Threatening YouTube Video Lands Man In Prison 243
wiredmikey writes "Norman LeBoon of Philadelphia was sentenced to 24 months in prison for his production and transmission of a YouTube video over the Internet last March containing a threat to injure and kill a United States Congressman. Following his arrest, LeBoon told federal agents that Eric Cantor is 'pure evil'; 'will be dead'; and that 'Cantor's family is suffering because of his father's wrath.'"
Breaking news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Threatening people is against the law. Film at eleven.
YouTube == news for nerds? (Score:0, Insightful)
Why's this news?
Re:Breaking news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Threatening politicians gets you shipped to gitmo.
Threatening normal, everyday citizens? Police care less because their ticket quotas are more important.
Re:meanwhile.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Care to cite examples? If you can't, you *are* trolling.
Re:Breaking news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, this is generally only true if the threat is against a government official and if a reasonable person believes that the target has a reasonable apprehension of the threat being carried out. There are state and local laws covering stuff like "terroristic threats" and all kinds of civil statutes, but in order to rise to the level of a federal criminal rap, the threat has to be credible, specific, and targeted at a government official. This is why Pat Robertson got away with making a hit request against Hugo Chavez, for instance.
Re:meanwhile.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a citation, that's your interpretation. Threatening a public official isn't automatically going to end with court proceedings, there is a legal threshold that must be met. It doesn't happen to occur to you that if Fox was the only one covering it that the threats might not have been credible?
Remember Fox and the con-alt-media are the ones that believe in this massive liberal conspiracy and that Fox went to court specifically to defend its right to make up stories. Fox itself isn't a source of news, and that's their official stance on the matter.
Re:Breaking news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except if it's against an ordinary person. Then not much will be done. That free speech thing in the constitution, which lists no exceptions, is completely worthless, anyway.
Re:meanwhile.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither the GOP nor the Democratic party encourage, endorse, or suggest political violence as a means of solving our problems. Some of both of their supporters do so, however, and it's mostly on the left. The far left espouses violence so much because that's generally the only way it can either gain or keep power. How ofter does a country vote in communism? Even more importantly, how ofter does a country vote out communism? The first thing a communist government does is make any other political or economic system illegal. The few that are left have mostly had to back off some on the economic front (both China and Viet Nam are de facto capitalist countries today, even if their governments are still communist).
Those who favor liberty do not favor political violence; even the American Revolution was a means of last resort, when everything else had failed. The left does not favor liberty, it favors control and conformance, and that makes it much more comfortable with political violence, because violence supports that goal and walks hand in hand with putting people in jail for "political crimes." There are no political crimes in free countries, but many in non-free countries. We have not yet seen the day when a person can be put in prison in the United States merely for saying that which is not politically correct, but there are many on the left who see such a thing as desirable, and who will work to bring it about.
Re:Breaking news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty much it.
The joys of a metrics driven "business". Run the cops like a business, get substandard policing where the rich get justice and the poor get screwed.
Re:Breaking news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Threatening people is against the law. Film at eleven.
Not just any people, but government workers... go to your local Social Security or DMV office, and you'll see a prominent sign stating that it is illegal to threaten any of the clerks working there. Wait, no... threatening someone with a show of force is commonly "assault" in the USA as well... if you flash a gun at me like you intend to do me harm, you just committed a crime... doesn't matter who I am.
Politicians in general receive fairly blanket protections, a real threat made against one is investigated and you're likely to face jail time if you meant it seriously, and a stern talking to about how they could lock you up if it was made in jest.
From the sound of TFS, this guy was a real threat to Eric Cantor, and the guy ought be in jail...
Re:Breaking news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because if you make the threat vague enough, you can't be found guilty of threatening *specific* people.
That's why they pay lawyers.
Norman LeBoon's mistake was calling out Eric Cantor.
I'm not making excuses for the Fox idiots. They're despicable. It's cynical gaming of the system, but that's the way it works.
--
BMO
A Fine Expression (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy might have benefitted from a quip emblazoned on a plaque my grandpappy had on his wall:
Perhaps I'll send Norman the plaque to decorate his jail cell.
Re:meanwhile.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually he makes a very good point. 18 Wisconsin congressmen [wausaudailyherald.com] reported death threats after the collective bargaining bill was passed there recently. Yet, you actually do have to go looking to find anything about it on most nationwide news sites. That link above is from a daily newspaper in a small town in central Wisconsin. I'm surprised I wasn't able to at easily find a wire service story about the death threats, given the hysterical nature of the rest of the coverage of the issue.
considering that CNN did report that death threats have led to at least one set of charges, [cnn.com] it's hard to imagine that Fox News was just making shit up about the threats, as you're trying to suggest.
Re:Breaking news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come the fuck on. Pray tell, what's the mechanism by which someone's bullets would get inside someone else's head, if not through the action of someone pulling a trigger? Is he going to surgically implant them in a willing patient, and has Mr. Cantor already signalled his & his family's willingness to have bullets surgically implanted in their heads in a painless & harmless medical procedure performed by (or financed by) Mr. LeBoon?
Sarah Palin's campaign puts together a poster with a fairly standard "target" symbol that happens to be a gun sight, and she's a bloodthirsty villain who advocates violence, but a guy records himself saying that "my bullets [...] will be placed in your heads," is not threatening, or encouraging, violence against an elected official?
I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to excuse this behavior - it's inappropriate on every level, regardless of the man's political affiliation. He deserves the full attention of law enforcement, and he's receiving exactly that now. Take his article and s/Cantor/Pelosi/g and tell me you wouldn't be howling for Rush Limbaugh's blood right now, in addition to advocating that the man making the threat, and at least 5-10% of the rest of conservatives (who "obviously" think the same way as this guy, on account of knowing how to use a gun), should be locked up?
Re:Breaking news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, noone has ever [boston.com] been tried [inquisitr.com] for harrassing [nytimes.com] a normal person over the internet [nj.com], much less threatening them. [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Breaking news... (Score:4, Insightful)
The question is whether or not it's a threat or incitement to violence, not whether or not somebody has already pulled the trigger as a result. And in all your name-calling, I notice you couldn't answer the question of how bullets get into someone's head except through violent means. Try again, pottymouth.
Since you seem to have reading comprehension issues, nowhere in there did I defend Sarah Palin's choice of ad campaign, or even her as a politician or a person. I'm simply pointing out a tremendous double standard - her campaign ad had tenuous-at-best relevance to Mr. Loughner's actions, but she was castigated for using "violent imagery" as if she were the sole - or even a proximal - cause of the incident.
And yet we have someone threatening to "put his bullets" in someone's head, and people are struggling to come up with a way to explain how it's not *really* a threat, and didn't *actually* threaten harm. The double standard is simply breathtaking, and your furiously ham-fisted and vulgar response simply underscores the point: rather than acknowledge that this man made a real threat by any reasonable standard of judgement, you'll simply call me a "repulsive cunt" and report in for your Anti-Tea Party Rant profile badge over on DKos.
Re:Breaking news... (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is the cop gaining or losing by not taking care of the poor verses the rich?
I really cannot fathom a thing that would make your statement remotely true. Perhaps if you said more serious threats get more attention or something else. I don't know, please explain.
OK. Lemme 'splain this to you.
In large metropolitan areas, police chiefs are elected. To be elected they need money. To get money(legally), they need to be connected. Money and influence are gained by staying in the good graces of people with disposable income to donate.
LK
Name That Party! (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of funny that Slashdot has fallen victim to the sickness of always letting you know up-front if someone being threatened or harmed in some way is a Democrat, but as with any of the media outlets seems to "accidentally" leave off mention when the potential victim is a Republican.
Also kind of funny you don't see Tea Party people being arrested for this kind of lunacy even though from reading Slashot you'd think that every last one of them were equally insane.
People here on Slashdot seem to equate the conservative body of thought in general with threats and stifling of thought, but repeatedly (as we see echoed in Wisconsin) you have to look to the edges of the left to see actual threats (or even actions) materialize.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)