If you believe that someone who believes that someone needs to be institutionalized for twisting a fictional hypothetical situation into a death threat needs to be institutionalized, then you need to be institutionalized, and anyone who disagrees with that needs to be institutionalized too, plus anybody who responds to this message, so neener-neener.
One would hope so, because on the face of it a "reasonable person" could not possibly interpret "the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault."
It's not like this was new, only the reaction. Lo these many decades ago, a friend wrote a similar paper on the topic of how to improve the human gene pool, for biology class. The paper was then openly discussed, talking about criteria for selecting the victims, etc.
A good lession in natural selection and evolution. Wait, are we still allowed to talk about evolution?
You have it exactly, executive orders going back several administrations.
I don't know exactly, maybe it was just that Dubya did not "reaffirm" the ban. Do EOs expire if not reaffirmed, in effect allowing Dubya to engage in political assassination without the EO paper trail?
That is just war. While I find assassination of world leaders reprehensible, it might be preferable to spending hundreds of billions of US taxpayer's hard earned dollars (and the deaths and disruption of thousands of US citizen's lives) on Dubya's Iraq mess.
I think Dubya gave specific orders for the military to target and try and kill Saddam. Bin Laden is simply a terrorist leader and not the leader of a nation.
The question was, is not Dubya's policy on assassinations a more serious offence than the civics paper written by the 14 year old girl?
That depends on which type of "go", that You are referring to. On a related note, A very popular local spaghetti restuerant, goes by the name of Vince's.
Why, no. He is the duly elected leader following the rules of the Constitution. She is not, and she is violating a law that was put in place under the same rules of the Constitution.
If you cannot understand that difference, perhaps you should be the one taking the civics class.
Without exception zero tolerance ends up resulting in zero rational thought on the part of those set to administer the policy. What a waste for everyone involved.
Sorry, your "well known fact" scares the daylights out of me. I guess my last word on the subject will be that if your code of conduct is so subjective that someone can read a threat into the gal's writing and successfully expell and prosecute her for it, I'm glad as hell that I can still afford to send my son to a private school that rewards critical thinking and creativity in both the staff and the students.
Because you're dealing with the mentality of teenagers -- and every time we have one of the 'Columbine' things (or more recently, the murder of Daniel Horowitz' wife by a 16-year-old 'goth'), we keep asking "why didn't someone recognize the SIGNS???"
Erego, as a matter of policy, such threats against the president are taken seriously (as in investigated and a determination of their seriousness made). It's the same thing as saying 'bomb' in an airplane, or do you not understand that one either?
I'm sorry, just where did you see that they have "successfully expelled" or even "prosecuted" her?
She was arrested. There will be a hearing today. The result of the hearing is unknown (since it hasn't occurred yet). There is not a single word that I could find in that article about her being expelled. Frankly, I would be horrified if she WASN'T at least suspended for some period of time.
I am also 100% against zero-tolerance -- but that's not what was applied in this case (if you read the article and the circumstances). I am 100% against what you appear to be preaching, which is "100% acceptance", where no matter WHAT someone does in a school they're just being 'creative' or 'thinking critically'.
David Erbas-White
P.S. I would point out that when the girl was asked why she did it, the response wasn't anything along the lines of "I was attempting to provoke thought in my civics class by providing an exaggerated, satirical, modern 'modest proposal'", it was more along the lines of "I dunno". That strikes me as closer to John Hinckley than Jonathan Swift.
But is it illegal to WISH you could kill the president? That is very different than actually making a threat.
I'm even less happy with laws that make it illegal for me to do something because of how someone else MIGHT abuse what I use in my activity. That should be unconstitutional. in fact, it *IS* unconstitutional, as it interferes with my "pursuit of happiness..."
He should then realize that he's made himself the target of those world leaders that the US may have targeted. Fair is fair.
Who was it who said that the world leaders shoudl fight their own wars, instead of having their countries young be the ones to die? W's national guard training should serve him well in a hand-to-hand with Osama or Sadaam. Or Jacques. But not Aahnald!
What makes you think he's not already a target? Also, would you prefer that creeps like the former Taliban leaders (or Saddam, or Khaddafy, etc) stick to killing random innocent civilians?
Some idiot, obviously. Bet it was in the 60's too. Maybe it came from the same drug-addled clod who thought up those "You can't hug children with nuclear arms" posters.
I should have kept my big mouth shut and my fingers firmly folded in the first place. As I remarked earlier, she's a clueless piece of work.
Calling me a fan of 100% acceptance is kind of a reach. I will, however, accept 100% of anything that is legal and doesn't actually harm someone else (this does not include shattered sensibilities or hurt feelings however). It doesn't have to be in good taste or even especially smart. This is the U.S. It's our $Diety given right to be flaming idiots as you and I are proving now with our respective exaggerations to make our points.
Ray, why the hell would you say that?? I have no clue who said it nor do I care but to be so combative just because you would disagree with a anonymous quote. My god man....settle down.
Um, because the "signs" are being interpreted subjectively and capriciously.
Ergo, and as a matter of policy, perhaps there ought to be an objective threat against the President, or anyone else for that matter, before you make an arrest. Sadly, I do understand that it is the same thing today as saying 'bomb' in an airplane. I understand the difference between saying 'bomb' and saying 'I have a bomb' as well, and I mourn the loss of good sense that has made the former probable cause for arrest and harassment.
But hey! If it only saves one life. . . Bah. If it only saved one life I might get behind it. What I can't get behind is saving only one set of hurt feelings and catering to irrational fears.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.