Should SodaHead Allow People To Threaten The Life Of The President or Anyone For That Matter ?

by Che Guevara - Hero Posted 2012/06/20 21:19:38

Related Topics: death threats, Wikipedia, Crime, United States, Terrorism, Felony, Violent Crime, Attorney

152 votes
Read all 363 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats	136 votes	89%
	YES, Death Threats are OKAY	16 votes	11%

Should SodaHead Allow People To Threaten The Life Of The President or Anyone For That Matter ?

Lately there seems to be a rash of disturbed and imbalanced people threatening the life of the President of the United States and other SH Members. Should SH be allowing this type of dangerous behavior ?

Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States".

The United States Attorneys' Manual states that the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section has supervisory authority over Section 871 cases.

+26

Add a comment above

GuruA2J~#IOKIYAR~612 BLOCKT 2012/06/20 23:59:08

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+9
Thanx Che cuz all the flags that were put up on the post I believe you are talking about were taken down. I even told Fef about it & the post still stands. Allowing these threats to stand because this is a Conservative website simply paints their side of the aisle as crazy people who are bent on doing violence to get their way.
>> See Replies

More polls by Che Guevara - Hero

Che Gue... to jackola... 2012/06/21 21:11:08

+1
Off your meds again ?

reply
mk, Smartass Oracle 2012/06/21 16:26:00

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+2
I believe that is against the law.

reply
john Kills 2012/06/21 14:27:22

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+2
It's not a matter of what sodahead allows. People need to be careful of what they say about the president's life unless they want the FBI, CIA, Secret Service on their ass

reply
Chuck 2012/06/21 14:07:22

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+1
It's not as simple as "yes' or "no". If you write a letter to someone and threaten their life; no one knows about it except the sender and the receiver. The Post Office had nothing to do with it, allowing it or not allowing it. IF the receiver complains to the authorities then of course they can prosecute the sender for making threats and using the U.S. MAIL to do so. Whether or not the S.H. site should allow it or not, is a position that is similar to that of the Post Office; they have little to nothing to do with it unless a complaint is made. Then, they still have little to do with the matter simply because it is now in the hands of the authorities. No one "allows" something like that to happen and it is virtually impossible to police. So, as long as we all know (as we should) that threatening people's lives is against the law regardless of how it is done or through what media then the question as to whether S.H. or any other media should "allow" is redundant.

reply
ally 2012/06/21 13:53:26

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+1
NO. No one's life should be threatened, here, and these comments/posts should be removed immediately.

reply
blindfaith 2012/06/21 13:10:35

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

Perhaps it's just over exuberance, and rarely serious.

reply
UnusualSuspect 2012/06/21 13:04:02

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+1
I reported a woman yesterday who said that "assassination is an executive privilege," in referring to Obama.

Is she still on SH?

I don't know...ask Fef...

And this lovely gem from Stormy Rae, of Ohio...

"everytime i make a comment about his public justice, i say it in accordance with committing crimes against humanity, and i dont care if obama is human, he is the one that said he was going to fake his own assassination attempt. he thinks it is necessary to kill innocent people that mite have policy opposition or indefinitely detain them for their opinions, so why should the people that this country belongs to be able to say the same about obama if he orders the murder of innocent people."

I don't recall Obama ever saying he was going to fake his own assassination, do you?

This woman needs help...and I mean now!

reply
Commrade#371 2012/06/21 12:25:14

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+1
I suppose it is your right to threaten, but Sodahead can do what it wants.

reply
brutusin~ Proud Apetheist 2012/06/21 12:19:12

YES, Death Threats are OKAY

+1
Anyone has the right to threaten, but when they act upon it is where I draw the line.

reply
Teresa to brutusi... 2012/06/21 14:06:33

+1
In my country, treaten another human life is punished, don't need to act on it

reply
brutusi... to Teresa 2012/06/21 14:13:14

+1
I see Threats as freedom of speech, no matter how offensive it is.

reply
Teresa to brutusi... 2012/06/21 14:26:40

+1
I DON'T. Freedom of speach for me is being able to say what you think about anything, without being offensive to other people thoughts.

reply
brutusi... to Teresa 2012/06/21 14:31:52

+1
That makes no sence. Anyone can take offens to anything said. Perseption is a b*tch.

reply
Teresa to brutusi... 2012/06/21 14:37:41

+1
Come on! I know when I'm being offensive. I'm not talking about misunderstandings or being too sensitive, of course is a matter of perception, and believe me, is quite difficult to shock of offend me, but treating somebody's life or personal safety should never be allowed, non in the net, non in the street

reply
brutusi... to Teresa 2012/06/21 14:48:41

+1
Why?

Most death threats come from extreme emotions and are just venting. Should we prosecute people for venting? I think not.

reply
Teresa to brutusi... 2012/06/21 14:59:25

+2
Don't know, even if I'm in an emotional mood (not often), I'm still a rational animal (rational is the impotant point), so usually I'm able to think before opening my mouth, sorry if I'm being offensive, by the way

reply
brutusi... to Teresa 2012/06/21 15:34:34

+1
No offense taken. I'm just trying to say that words are just that words. Actions are the real threat. People threaten a lot of things everyday. It's ridiculous to think that we should prosecute people for words.

reply
Teresa to brutusi... 2012/06/21 15:36:58

Why not? In my own experience, you get slapped, that's it, only a sting, a moment, then it goes away. Some words can stay with you a lifetime

reply
Jo to Teresa 2012/06/21 20:22:25

thats because you're smart:))

reply
Jo to brutusi... 2012/06/21 20:22:06

people need to be more adult than that---theres no excuse for saying things that you dont mean.

reply
Teresa to Jo 2012/06/22 00:28:03

+1
Completly ageed

reply
J to Teresa 2012/06/21 20:49:14

You might know - but it is the OTHER PERSON'S perception.

reply
Teresa to J 2012/06/22 00:34:07

Saying that killing somebody or harming phisically anyone is the right thing to do, how is that a problem of perception? I don't get it

reply
J to Teresa 2012/06/21 20:48:38

+2
You just offended me by saying that freedom of speech is being able to say what you think. I think I will now report you to the authorities.

reply
Jo to J 2012/06/24 05:55:32 (edited)

freedom of speech is NOT about being able to say whatever you think--freedom of speech was designed for political speech--not for idiots to hide behind whenever they say something stupid and arent big enough to admit that they shouldnt have said it:)

reply
Jim to Teresa 2012/06/21 21:24:47

+1
Freedom of speech only goes so far. You can't stand up in a crowded theater and sjout fire if there is no fire an exclaim 'Freedom of Speach'.

reply
Jo to brutusi... 2012/06/21 20:21:01

you would be mistaken--it doesnt matter how YOU see it, they're illegal. period.

reply
LittleM... to Teresa 2012/06/21 19:13:45

+2
No worries, Threats are NOT a freedom of speech here either, and actually can land you in jail. Some people just think they're above the law.

reply
Jo to brutusi... 2012/06/21 20:20:18

+1
threats against someone's life are illlegal, so, no, they DO NOT have that right--and all threats against the POTUS are taken seriously.

reply
Fred 2012/06/21 12:08:15

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+2
Did this come up when Bush was president

reply
Chris -... to Fred 2012/06/21 13:09:20

+3
Hell yes....it was celebrated. There have been movies made about it.

reply
Jo to Chris -... 2012/06/21 20:23:04

+1
what movies?

reply
Chris -... to Jo 2012/06/21 20:53:52

I just remember a movie being made where a president, resembling Bush while Bush was in office, was shot in the head. I can't remember what it was called. I believe there was a second one too. I do not follow modern Hollywood at all.

reply
Jo to Fred 2012/06/21 20:23:33

a threat against the president is a threat against the president--doesnt matter who it is, its still illegal.

reply
Fred to Jo 2012/06/22 11:57:47

Then why hasnt Obama done something agaianst the New Black Panther Party for bountys and threats on the life of zinnerman

reply
Jo to Fred 2012/06/22 13:32:26

thats for law enforcement, not the president.

reply
Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2012/06/21 11:43:21 (edited)

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+3
Show us the links.

EDIT: Never mind, I was given a link. I checked it out and, even though it was in poor taste, I do not think it was an open threat.

My hardcore progressive friends may now name call and insult me at will.

reply
Huntclan 2012/06/21 11:03:39

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+3
I haven't seen this happen and don't imagine SH would tolerate it.

reply
Mopeder 2012/06/21 10:59:24

NO, SH Should NOT allow Death Threats

+1
I'm just glad no one has threatened me yet.

reply
Chris -... to Mopeder 2012/06/21 11:43:55

+3
Become a non-progressive and they will.

reply