Federal charges for "obama joker" poster

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by rbell, Aug 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    So now...central Florida officials are considering Federal charges against the guy who posted the "obama joker" posters around the area...

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...bk-obama-joker-suspect-081309,0,4959018.story

    Wow.

    No problems here with billing/ticketing the guy for cleanup, if he posted stuff where it wasn't allowed...but Federal charges for defacing federal property???? You gotta be kidding me!

    You've probably seen the infamous poster...

    [​IMG]

    I guess the First Amendment must be a victim of that "change" we keep hearing about...

    Did Obama have a hand in this? No. But we keep electing officials that seem to not understand this "First Amendment" idea...

    I carry on with a longer rant HERE.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no problem with the content of the fliers, but I gotta disagree with you. The First Amendment does not grant a person the right to deface public property. This guy is rightly guilty of defacing both city and federal property.
     
  3. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem here is this appears to be a matter of using the state powers to persecute an expression of a particular political opinion.

    I suspect that there are other types of fliers, advertisements and handbills plastered in many of the same sort of places on any given day that are not receiving the same attention.

    For this to be a just act of prosecution all such posted materials - regardless of content - must be treated the same.
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    They're prosecuting illegal expression, and that's permissible.
    According the the story, the city has a strict law againt that, which suggests that this isn't the only time they've had a problem with defacement. But in regards to the specific act of defacing a post office, they don't put up with a single instance of defacing.
    There's nothing to suggest it isn't. To suggest that they haven't threatened or prosecuted others is sheer speculation.

    The bottom line is, if it's illegal, the guy shouldn't be doing it. Period. This is NOT a free speech issue.
     
  5. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree - provided that the law is enforced equally.

    Which is why I started my sentence with "I suspect".

    IMO - When it comes to government actions against citizens it is prudent to maintain a healthy sense of scepticism.

    I agree that it is illegal.

    However if the law is not applied equally then law enforcement is making it a "speech" issue.

    I am willing to wait and see what comes of this.

    If this is a case of over zealous prosecution his attorney would no doubt want to see that he has public opinion on his client's side.
     
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand the federal charges, what are the state charges based on? Is it destroying property while hanging the posters?
     
  7. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,693
    Likes Received:
    242
    Where can I get one of those?
     
  8. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally I think the poster is in bad taste. Like him or not, President Obama is the President of the United States. We, as citizens of the United States, should avoid the use of such tactics (Titus 3:1-2). Having said that, this kind of poster is protected speech under the 1st Amendment. However that does not mean that we can deface public property with posters and signs.
     
  9. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,693
    Likes Received:
    242
    The point is that it's political speech, and those considering federal charges are looking for a way to put this dissenter in a federal prison—and they will, make no mistake. It isn't about "defacing" public property.

    And it isn't poor taste. Obama is the face of Socialism in the early 21st Century.
     
  10. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I take it a step further, how do we expect foreign countries to respect the office of our leader when we ourselves do things like this?

    I also find the posters to be very racist since they resemble the minstrel characters that go back to a very sad part of our history. I don't see that as the joker when you paint him with a white face and exaggerated lips.
     
  11. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just look at the posting just before yours and you will see that for some hatred for President Obama is more important than what the world thinks or even how the Scripture says we should be towards our God given leader.
     
  12. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was trying to "go there" without having to "go there". However your reply is forcing me to "go there" so, I will "go there". I guess that is understandable. :laugh:

    The Bible commands, not suggests, that we "malign no one...showing every consideration for all men" (Titus 3:1-2). It also commands, not suggests, that we give "fear to whom fear" is due and "honor to whom honor" is due (Rom 13:7). We are also commanded to pray for "all men, for kings and all who are in authority" (1Tim 2:1-3). We should pray for President Obama. That the Lord would soften, and not harden, his heart. That he would see the error and sinfulness of his ways and repent, turning in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ. We should live "tranquil and quiet" lives, preaching the Gospel and making disciples of the saved. Personal attacks on any person is not fulfilling any of the commands of Scripture. We can, and I certainly do, disagree strongly with many of Obama's godless policies. We can, we should, and I do, stand up against such policies. However we should avoid maligning anyone.

    You say that President Obama is "the face of Socialism in the early 21st Century". Maybe there is some truth in that. But Nero, who was in power when Paul wrote many of his letters (including 1Timothy), was probably one of the most wicked and deranged caesars of the first century. Sure men like Caligula and Tiberius come in a close second. However Nero was certainly one of the most wicked rulers in the first century. No doubt, the Apostle Paul disagreed with many of Nero's policies. No doubt, the Apostle Paul was concerned about how Nero's policies were affecting the lives of Jews and gentiles alike. And no doubt, as Paul was about to be beheaded because of Nero's wickedness (Tacitus, "The Annals of Imperial Rome"), he was amazed at the wickness and evil of Nero's heart. However Paul refused to malign anyone. He prayed for the wicked rulers and commanded us to do the same.

    As citizens of heaven and the United States, we should avoid supporting distortions of fact and photo. While the poster in question is certainly protected by the first amendment, it is not something that is proper for Christians.
     
  13. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Like you guys were to Bush, right ?


    :laugh:
     
  14. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, two wrongs make a right?
     
  15. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    No, but demands about one, and engagement in the other make one a hypocrite.
     
  16. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Better a hypocrite than a fool!
     
  17. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a stupid thing to say. Better to just shut up rather than gladly accepting the hypocrite label.

    To the best of my knowledge, the Joker wasn't a Socialist, so the comparison makes no sense. It's just more mean-spirited nonsense that doesn't help in any possible way and only serves to let the hypocrites stay up on their high horses.
     
  18. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bush was portrayed as The Joker several times last year, including in national magazines such as Vanity Fair. How do we expect foreign countries to respect the office....

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  19. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, my issue is one of degrees. If there is a "no posting" law...then this guy should be responsible for the cost of cleanup. I just thought the "defacing federal property" federal crime was a bit much. Once again...no problem with having him pay for the cost of cleanup...related fines, etc. But this should not be any more of a fine than if he put up posters of the Jolly Green Giant in the same place. Hope that makes sense.

    I concur with your opinion.

    OK, I don't see that in any way. Not to mention...since the very same photoshop job has been done to Bush...it would seem to me that that argument doesn't hold water.

    I don't see where you came up with the "minstrel character" idea. This is a re-imaging of Heath Ledger's crazy joker. I'm not defending it...but I don't see the racial angle.
     
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790

    It doesn't. But libbies are not being honest and looking for anyway to stop dissent. They "think" if they can demonize dissent then they can put an end to it. In the end it is seriously hurting the liberal side.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...