possession of valium, it doesnt tend to make the news in quite the same way it does if the shoplifter is say Winnona Rider...and those get reported IF someone reports it. not all events from promenant families get reported. IF the cops questioned her and found nothing wrong, why would anyone leak it to the press? and if it was, why would the press go with a story of "Cops investigate threat to child, find nothing to substantiate it." now if that family was the President.. then hell yea...


Google it, ('autism now' is the name of the organisation that produced the video concerned), there's actually a lot of discussion about it across a range of web-forums so you're better off having a look for yourself if you want to get the full picture. Googled it. only 4 video's found and all are PSA's about their organization. still looking but so far, no other vids found. if the family is that prominate that you would feel that such an event as a police questioning would be reported, what's the family name, it would help in finding the vid.


I'm really astounded you dont understand that the media treats incidences involving prominant people and occurences differently than they do 'every day stuff'. The person concerned is a prominant person in the public eye coming from a prominant family in the public eye and the entire incident is a fairly prominant event that has received public attention. Do you really fail to understand how this effects the amount of media attention generated or are you just pretending to be obtuse because otherwise you dont have an argument?:confused:you toss that word around alot. Prominant... who is the family. it would help with finding the video.

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this policy?
Quite right.
They shouldn't be notifying the parents at all!

Damn pesky parents, always interfering with the welfare of their children.
State knows best!

McClatchy Assistant Principal Paul Belluomini said he usually does not notify parents when law enforcement officials come to school to interview students.

"Parents usually interfere with an investigation, so we usually don't notify them until it's done," he said.

What a bastard!

Mmh. Isn't it so that children are to be supervised while in school?
I always thought that while at home, it's the parents' job to do the obligatory supervision - but while at school, that goes over either to teachers and/or the principal as the head-honcho of the whole institution?

I mean, sure, the kid wasn't alone and one should be able to trust that agents who are to protect the country or the President should be able to take care of a kid.

But guaranteeing someone's safety isn't exactly the same thing as guaranteeing someone's rights.

This somehow doesn't feel right - something's amiss in that story.

(BTW, who was the kid whose stepdad would go nuts over this story?)

(BTW, who was the kid whose stepdad would go nuts over this story?)

Naliitr, I think.

anyways, all the agents had to do was threaten that if she kept up the talk about killing Bush, they would kill Justin Timberlake. that would of shut her up.

why couldn't they do it just for kicks and do the world a favor? :D

unfortunatly, the Feds can't just rely on Appears.
Actually the feds have to rely on 'appears' just like every other person. Like everyone else they can only utilise what is apparent, what is hidden from them isnt useful to them.
In this specific case, the actual text that alledgedly 'theatens' the President says 'Kill Bush'. Without context this might mean no more than removing a nusiance plant from one's garden.
We of course know that the teen didnt mean a garden plant (when she uses the word Bush), how do we know? From the context. The only way one could know that this even might be a threat to a person rather than a gardening instruction is through the context. So if you ignore the context, we dont have any realistic grounds for construing a threat.
If you dont ignore context and so can construe the possibility of a threat, then what you are 'not ignoring' is that this is the writing of a young teen (infamous for their use of hyperbole), writing for other young teens. That the text appears below a cartoonish image (indicating humourous satire, which is evidently generally considered to be a protected expression).
There are strong indicators that this is not a threat, either legally (as in no threat of harm was ever intended to be perceived by anyone, nor would a reasonable person necessarily assume that anyone would perceive the communication as intending a threat of harm), or to the safety of the President (this is a teen who posted for the benefit of other teens on a publically viewable web-site and it seems without any attempt to hide her true identity).
Teens are more known for hyperbolic and rash statements than they are for assasination, so there isnt likely any real danger to the President, the teen doesnt appear to have attempted to hide her identity and so it's reasonable to assume she didnt percieve she was doing wrong - so no criminal intent (you cant have a criminal act without intent and that includes threatening to kill).
There is no way any reasonable person would see investigating this girl beyond confirming that she is who she says she is (which was done prior to interviewing her). The features of the document and the text at issue, the behaviour of the person concerned, and the identity of th person concerned all strongly indicate that this is not an issue any further resources ought to be spent on. If the document had still been on the web, then a letter outlining the concerns of 'the Feds' might have been appropriate (although I'm not convinced the document falls outside protected expression).

'The feds' only have so many resources, they need to make responsible use of those limited resources and this is an example of them not doing so. The President is not so precious and fragile that he needs the Feds to run about making sure that teens dont use harsh language to express their dislike of him.

I admit I dont know off-hand how the law concerned is constructed, but I do know that if the girl's posting of the text 'kill Bush' accompanied by a cartoonish montage comes anywhere near close to satisfying a criminal act under the law, then the law is ludricrous and dangerous. So far as I can tell if it were the principal at her school's name instead of Bush's, no criminal court would rule that the web-document constitutes a threat to kill. The only purpose of having a seperate legal tool to deal with people who threaten to kill the president is to prevent the assasination or attempted assasination of the President. So any act that wouldnt meet the standards for a finding of 'threatening to kill' in a criminal proceeding, were it someone who is not the president, shouldnt ever fall under a law designed to protect the safety of the president, because the president isnt in any danger whatsoever if there isnt actually an intent to harm or an intent of cause a reasonable belief of likely harm.

The threat itself falls under "terroristic threatening" and if someone wants to pursue it, it could be persued. however, it is on a case by case basis. Pointing a gun, even a toy gun is a threatening action. however, the choice to peruse the legal definition of Threat to kill is up to 1) the person receiving the threat and 2) the lawyers.
No it doesnt, because it's not a threat. It is an expression of feeling. To be a threat there has to be the intention to convey an intent to carry out the act referred to. That's why the case is analogous, because in both cases there is no evidence whatsoever of any intent to convey an intent to carry out the act of violence. In both cases the communication at issue was expressive of feeling, rather than indicitive of intended future acts.

and those get reported IF someone reports it. not all events from promenant families get reported. IF the cops questioned her and found nothing wrong, why would anyone leak it to the press?
To feel important, general excitement about having some connection to persons of prominance, tall poppy syndrome motivated 'get-backs', disgruntled at one's treatment as an employee of the persons concerned, pre-existing cooperative relations with particular members of the press, propaganda value for the person accused and the organisation she is involved in...all sorts of reasons really.

and if it was, why would the press go with a story of "Cops investigate threat to child, find nothing to substantiate it." now if that family was the President.. then hell yea...
Why wouldnt they report on it given that there is public controversy over the issue? But even if they didnt, this is a controversy in which both parties are motivated to prove themselve righteous and their detractors/opponents either misguided, wrong of just plain bad. 'Stooping to the level of making unfounded criminal accusations of child-abuse against loving and dedicated mother' makes the opposition look bad and increases the mana of the poor put-apon falsely accused mother. The propaganda value isnt something likely to be passed up in the context of the ungoing discourse of dispute that characterises the issue.

Googled it. only 4 video's found and all are PSA's about their organization.
The video concerned can be found by googling 'autism speaks', clicking on the very first link that comes up, and on arrival at the page, by clicking on the highly visible 'autism every day video' link. From there it will take you to a page where you can view the production...not really sure how you missed it...

still looking but so far, no other vids found. if the family is that prominate that you would feel that such an event as a police questioning would be reported, what's the family name, it would help in finding the vid.
The woman concerned is Alison Tepper Singer. She is the Senior Vice President of the organisation 'Autism Speaks', a very prominant position in a very prominant (as in featured on the back of the cereal box) organisation.

you toss that word around alot. Prominant... who is the family. it would help with finding the video.
The Tepper family.

If you want to know more you'll need to find it yourself. The point isnt how prominant the family is, but that what she did doesnt constitute threatening to kill. I used it as example because I thought is would make it easier for people to understand the significance of 'intent' with regards to an act of 'threatening to kill', if I used a example (people often find real-life examples easier to reason with than abstract legal principals). If you prefer here is another example, on nationstates today someone started a thread called 'Just kill this guy" although it is illegal to incite violence such as the killing of another human being no crime whatsoever is being committed because the intent of the statement is not to incite violence against any person, but rather to offer an opinion (specifically that the person ought to be lawfully executed although it would be better if he could be subjected to death by pitbull). So while publishing text such as 'just kill this guy' (in the context of referring to a specific guy') could in some cases be a criminal act, it isnt in this case. The crucial element is the intent of the communication concerned.

The fact remains that if it were the girl's school's principal named and he made a police complaint, under the circumstances a prosecution on 'threatening to kill charges' would be highly unlikely and wouldnt succeed in a court of law. Criminal nuisance maybe, but 'threatening to kill', no.

why couldn't they do it just for kicks and do the world a favor? :D

Dunno...

That's what I thought, but I figured (based on what actually happened and the response of the school to the parents' criticism) that my assumption regarding the legal right of the child must somehow be erroneous.

So does anyone actually know the case specific rights of a minor in this scenario, because frankly it seems both strange and very disturbing that the rights New Granada describes do not apply?:confused:

If the Greatest NSG Poster of All Time, Cat-Tribes, were still with us, the question would be answered immediately.

If the Greatest NSG Poster of All Time, Cat-Tribes, were still with us, the question would be answered immediately.
I've TGed him twice in the last week, to no avail. He's not answering.

This is the fourth thread on this yet no one has commented on that?