PDA

View Full Version : News: NYC - Police Shut Down Artist’s ‘Assassination’ Show



Jangang
06-04-2008, 21:48
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/police-shut-down-assassination-art-exhibition/

This morning, a Boston-born performance artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up a provocative art exhibition in a vacant storefront on West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan with the title, “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama,” in neatly stenciled letters on the plate glass windows at street level.

By 9:30 a.m., New York City police detectives and Secret Service agents had shut down the exhibition...

Kinda fucked if you ask me. Censorship anyone?

/Discus

Don JoHnson
06-04-2008, 21:52
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/police-shut-down-assassination-art-exhibition/

This morning, a Boston-born performance artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up a provocative art exhibition in a vacant storefront on West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan with the title, “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama,” in neatly stenciled letters on the plate glass windows at street level.

By 9:30 a.m., New York City police detectives and Secret Service agents had shut down the exhibition...

Kinda fucked if you ask me. Censorship anyone?

/Discus


yeah, and that in a country with freedom of speech ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3vSgJNj_c0
unbelievable!

Milo Hobgoblin
06-04-2008, 21:53
Nope.. no problem at all. There are some things that should simply be tabboo for many reasons.

Shit like that is one of them.

Tharkon Fargor
06-04-2008, 21:54
Look at that damn video. Makes me disgusted! Not at the police, at the godamn students!

Why aren't they fighting it!

Good some students started screaming as hell in the end! Good job.

The police is sadly getting crazier and crazier missions nowdays, it's not their fault. But people need to say no.

Silverhandorder
06-04-2008, 21:54
Barack's site he set up was on so many levels of bad taste. I don't even like Obama but this guy is no artist.

shnedit
06-04-2008, 21:55
yeah, and that in a country with freedom of speech ...


lol censorship

why did they shut this down, i fail to grasp the reasons?

Jezrith
06-04-2008, 21:56
Nope.. no problem at all. There are some things that should simply be tabboo for many reasons.

Shit like that is one of them.

Of course there is a problem, its a violation of free speech. This guy is going to trounce NYC and the S.S. in a law suit, can't wait!

Gaal
06-04-2008, 21:56
Lulz, character assassination. HOLY FUCK!! look at baracks site thats some funny shit.

Red Morgan
06-04-2008, 21:57
This is the same city that was going to ban artwork that could be deemed "anti-catholic", so I'm not surprised about this.

Matriel
06-04-2008, 21:58
Of course there is a problem, its a violation of free speech. This guy is going to trounce NYC and the S.S. in a law suit, can't wait!

NYC certainly seems to have a hoppy out of passing lawsuit costs on to its taxpayers.

Milo Hobgoblin
06-04-2008, 21:58
lol censorship

why did they shut this down, i fail to grasp the reasons?

*sigh*

because the Secret Service has to investigate ALL threats, no matter how seemingly insignificant to high level politicians including ex presidents, senators and their spouses.



and the reason is.. that many of these people receive countless threats and the amount of taxpayer money spent on investigations is redonculous.. the only way to minimize this is by having a zero tolerance policy for this kind of shit.


you dont fucking joke around, make art or any other stupid shit referencing the assisination of public officials. period.

The Cougar
06-04-2008, 21:59
Nope.. no problem at all. There are some things that should simply be tabboo for many reasons.

Shit like that is one of them.
Lol. (You're joking, right?)

Oh, you weren't. Basically you're saying you'd rather like your freedom of speech to get restricted if it means less secret service investigations!

Don JoHnson
06-04-2008, 22:00
*sigh*

because the Secret Service has to investigate ALL threats, no matter how seemingly insignificant to high level politicians including ex presidents, senators and their spouses.



and the reason is.. that many of these people receive countless threats and the amount of taxpayer money spent on investigations is redonculous.. the only way to minimize this is by having a zero tolerance policy for this kind of shit.


you dont fucking joke around, make art or any other stupid shit referencing the assisination of public officials. period.


Yes thats right! Freedom of speech ends when the secret service has to work more! Dont you dare!

Gaal
06-04-2008, 22:01
*sigh*

because the Secret Service has to investigate ALL threats, no matter how seemingly insignificant to high level politicians including ex presidents, senators and their spouses.



and the reason is.. that many of these people receive countless threats and the amount of taxpayer money spent on investigations is redonculous.. the only way to minimize this is by having a zero tolerance policy for this kind of shit.


you dont fucking joke around, make art or any other stupid shit referencing the assisination of public officials. period.


You're an idiot. No one was making threats. It was CHARACTER assassination.

shnedit
06-04-2008, 22:01
because the Secret Service has to investigate ALL threats, no matter how seemingly insignificant to high level politicians including ex presidents, senators and their spouses.



surely when they turned up they could have seen it was no threat and left the sad act alone?

Jangang
06-04-2008, 22:01
*sigh*

because the Secret Service has to investigate ALL threats, no matter how seemingly insignificant to high level politicians including ex presidents, senators and their spouses.



and the reason is.. that many of these people receive countless threats and the amount of taxpayer money spent on investigations is redonculous.. the only way to minimize this is by having a zero tolerance policy for this kind of shit.


you dont fucking joke around, make art or any other stupid shit referencing the assisination of public officials. period.

Sorry but that is just stupid. Both the statement, and the opinion that brings such a ridiculous statement.

We have a little thing called the FIRST AMENDMENT that guarantees our right to say anything we like. Art is just another form of speech, and the fact that some don't like what it says is not justification to shut it down.

If they wanted to question him that is great... The moment they covered his words though they had themselves broken the law, and violated his rights.

Dronagok
06-04-2008, 22:03
Hello i am from the secret service this thread is now shut down and you will be visited by officials very soon.:D

Lotharr
06-04-2008, 22:03
This thread somehow reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY

Silverhandorder
06-04-2008, 22:03
I have a really hard time defending this guy... Then again many things I say gets dems in NYC to go foaming at the mouth.

Pumpkin
06-04-2008, 22:03
yeah, and that in a country with freedom of speech ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3vSgJNj_c0
unbelievable!

Don't tase me bro!

Ragnika
06-04-2008, 22:04
This is pathetic.

The art displayed on the websites looks rad too! It's a shame he couldn't show his work.

EDIT: In that building for those two days that is.

Jezrith
06-04-2008, 22:04
because the Secret Service has to investigate ALL threats, no matter how seemingly insignificant to high level politicians including ex presidents, senators and their spouses.


Of course, and if all they did was just investigate it I would agree with you. But they did way more than just investigate, they had the exhibit shut down. Fucking communists if you ask me.



and the reason is.. that many of these people receive countless threats and the amount of taxpayer money spent on investigations is redonculous.. the only way to minimize this is by having a zero tolerance policy for this kind of shit.


I don't care how much it costs taxes payers, the right to free speech is more important than any politicians life, its more important than even my own life.



you dont fucking joke around, make art or any other stupid shit referencing the assisination of public officials. period.

Oh yes! How could we ever think to do such a thing to these demigods! Put people up on a pedestal much?

shnedit
06-04-2008, 22:05
This thread somehow reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY

not seen that before lol , pretty funny.

Jezrith
06-04-2008, 22:06
surely when they turned up they could have seen it was no threat and left the sad act alone?

Yup, its called political parody, a very well known and protected form of free speech.

The guy is gonna get one hell of a court ordered pay day because of these idiots.

Dronagok
06-04-2008, 22:09
To the tazed student that was fucking bullshit. He didnt do anything wrong and if i was there and saw those cops taze him i would of fucking ran on the cops and gone after them. Sure he was resisting arrest but they had no right to arrest him in the first place.

Tharkon Fargor
06-04-2008, 22:15
To the tazed student that was fucking bullshit. He didnt do anything wrong and if i was there and saw those cops taze him i would of fucking ran on the cops and gone after them. Sure he was resisting arrest but they had no right to arrest him in the first place.

I saw some sick shit on that TV show "Cops"...
Some woman got arrested and she resisted because they had no right to arrest her.

Later they arrested her only on charges of resisting arrest.
So sick :bang:

Daccus
06-04-2008, 22:18
We have a little thing called the FIRST AMENDMENT that guarantees our right to say anything we like. Art is just another form of speech, and the fact that some don't like what it says is not justification to shut it down.



The first amendment isn't unconditional, you're not allowed to say absolutely anything you want. Send in a bomb thread or shout fire in a crowded area and you'll see that you're not allowed to say certain things.

If you post shit like that you can expect this type of shit to happen.

Gloomrender
06-04-2008, 22:22
"I thought this was America!?!?!?!"

Nasty
06-04-2008, 22:24
BOOM instant fame. I think he succeeded imo.

Jangang
06-04-2008, 22:29
The first amendment isn't unconditional, you're not allowed to say absolutely anything you want. Send in a bomb thread or shout fire in a crowded area and you'll see that you're not allowed to say certain things.

If you post shit like that you can expect this type of shit to happen.

Well Mr. Know it all, Since he DID NOT yell FIRE in a crowded area, OR send a bomb threat, OR ANYTHING OF THE LIKE, that doesn't really apply here now does it.

What he did was setup an art display that some people didn't like... They called the cops, and rather then simply investigate as they should have they took it upon themselves to shut down the exhibit.

The enforcers of the law broke the law in that A, the man had done nothing illegal, and B, what he had done was in fact PROTECTED by the law.

Milo Hobgoblin
06-04-2008, 22:29
Look.. I was simply giving you guys the explanation why it was shut down..

you can hate it all you want, but as of right now.. THATS the way it is.. dont blame me .. I didnt write the fucking policy..

you all act like I was one of the SS at the scene. Ive just been through enough investigations to know how those drones think.

Gloomrender
06-04-2008, 22:36
Conspiracy to commit an assassination is illegal, no?

Jezrith
06-04-2008, 22:43
Conspiracy to commit an assassination is illegal, no?

If there is an actual conspiracy to commit an assassination, yes.



"I thought this was America!?!?!?!"


It is, which is why he will win the case when it goes to court.

Gaal
06-04-2008, 22:43
Conspiracy to commit an assassination is illegal, no?

Did you even read the article or are you just stupid?

Gloomrender
06-04-2008, 22:48
Did you even read the article or are you just stupid?

Did you?

Gloomrender
06-04-2008, 22:54
If there is an actual conspiracy to commit an assassination, yes.

Well that needs to be determined, and if there's a possible threat in the meantime, that possibility needs to be dealt with. If someone made an exhibit "Blowing up US airliner", I think it would be shut down and investigated too.

I'm not taking either side here btw, I'm just giving a reasonable viewpoint from the perspective of authorities, which I think is about equal in validity to those who cry "free speech!" in this case. Lots of gray here, imo.

Elemancer
06-04-2008, 22:54
The giant penis might be how he'll get perma-banned

gotta love the pornography laws in this country/states

Also, if'n I'm not mistaken free speech is really only granted at the federal level, not the state level via the US constitution, unless that state has a clear line...think each state actually uniformly did not adopt the wording that is the first amendment... God Bless lawyers/law makers.

Elemancer
06-04-2008, 22:55
Well that needs to be determined, and if there's a possible threat in the meantime, that possibility needs to be dealt with. If someone made an exhibit "Blowing up US airliner", I think it would be shut down and investigated too.

I'm not taking either side here btw, I'm just giving a reasonable viewpoint from the perspective of authorities, which I think is about equal in validity to those who cry "free speech!" in this case. Lots of gray here, imo.

Because you said the above, I'm reporting you...you never know, you could be guilty by mere mention...I would request time from work so the FBI may investigate you, and you'll get paid. Good luck, and god bless.

Gloomrender
06-04-2008, 23:03
Because you said the above, I'm reporting you...you never know, you could be guilty by mere mention...I would request time from work so the FBI may investigate you, and you'll get paid. Good luck, and god bless.

I didn't promote, propose, or plan to doing anything illegal, you idiot. Whereas that's questionable with this guy.

Elemancer
06-04-2008, 23:11
I didn't promote, propose, or plan to doing anything illegal, you idiot. Whereas that's questionable with this guy.

You did mention the proposal of an illegal act...what you're saying is simply word smithing...

Seriously, he didn't promote, propose, or plan the killing of said officials, it's simply the phrase posted on a window, that was their proof. Say I simply send in your post excerpting the words around it...or you simply posted "Blowing up US airliner."

I'm saying it's a little ridiculous...it would likened to if I were to wear a t-shirt that said "Terrorist."

Granted I would expect to get harassed a little, but I wouldn't expect to get halled off for it.

Jangang
06-04-2008, 23:12
I didn't promote, propose, or plan to doing anything illegal, you idiot. Whereas that's questionable with this guy.

Neither did he...

Whether something is questionable is irrelevant, though I'd argue against even that as a few words on a window do not a crime make... We are not innocent until someone questions our motives... We are innocent until proven guilty.

Kaorn
06-04-2008, 23:12
I don't know, police shouldn't have to worry about many false threats when there are real ones too, kind of like prank calling 911

Not that Hillary/Obama being shot is bad.

Daccus
06-04-2008, 23:17
Well Mr. Know it all, Since he DID NOT yell FIRE in a crowded area, OR send a bomb threat, OR ANYTHING OF THE LIKE, that doesn't really apply here now does it.

What he did was setup an art display that some people didn't like... They called the cops, and rather then simply investigate as they should have they took it upon themselves to shut down the exhibit.

The enforcers of the law broke the law in that A, the man had done nothing illegal, and B, what he had done was in fact PROTECTED by the law.

I think you need to reread the entire article.

First off, it wasn't shut down, it was put on hold. The enforcers didn't break the law at all, they detained a man for questioning involving the assassination of two federal employees who are BOTH protected by the secret service.

No, he didn't say anything about setting fires or bombing anything, what he did was post "The assassination of Barrack/Hillary." Which could be construed as a threat, so the secret service investigated the threat.


Mr. Kelly was also asked why the artist would be questioned at all. “Why would we question him?” he responded. “Well, we want to determine what his motives are. Obviously they could be interpreted as advocating harm to protectees; both of the senators, of course, are now being provided Secret Service protection, that’s why the Secret Service was interested; both of them are federal employees, so, ah, of course it is a concern to federal authorities as it is to ourselves. Our lawyers are researching it and will determine if there are any violations of law; right now he is being questioned.”

The guy was already released and chances are he'll have his stupid little "art" exhibit back up. If he chooses.

Acrylic_300
06-04-2008, 23:25
You're an idiot. No one was making threats. It was CHARACTER assassination.

It probably breached some kind of zoning law. Not every neighborhood allows stupid shit. A vacant building is not a good place to set something like this up.

If someone put something like that up around my block I would shoot them myself.

Gloomrender
06-04-2008, 23:37
You did mention the proposal of an illegal act...what you're saying is simply word smithing...

Mentioning that someone else proposed an illegal action is not proposing an illegal action.


Seriously, he didn't promote, propose, or plan the killing of said officials, it's simply the phrase posted on a window, that was their proof.

Putting up a huge sign saying "Assassinate the president", is promotion. I know he didn't say that exactly, but what he put up was quite ambiguous; and could easily be taken that way. That's why I think this whole case is in the gray...It's understandable that they didn't take any chances, yet legally/constitutionally blurry, as to whether this man was actually in his rights to do what he did, or the authorities to have shut it down.



you simply posted "Blowing up US airliner."

If you made a thread saying you were going to blow up a US airliner, or that blowing up a US airliner is a good idea, then I wouldn't feel bad for you if you got investigated.


I'm saying it's a little ridiculous...it would likened to if I were to wear a t-shirt that said "Terrorist."

I wouldn't. A T-shirt isn't a huge public exhibit. But if you were to wear a T-shirt saying terrorist, I'd say that's pretty stupid, yet within your rights. If someone wore it very near to officials/landmarks/likely terrorist targets, then I wouldn't be surprised nor sympathetic to that person being at least questioned about it...

Jangang
06-05-2008, 00:00
I think you need to reread the entire article.

First off, it wasn't shut down, it was put on hold. The enforcers didn't break the law at all, they detained a man for questioning involving the assassination of two federal employees who are BOTH protected by the secret service.

No, he didn't say anything about setting fires or bombing anything, what he did was post "The assassination of Barrack/Hillary." Which could be construed as a threat, so the secret service investigated the threat.

The moment they covered his display they broke the law, and violated his right to free speech. Hell I will go so far as to say that even if he did plan on an actual assassination that would have NO IMPACT on his right to free speech and to display what he had up.




The guy was already released and chances are he'll have his stupid little "art" exhibit back up. If he chooses.

Nor relevant in any way, shape, or form.

Next...

Jangang
06-05-2008, 00:05
Mentioning that someone else proposed an illegal action is not proposing an illegal action.

Putting up a huge sign saying "Assassinate the president", is promotion. I know he didn't say that exactly, but what he put up was quite ambiguous; and could easily be taken that way. That's why I think this whole case is in the gray...It's understandable that they didn't take any chances, yet legally/constitutionally blurry, as to whether this man was actually in his rights to do what he did, or the authorities to have shut it down.

The reason we have language, and rules for language is so people can READ what is said, and using said rules determine the meaning.

There is a difference between the words Assassinate, & Assassinating, and Assassination. That the cops, and SS chose to ignore the rules of language, does not at all redeem them for having broken the law, and violated the mans rights.

Gloomrender
06-05-2008, 00:11
The reason we have language, and rules for language is so people can READ what is said, and using said rules determine the meaning.

There is a difference between the words Assassinate, & Assassinating, and Assassination.

As I've said, the artists meaning was very ambiguous, and could not be so exactly understood one way, or another. That's why this is a gray area.

Jangang
06-05-2008, 00:46
I haven't disputed that... They had no right to cover his words though, regardless. Neither Police Officers, nor Secret Service Agents are qualified, nor authorized to make judgments. We have a judiciary for that.

If they had arrested him, it would have moved to said judiciary for judgment. Having not done so covering his speech is against the law, a clear violation of his right to free speech.

Daccus
06-05-2008, 00:48
The moment they covered his display they broke the law, and violated his right to free speech. Hell I will go so far as to say that even if he did plan on an actual assassination that would have NO IMPACT on his right to free speech and to display what he had up.


Nor relevant in any way, shape, or form.

Next...

You're still wrong.

The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment)

This CLEARLY falls under these guidelines: "may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence." After they investigated this guy and found that he wasn't planning on or asking anyone to assassinate Hillary or Obama, they let him go and allowed him his free speech. Now, if they still prohibit him from showing this "art" then it's a matter for the courts.

I'm not saying this shit was going to cause a breach of peace or cause violence, but since the authorities had no way of knowing what his intent was, they had every right granted by the Supreme Court to investigate this douche and find out what his motives were. Which they did.

Tharkon Fargor
06-05-2008, 00:52
These new sick laws being passed everywhere should not be upheld by any freedom caring citizen of any nation.

Jangang
06-05-2008, 00:53
You're still wrong.

The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment)

This CLEARLY falls under these guidelines: "may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence." After they investigated this guy and found that he wasn't planning on or asking anyone to assassinate Hillary or Obama, they let him go and allowed him his free speech. Now, if they still prohibit him from showing this "art" then it's a matter for the courts.

I'm not saying this shit was going to cause a breach of peace or cause violence, but since the authorities had no way of knowing what his intent was, they had every right granted by the Supreme Court to investigate this douche and find out what his motives were. Which they did.

Its not for the police to determine, if they think it might they should have arrested him, thus moving the case to the judiciary which exists to make such judgements. Having failed to arrest him (they only took him in for questioning) they had no right to cover his display. Having done so while simultaneously failing to move it to the judiciary they broke the law, and violated his rights.

Do you guys seriously not understand who does what, and who has authority to what?

This isn't Judge Dread, our Judges don't wear badges and our cops are not their to judge.

Gloomrender
06-05-2008, 00:55
I haven't disputed that... They had no right to cover his words though, regardless. Neither Police Officers, nor Secret Service Agents are qualified, nor authorized to make judgments. We have a judiciary for that.

They didn't make any judgments. They temporarily closed it, pending judgment. A judgment would have been permanent.


Having not done so covering his speech is against the law, a clear violation of his right to free speech.

Advertising illegal acts is against the law. Free speech does and has always had certain legal limitations.

Daccus
06-05-2008, 00:58
Its not for the police to determine, if they think it might they should have arrested him, thus moving the case to the judiciary which exists to make such judgements. Having failed to arrest him (they only took him in for questioning) they had no right to cover his display. Having done so while simultaneously failing to move it to the judiciary they broke the law, and violated his rights.

Do you guys seriously not understand who does what, and who has authority to what?

I understand it just fine, it's you who doesn't. If someone throws up a billboard urging everyone to riot in the streets or commit terrorist attacks, should the police be forced to go through drawn out litigation just to be able to cover up the billboard? Or should they be able to cover up the sign until they've investigated the situation? According to you, litigation is the route to take, according to the supreme court they can cover it up. Personally, I side with the supreme court, but that's just me.

mefistofelis
06-05-2008, 01:49
Freedom is like a woman you can have sex with her but you shouldnt rape her.

Jangang
06-05-2008, 01:55
They didn't make any judgments. They temporarily closed it, pending judgment. A judgment would have been permanent.



Advertising illegal acts is against the law. Free speech does and has always had certain legal limitations.

Having not arrested him they didn't have the right to temporarily close it pending judgment as without an arrest the judiciary is not involved. Thus its a violation of the law, and his rights... As judgment can't come w/o the judiciary being involved.

Jangang
06-05-2008, 01:56
I understand it just fine, it's you who doesn't. If someone throws up a billboard urging everyone to riot in the streets or commit terrorist attacks, should the police be forced to go through drawn out litigation just to be able to cover up the billboard? Or should they be able to cover up the sign until they've investigated the situation? According to you, litigation is the route to take, according to the supreme court they can cover it up. Personally, I side with the supreme court, but that's just me.

They can cover it pending judgment, but to do so you have to MAKE AN ARREST. That didn't happen, so they can't legally cover it.

Clear?

Elemancer
06-05-2008, 02:41
They can cover it pending judgment, but to do so you have to MAKE AN ARREST. That didn't happen, so they can't legally cover it.

Clear?

Fight the good fight jangang, but the irony is that our forefather fought so that we may have THIS SPECIFIC RIGHT...he did not advocate killing a he had no clear plans nor clear premeditations to do so with this simple display. He broke no law, plain and simple, and the fact the law decided to detain him was retarded, because now he can claim punitive damages. It's ridiculous, but if our dumbass law enforcement system thought twice about this kind of stuff we wouldn't have to pay for it.

I find it ironic, the same system that we pay to fuck up, also has us pay for the fuck ups...God Bless America, eh?

The best way I can put this is to pretty much liken this to how King George treated the colonists who opposed him. We're getting there folks, and nobody is ballzy enough to stand up to it.

Elemancer
06-05-2008, 02:46
Fight the good fight jangang, but the irony is that our forefather fought so that we may have THIS SPECIFIC RIGHT...he did not advocate killing a he had no clear plans nor clear premeditations to do so with this simple display. He broke no law, plain and simple, and the fact the law decided to detain him was retarded, because now he can claim punitive damages. It's ridiculous, but if our dumbass law enforcement system thought twice about this kind of stuff we wouldn't have to pay for it.

I find it ironic, the same system that we pay to fuck up, also has us pay for the fuck ups...God Bless America, eh?

The best way I can put this is to pretty much liken this to how King George treated the colonists who opposed him. We're getting there folks, and nobody is ballzy enough to stand up to it.

You know what, I'm adding to my rant because, at what point do we draw the line of 'public official'?

If it said "Assassination of The Salesman", "Assassination of John Smith", "Assassination of <joe blow who is a gov't official>", seriously, wtf...where do we draw the line? Is it gov't officials? Because if I ever see my name, on a wall/window in this context, I should have every goddamn right to a secret service investigation. How about a DMV official that pissed someone off?

This elitist mentality we give our representatives is astounding...Lead, Follow, or step aside huh?

Daccus
06-05-2008, 03:05
They can cover it pending judgment, but to do so you have to MAKE AN ARREST. That didn't happen, so they can't legally cover it.

Clear?

Is that a fact or simply your own speculation? As it stands I'm the only one that's actually brought any type of proof to this discussion.


If it said "Assassination of The Salesman", "Assassination of John Smith", "Assassination of <joe blow who is a gov't official>", seriously, wtf...where do we draw the line? Is it gov't officials? Because if I ever see my name, on a wall/window in this context, I should have every goddamn right to a secret service investigation. How about a DMV official that pissed someone off?
Both Clinton and Obama are protected by the secret service. Also, they're both federal employees and there are laws protecting federal employees against certain types of threats.

Gloomrender
06-05-2008, 03:19
Having not arrested him they didn't have the right to temporarily close it pending judgment as without an arrest the judiciary is not involved. Thus its a violation of the law, and his rights... As judgment can't come w/o the judiciary being involved.

That sounds like It's just your opinion, and the actual law is different. Afaik, you don't need to arrest a person of interest, to stop a currently occurring illegal activity, such as the promotion of illegal activities. The illegal activity can be stopped independent of judicial process, because It's illegal.

Bawlin
06-05-2008, 03:36
Kinda fucked if you ask me. Censorship anyone?

/Discus

Not really. It would be different if it wasn't the ASSASSINATION of presidential candidates. What do you expect?

losinglife
06-05-2008, 06:07
NYC.. enough said.


Also, they coulda just questioned him at the location instead of "downtown". Woulda made the whole thing seem less like a trample on rights and more of just inquiry into what was going on.