The United States Secret Service has interviewed a Republican candidate for the Florida House of Representatives after he made a comment on Twitter about the need for President Obama to be tried and hanged for his crimes. It was a uniquely stupid tweet but the controversy again raises the question of the federal law making threatening language against the President a crime. For years, elementary students, journalists, and even cartoonists have found themselves being confronted by Secret Service over comments or pictures deemed threatening. The effort is chilling for the first amendment and inimical to political speech.
Take the statement of Joshua Black, who stated “I’m past impeachment. It’s time to arrest and hang him high.”
Black specifically stated that Obama should be arrested and then hanged for crimes. Yet, that was enough to get an ominous visit from the Secret Service. Notably, there is no such concern when former high-ranking intelligence officials call for Edward Snowden to be hanged.
Brown, 31, is clearly unhinged in making such a statement. He is already being denounced for the tweet. However, my concern is with the continued action of the Secret Service in interviewing critics of this and past presidents. These visits bring an obvious threat to critics that any statement deemed threatening could result in their arrest.
Black later responded to the controversy and noted that no one seems to have a problem with citizens being vaporized by Obama without a trial or even criminal charge:
The Secret Service continues to confront anyone who expresses hurtful thoughts about a president, including common expressions like wishing a president would just die or be killed. These field interviews are conducted under 18 U.S.C. § 871:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
The position of the Secret Service is that any drawing or comments can theoretically be a “threat” and has to be investigated. The result is that children are pulled out of classes or cartoonists are asked to explain a piece depicting a president in a bull eye image. It is the same lack of judgment or discretion that we have seen with zero tolerance rules in schools. However, this practice has a direct chilling effect on political speech.
As for Black, voters will judge his candidacy by such statements. Ironically, on his website, he offers himself as a new approach to reaching voters:
Republicans have a serious communication problem. Everything we say sounds like spears. We find ways to energize our core supporters, the people who will always only ever vote Republican, but we have a hard time explaining to anyone else why they should listen to our solutions.
Of course, this was a rope not a spear.
This is the sort of situation that creates mixed emotions in me. Mr. Black accused the President of treason. His statement reflects that he doesn’t know what treason is, but ignorant speech is protected under the Constitution. The addition of the opinion that the President should be tried and hanged for his alleged crimes cannot reasonably be construed as a “threat” within the meaning of the statute. Therefore, I believe that his entire statement is protected speech. That being said, Mr. Black’s comments are also intended to reach as many people as possible in order to attract support for his candidacy. So there is legitimate concern that his views might appeal to those who are literally unhinged. Should the Secret Service under such circumstances at least interview the speaker? I do not think so, but I can understand the reasoning of those who believe that the Secret Service should air on the side of caution.
We will be hearing more from Mr. Black since he is running for office based upon a platform of running the government in accordance with his fundamentalist vision of biblical truth. Just what we need here in Florida. Another half-educated theocrat.
Personally, I am very, very glad the Secret Service investigates any and all such calls for harming our President whomever he or she happens to be. And that they are very good at their jobs. Especially when there is a political/media establishment (GOP/FOX) who have been stirring up homicidal anger amongst their minions against the current President based on complete lies and utter fabrications.
Remember Jim David Adkisson? He killed people at a Unitarian Church because he’d been told that “Liberals are trying to destroy America.” Now Ailes, Murdoch, and this Joshua Black guy are telling people that Obama is bent on destroying America. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest they shouldn’t say anything resembling “he needs killin’,” because weak-minded guys like Adkisson with anger issues might take them seriously?
I don’t see where the Secret Service had any other choice but to investigate, god help them if they didn’t and the threat turned out to be real not just a local loonie.
The Secret Service agents have a duty to make sure that any possible threat is investigated. I would agree that this idiot’s comments could easily be considered a threat. He should have been investigated. Do you want them to investigate after the threat has been carried out?
I don’t believe that any state kills humans by hanging. Therefore he was alluding to a Klan like trial and a Klan like execution. None dare call it murder.
I know some former Secret Service agents. You need to understand the bureaucratic CYA philosophy. They investigate all threats in many cases just to be able to say they did. It’s hard to understand just how many threats come in and I’m certain w/ a black prez, they’re very high. More threats investigated, bigger budget. That is also integral to bureaucratic philosophy.
Then again, some would say maybe this guy was investigated because angry black men make white folk uncomfortable. Just sayn’.
One can’t be allowed to condone and/or foster uprising against the offices of Presidency of the United States. Especially threats of violence made public that can be construed by one of less than sound mind, as a public outcry/ beckoning for actions.
That being said, we can always call to the public’s attention any issue, policy and/ or action of our elected officials that are unjust and/or illegal.
From Ted Nugent to this politico;
examples should be made against these insurrectionists.
(Odd left a comment with one click but it didn’t go thru)
To try and tie together threats against Snowden and the president as being equal is illogical. They are not and the professor knows this.
(I recall a Golden Girls episode where they were ‘investigated’ for some sort of “threat” they made. “The Golden Girls: Season 5, Episode 26
The President’s Coming! The President’s Coming! Part 2 (5 May 1990)
A Secret Service agent comes to the house to make sure none of the girls pose a threat to the President’s security..” http://www.tvmuse.com/tv-shows/The-Golden-Girls_305/season_5/episode_25/
This sounds like he’s upset with Obama….. Now why didn’t they charge him with hate speech…. And being racist….. Theft privilege thing and all…. Oh yeah…. They have the same kinda skin color…… It does make a difference….
Snowden threats don’t get investigated because he is not under Secret Service protection, the President is, and this country has a long history with people killing them. Plenty of actually outrageous things going on than this dope losing a half hour of his time to make sure he isn’t as unhinged as we all know him to be.
One more thing.
I have no ill will for either administration.
I just want the rule of law. And for justice to be blind.
I don’t condone any illegality.
But what are the penalties, if convicted, for this administration being complicit in torture, and the prior administration in ordering it?
It is past time.
Maybe he could plead out to the lesser included offence of biatch slappin’ …
“unhinged” is very kind. The man is Moon Howling, Bat-Shit,insane asylum crazy.
Investigated as an actual threat, yes; for a crime, no. OS, just shows that the higher ups don’t trust the lowly field agents with any discretion in carrying out their duties,
I believe it was a Facebook post, not Twitter. You can’t write a comment that long on Twitter and it has the Facebook layout.
Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.
When I was the psychologist for the Maximum Security Unit at the state hospital, we had a couple of patients who had written threatening letters to the White House.
Any time the incumbent President came to town for any reason, the Secret Service would show up at our doorstep. They would not take our word for it that we had these guys safely locked up. The agents had to come in and actually look at them, comparing them to photographs in their file folders. They also made it clear that the staff was not to give these patients passes to the outside as long as the President was in the area. Not that we would have, because they would not be locked up in a maximum security unit if they were safe to be turned loose.
As you point out, we increasingly have two sets of laws – one for the mighty and one for the rest of us.
“Mighty” can also be those who think like the Washington insiders – witness the disparate application of gun laws in Washington.