Facebook Poll: Should Obama be killed?

[Gnomesmusher]

http://pubrecord.org/nation/5574/secret-service-probing-facebook-asked/comment-page-1/

A Facebook poll that asked users to vote on whether they believed President Obama should be killed was removed Monday from the popular social networking website and is now the subject of an investigation by the Secret Service.

Blogger GottaLaff at The Political Carnival broke the story Sunday about the existence of the Facebook poll.

The poll, which was removed from Facebook Monday after GottaLaff and others contacted the Secret Service Sunday evening, is just the latest example of right-wing extremism aimed at Obama.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[borrofburi]

On the flip side, this can be seen as government fascism censoring free speech...

 

[Gnomesmusher]

On the flip side, this can be seen as government fascism censoring free speech...

Only to the right wing nut jobs who don't know what free speech covers and doesn't cover.

 

[borrofburi]

Only to the right wing nut jobs who don't know what free speech covers and doesn't cover.

And what do you think should be covered by free speech?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Free speech does not cover incitement to violence. The poll is clearly a veiled attempt.

 

[xman]

Free speech does not cover incitement to violence. The poll is clearly a veiled attempt.

yup, "Lynch 'im"! is a crime.

 

[borrofburi]

Free speech does not cover incitement to violence. The poll is clearly a veiled attempt.

Clearly? So you claim to know the intent behind it; I think this is flawed. More importantly, it has less to do with intent than it does to do with likelihood of results: is this facebook poll likely to result in assassination attempts? I think the argument for that is rather weak.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Why am I not surprised?

Because we post to the same threads, and we both know that right-wing assholes hate America?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Free speech does not cover incitement to violence. The poll is clearly a veiled attempt.

Clearly? So you claim to know the intent behind it; I think this is flawed. More importantly, it has less to do with intent than it does to do with likelihood of results: is this facebook poll likely to result in assassination attempts? I think the argument for that is rather weak.

Right. So we can never know intent so therefore it's okay? Even if I said I wanted to kill the president, how does one know my intent? Maybe I just wanted attention. You can't prosecute me because you don't know my true intent right?

Besides, the poll clearly included a "yes" option on the "Should Obama be killed". Is that direct enough for you? I'm all for free speech but this isn't covered by free speech.

Why am I not surprised?

Because we post to the same threads, and we both know that right-wing assholes hate America?

I would have thought everyone knew that.

 

[borrofburi]

Right. So we can never know intent so therefore it's okay? Even if I said I wanted to kill the president, how does one know my intent? Maybe I just wanted attention. You can't prosecute me because you don't know my true intent right?

It's actually for similar reasons that I reject "intent" as a way to limit free speech. Maybe the guy was curious to see how crazy facebook is, now the intent is perfectly fine, is this poll suddenly ok? No, because it's not intent that matters.

Besides, the poll clearly included a "yes" option on the "Should Obama be killed". Is that direct enough for you? I'm all for free speech but this isn't covered by free speech.

Saying Obama should be killed and saying you plan on killing Obama are two very different things, surely you can see that?

Show me the direct causal harm that this poll was causing (for that is the only reasonable place to draw the line).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I would have thought everyone knew that.

You must not watch TV or read the newspaper. The mainstream media insists on treating anti-American right-wing assholes as somehow equal to real people like you and me.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Right. So we can never know intent so therefore it's okay? Even if I said I wanted to kill the president, how does one know my intent? Maybe I just wanted attention. You can't prosecute me because you don't know my true intent right?

It's actually for similar reasons that I reject "intent" as a way to limit free speech. Maybe the guy was curious to see how crazy facebook is, now the intent is perfectly fine, is this poll suddenly ok? No, because it's not intent that matters.

Besides, the poll clearly included a "yes" option on the "Should Obama be killed". Is that direct enough for you? I'm all for free speech but this isn't covered by free speech.

Saying Obama should be killed and saying you plan on killing Obama are two very different things, surely you can see that?

Show me the direct causal harm that this poll was causing (for that is the only reasonable place to draw the line).

Sorry, asking for direct causal harm from speech to action is silly since we all know that it's pretty difficult to do even under the best circumstances. But when is phrasing a threat in the form of a question not a threat?

"Do you want to get your throat slit?"
"Want me to rape and kill your mother?"
"Shall I blow your kid's brains out?"

If I said any of those things to you, or anyone, I'm sure they'd feel plenty threatened. I understand about intent and all, but the point is to prevent incitement of physical violence. And since incitement and violence are emotional acts, there's really no logical consistent way to predict them. It's going to involve a judgement call. And the decision to yank this poll (which by the way Facebook themselves took down not the Secret Service) was based on the fact that there's a lot of anti Obama sentiment going on.

Believe me, I don't take censorship lightly but I feel the potential for violence (and this potential did not start from this one poll alone) and the need to stop it outweighs the freedom to put up this poll. But it's all moot, because as I said, Facebook took it down, not the government.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I would have thought everyone knew that.

You must not watch TV or read the newspaper. The mainstream media insists on treating anti-American right-wing assholes as somehow equal to real people like you and me.

Yeah I was being sarcastic. In fact I see too much of the news to see the spotlight on those nutjobs as though they were doing something good.

 

[borrofburi]

I would have thought everyone knew that.

You must not watch TV or read the newspaper. The mainstream media insists on treating anti-American right-wing assholes as somehow equal to real people like you and me.

They see me trollin'...

 

[borrofburi]

Sorry, asking for direct causal harm from speech to action is silly since we all know that it's pretty difficult to do even under the best circumstances. But when is phrasing a threat in the form of a question not a threat?

That's nice, but it doesn't serve to answer the specific question I asked: Saying Obama should be killed and saying you plan on killing Obama are two very different things, are they not? Are you seriously claiming that "should obama be killed" and "I plan on killing obama" are the same statements?

there's really no logical consistent way to predict them. It's going to involve a judgement call.

So basically, you'll know it when you see it right? My problem with this is that you won't be consistent: oh it's a like-minded individual, they're not trying to incite violence, they're just asking a question; oh it's one of them fucking america-hating republicans, it's clearly purposeful intent to start assassination attempts on obama.

It's exactly that bias I decry, and for that exact reason that I demand a consistent standard.

was based on the fact that there's a lot of anti Obama sentiment going on.

Which is precisely when we should be most wary of censorship: when the government is being criticized.

But it's all moot, because as I said, Facebook took it down, not the government.

In many ways yes, but you started off this thread claiming that free speech does not (implying should not) protect this, so we're not really debating whether or not the government was justified, but whether the government should have been justified. Moreover, that facebook took it down doesn't change anything other than that there is no legal protection, but the questions "was facebook justified, should facebook have done that?" remain.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

That's nice, but it doesn't serve to answer the specific question I asked: Saying Obama should be killed and saying you plan on killing Obama are two very different things, are they not? Are you seriously claiming that "should obama be killed" and "I plan on killing obama" are the same statements?

And you say that I didn't answer questions. I just gave you examples where putting a threat into a form of a question is still a threat. It's not always the case but I DID show you how it can be threatening yet you ignored the whole thing and claim that I didn't ask the question.

A direct claim and asking a threatening question obviously are not exactly the same but they can both still be threats. And the point of this censoring was to prevent the incitement of violence.

So basically, you'll know it when you see it right? My problem with this is that you won't be consistent: oh it's a like-minded individual, they're not trying to incite violence, they're just asking a question; oh it's one of them fucking america-hating republicans, it's clearly purposeful intent to start assassination attempts on obama.

It's exactly that bias I decry, and for that exact reason that I demand a consistent standard.

I'm not the one making the calls here. So your attempt at making me look biased is pointless not to mention petty. Language and intent is a tricky thing, there is no absolute logical and consistent standard. If you truly believe that there's a truly consistent standard then it means all speech including speech that promotes violence is okay because speech is always up to interpretation. Because any and all speech can be explained away to mean something else. It will always be a judgement call, which is why we have courts deciding these issues. Go look them up if you don't believe me.

was based on the fact that there's a lot of anti Obama sentiment going on.

Which is precisely when we should be most wary of censorship: when the government is being criticized.

But it's all moot, because as I said, Facebook took it down, not the government.

In many ways yes, but you started off this thread claiming that free speech does not (implying should not) protect this, so we're not really debating whether or not the government was justified, but whether the government should have been justified. Moreover, that facebook took it down doesn't change anything other than that there is no legal protection, but the questions "was facebook justified, should facebook have done that?" remain.

I say criticize and rail against government and anyone and anything all you want. I'm all for it. Just because I don't believe in inciting violence does not mean I'm for wholesale censorship.

And on a personal note, take a deep breath. I'm not the enemy so I don't understand the hostile tone. It's a mere disagreement and I could have very easily taken your side of this issue as well. It's a very fine line and I just barely took the other side of it. And with that I've said all that I want to say.

 

[Homunclus]

Meh...

I think this is being taken a bit to seriously. Ask if the president should be killed sounds more like a bad joke than an incitement to violence.

Seriously, people need to turn down their sensitivities down a few notches...

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Right. I'm the sensitive one even though I'm not the one upset about some facebook poll getting taken down. Sure it's a bad joke to some and even to me but there are nut jobs who take it seriously.

Anyway this is not a free speech issue anyway because Facebook took the poll down and not because the Secret Service told them to do so.

 

[borrofburi]

I'm not the one making the calls here

We're discussing whether or not the calls were justified, it doesn't really matter that you aren't the one making the calls, all that matters is that you support the decision.

So your attempt at making me look biased is pointless not to mention petty.

You misunderstand me, I was merely saying that we need a better standard than "because I said so", and gave an example of potential bias.

Language and intent is a tricky thing, there is no absolute logical and consistent standard.

I think the standard is fairly simple: harm, or clear potential/likelihood for harm to be caused. Does that require a judgment call? Maybe. I'd like to think we could start with only speech that does cause harm, and then statistically figure out what speech is likely to cause harm, but this might not be practical. Do I think the line of clear likelihood to cause harm is far away from a stupid joke of a facebook poll? Absolutely, I think it's far closer to "kill all them blacks" than "do you think obama should be killed?".

Does intent come into it? Not at all, if my intent is to show that certain words won't start a lynch mob and they do anyway, the fact is I caused the lynch mob, even if my intent wasn't to do so. I suppose it could come into sentencing, manslaughter and homicide carry different penalties for a reason, but the reason for prosecution is the same (someone was killed), so too intent could play into free speech cases but the reason for prosecution should remain the same (words were spoken that caused people to break stuff and hurt people).

And on a personal note, take a deep breath. I'm not the enemy so I don't understand the hostile tone.

Uh, I'm not using a hostile tone, so I don't understand the perceived hostility.

 

[Homunclus]

Right. I'm the sensitive one even though I'm not the one upset about some facebook poll getting taken down. Sure it's a bad joke to some and even to me but there are nut jobs who take it seriously.

Well, I was mostly talking about the secret service...I mean: they are looking up a facebook poll?

Forgive me, maybe the phase I went through a few years back of reading spy novels left me with a somewhat romanticized view of what a secret service should be...but still, don't they have anything, lets say...a little more relevant to do? :|