Secret Service Concerned Over Comic in LA Times

[p0ink]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN JULY 20, 2003 20:15:27 ET XXXXX

SECRET SERVICE CONCERN AFTER LOS ANGELES TIMES COMIC DEPICTS 'BUSH ASSASSINATION'

A LOS ANGELES TIMES comic Sunday that graphically showed President Bush being held at direct gun-point has raised concerns within the Secret Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The shock cartoon by the paper's Michael Ramirez depicts the president's hands behind his back with a gun to his head -- assassination style -- as an unidentified man wearing a vest which reads "politics" appears ready to pull the trigger!

"We take all images such as this very seriously," a top secret service source who requested anonymity said from Washington. "Regardless of the politics behind any speech, images of the president, such as this, raise concern."

The sketch appears to be a take-off of a Pulitzer prize winning photo that memorialized the Vietnam war for the 60s Generation. It attempts to make the point that partisan politics are more of a threat to Bush than guerilla war.

"The world's first political 'snuff' cartoon... there's a viciousness to this, that's just not funny," noted one White House reporter.

Ramirez did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Developing...

 

[p0ink]

i dont care what party affiliation a president has, a main stream newspaper should not be running this sort of shit.

 

[casavant]

I can't believe the L.A. Times printed that.

 

[p0ink]

yeah, i would expect this kind of cartoon in 'the independant', not a mainstreams news paper.

 

[from zero]

What the hell, that kind of shit should not be printed. I don't find it funny in the least.

 

[FISHTALES]

nothing wrong with it

 

[chesty]

I can see how the cartoon could be misinterpreted, but it should not have made it to print. The LA Times is California's Provda.

 

[2Thick]

People that have a problem with this cartoon are seriously intellectually retarded.

You guys have no idea what that cartoon symbolizes.

 

[Imakarum_Mirabilis]

Dude, we are not the same person.

It seems many have missed the historical connotations of the cartoon.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

People that have a problem with this cartoon are seriously intellectually retarded.

You guys have no idea what that cartoon symbolizes.

So I take it then that Imakarum_Mirabilis is a genius?

I see the cartoon as a grey area! It just depends on who is making the decisions!

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

Dude, we are not the same person.

It seems many have missed the historical connotations of the cartoon.

I know I am not you but you are him! It's just to easy! Even when you tried to hide your style your aragence always comes through! Besides you leave a electronic trail in whatever form you may appear in! All in good fun!


Politics, assassination style blah blah! I get it!

 

[2Thick]

So I take it then that Imakarum_Mirabilis is a genius?

I see the cartoon as a grey area! It just depends on who is making the decisions!

It is only grey to a person with a 100 IQ.

The measure of a nation's liberty is directly correlated to the freedom of the press. When there is heat on an artist for an expression of emotion, then you know that fascism is gnawing at the soft underbelly of the formerly free USA.

 

[2Thick]

I know I am not you but you are him! It's just to easy! Even when you tried to hide your style your aragence always comes through! Besides you leave a electronic trail in whatever form you may appear in! All in good fun!


Politics, assassination style blah blah! I get it!

You seem to have a hard head. I only post as 2Thick on this board. Period.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

It is only grey to a person with a 100 IQ.

The measure of a nation's liberty is directly correlated to the freedom of the press. When there is heat on an artist for an expression of emotion, then you know that fascism is gnawing at the soft underbelly of the formerly free USA.

Understood but I was not talking about myself personally! I was projecting in what they see! Whoever is in power makes the final decision! How they interpet it is what is right or wrong in their minds! Might is Right even when it is wrong!

 

[2Thick]

Might is Right even when it is wrong!

100% right, my paranoid friend.

 

[makedah]

And why is the Secret Service upset? Are they thinking that the cartoonist is going to try to shoot Bush?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

I am skitzophrenic........

SO AM I !!!

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

You seem to have a hard head. I only post as 2Thick on this board. Period.

Penis or Brain? Thanks for the info Cornholio!

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

I am skitzophrenic........

SO AM I !!!

lol

Stop That!

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

And why is the Secret Service upset? Are they thinking that the cartoonist is going to try to shoot Bush?

Anything is possible! Who would have thought Kobe would have banged or possibly raped a Fugly White Chick!

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

100% right, my paranoid friend.

I'm not paranoid at all! I just play one on TV! Just as you are not really "Dooooomed!"-2Thick

 

[DeepZenPill]

The measure of a nation's liberty is directly correlated to the freedom of the press. When there is heat on an artist for an expression of emotion, then you know that fascism is gnawing at the soft underbelly of the formerly free USA.

Was it printed? Yes. There we have our freedom of the press. Now everyone also has free speech to disagree with it. There is no such thing as free speech without consequences. Everyone is liable for what they say/do. If the artist didn't think there would be any misinterpretation, then that's his own ignorance showing.

Also, how far can free speech go before it tramples all over someone elses freedom? The cartoon alludes to assassination. Of course it is symbolic; nevertheless, it can be threatening to the president. As long as it can be seen as a threat, the cartoon is infringing on its subject's own personal freedom.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Hey what's going on ?

Not much, you ?

Not much, what you up to ?

Oh, not too much, you ?

Same, not a whole lot !

So, what's new with you ?

Oh, nothing, what about you ?

Oh, not much, just same old !

So, what's going on ?

Oh, you know not much......

 

[DeepZenPill]

And why is the Secret Service upset? Are they thinking that the cartoonist is going to try to shoot Bush?

Probably not, I'll be some nutcase out there takes it as inspiration. Shit, how many murders resulted from some whackos listening to Helter Skelter? That song has nothing to do with killing, yet people completely misinterpret it. The cartoon offers much more room for misinterpretation.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Was it printed? Yes. There we have our freedom of the press. Now everyone also has free speech to disagree with it. There is no such thing as free speech without consequences. Everyone is liable for what they say/do. If the artist didn't think there would be any misinterpretation, then that's his own ignorance showing.

Also, how far can free speech go before it tramples all over someone elses freedom? The cartoon alludes to assassination. Of course it is symbolic; nevertheless, it can be threatening to the president. As long as it can be seen as a threat, the cartoon is infringing on its subject's own personal freedom.

When did you first start arguing with yourself ? How often do experience these symptoms ?

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

Hey what's going on ?

Not much, you ?

Not much, what you up to ?

Oh, not too much, you ?

Same, not a whole lot !

So, what's new with you ?

Oh, nothing, what about you ?

Oh, not much, just same old !

So, what's going on ?

Oh, you know not much......

We got a bleeder! Medic!

 

[2Thick]

Was it printed? Yes. There we have our freedom of the press. Now everyone also has free speech to disagree with it. There is no such thing as free speech without consequences. Everyone is liable for what they say/do. If the artist didn't think there would be any misinterpretation, then that's his own ignorance showing.

Did you read my post? It is about the heat he is getting about the cartoon. You know, the type of heat that scares others from doing the same thing. I hope that you are just naive and not that stupid.

Also, how far can free speech go before it tramples all over someone elses freedom? The cartoon alludes to assassination. Of course it is symbolic; nevertheless, it can be threatening to the president. As long as it can be seen as a threat, the cartoon is infringing on its subject's own personal freedom.

If you think that this is seriously about assassination then you should go back to your beer and football game because this is all over your head.

 

[makedah]

Probably not, I'll be some nutcase out there takes it as inspiration. Shit, how many murders resulted from some whackos listening to Helter Skelter? That song has nothing to do with killing, yet people completely misinterpret it. The cartoon offers much more room for misinterpretation.

Well, I'm glad that laws limiting free speech require a higher standard than "what might set off the nutcases." A "nutcase" needs little more than the voices in his/her own head for inspiration.

 

[Robert Jan]

Patriotism and free speech dont go together and neither does free speech and mainstream.

 

[WODIN]

To me the cartoon symbolizes bush shooting himself in the head with Iraq turning into his Vietnam.

 

[chesty]

That may be the case Wodin, and I tend to agree that Iraq could turn into our second Vietnam.

However, it is against the law to suggest, state or depict the President of the United States being killed or threatened. The secret service is doing their job and checking out the dude. They do this a 1000 times a day, but most of us never hear about it.

This their job, and given the few assassinations and attempt that have actually occured, I say they are doing an excellent job for shit pay.

As for free speech being a measure of a country's freedom, does that alleviate one from being responsible for his/her free speech? No, and I think overall the US is still a place where speech is free as long as you are responsible with it.

Hell, Quebec has language police! Now tell me that there is free speech there!

 

[makedah]

Depicting our president being assassinated in a story or a sketch or a cartoon is just wrong. Whatever the hell happened to patriotism? Our newspapers are now showing depictions of our president getting shot in the head? WTF?

Free speech my ass. Newspapers have the right to show The Pope getting anally raped by a big hairy black man. Does it make it right for them to do that?

There's no such thing as free speech. Say microsoft software sucks and crashes in a newspaper and they'll sue you for slander.

-= nav =-

supernav - Journalists don't consider themselves to be in the business of being blindly patriotic (although some would charge them with that very same thing!). At its best, the press is where we critique and investigate our government (and other social institutions), not just cheer it on.

If a newspaper or magazine prints something that is defamatory, then they can get sued for libel (not slander). But there are legal limits to what is considered libelous because of the importance of freedom of the press. That includes a higher standard of proof of libel if a suit is brought by a public figure.

Papers critique software (and music, film, television, and plays) all the time. Such criticism is protected as "fair comment."

 

[Bullit]

What the hell, that kind of shit should not be printed. I don't find it funny in the least.

Yeah ... FUCK FREEDOM OF SPEECH

FUCK FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

 

[Imakarum_Mirabilis]

lol

Dcup, you're wrong.

 

[2Thick]

If i put out a video that shows the president being killed, how to do it, step by step instructions, etc. I'll probably get arrested.

So where's my free speech?

Is my video different just because i have spoken words with the descriptions as opposed to just the visual description in the cartoon?

-= nav =-

If you had a brain, you would know the answer to your silly question.

 

[Lift Chief]

supernav - Journalists don't consider themselves to be in the business of being blindly patriotic (although some would charge them with that very same thing!). At its best, the press is where we critique and investigate our government (and other social institutions), not just cheer it on.

If a newspaper or magazine prints something that is defamatory, then they can get sued for libel (not slander). But there are legal limits to what is considered libelous because of the importance of freedom of the press. That includes a higher standard of proof of libel if a suit is brought by a public figure.

Papers critique software (and music, film, television, and plays) all the time. Such criticism is protected as "fair comment."

Well said.

 

[2Thick]

>you would know the answer to your silly question.

Exactly. And the SS can claim that newspapers depicting such an act, could give ideas to sickos across the country to do such a thing. Same reason why we don't allow *any* remote resemblence to child rape even in art. Cuz some wackos get "ideas" or encouragement from it and take it the wrong way.

A sicko wondering who to kill next, or a pissed off retard wanting to kill himself and others, can see that cartoon and go "hmmm". Now u got a ticking timebomb.

-= nav =-

So we should not have any art of anything that might set of a psycho. So we should have no violence in our society because it might set off some psycho? You sound like you want to live under a dictatorship, not a free society.

 

[DeepZenPill]

Did you read my post? It is about the heat he is getting about the cartoon. You know, the type of heat that scares others from doing the same thing. I hope that you are just naive and not that stupid.



If you think that this is seriously about assassination then you should go back to your beer and football game because this is all over your head.

I read your post. Did you read the article? The artist is not being reprimanded. People can disagree and express disapproval. I don't know why people don't understand that free speech can go both ways. If the Secret Service tried to take further action, I would completely agree with you. Instead they expressed concern over it. I sure hope they would express concern for the President's safety. I am neither naive or stupid, thank you very much. When I see the government trampling on our rights I'm all over it like stink on a monkey, but there is an overreaction on both sides of this issue. As of yet it is not a big deal. Don't read more into it than is really there.

I stated that I knew the symbolism behind the cartoon, but are you and I average Americans? Did you read MY post?

 

[Frackal]

Though perhaps inappropriate, it is gratifying that we live in a country where you can distribute something like that without being shot.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

The LA Times has every right to print that cartoon and I have every right to never ever buy another one of their newspapers. I live in Arizona and I found the Arizona Republic to be particularly annoying in its views and cancelled my subscription.

Do I agree with the message the cartoon is trying to purvey? YES... Politics is more of a threat to Bush than terrorism.

Do I agree with having a picture of our president with a gun to his head? NO... It is tasteless and crude. Even if it was Clinton or Gore I would feel the same... (Now if it was Hillary that would be a different story).