Can you be prosecuted for saying you're going to kill the president in song lyrics?
April 10, 2008 11:17 AM Subscribe
Can you be prosecuted for saying you're going to kill the president in song lyrics?
(This is for a debate with friends, not planning to write any such lyrics myself)
As with any freedom-of-speech issue, it would ultimately depend on context and intent. If one were to write a protest-style song with a generic line about killing presidents, I suspect it would be a non-issue, legally speaking. If you recorded "I'm going to kill George W. Bush by strangulation on the 15th of October, hey hey la la" over top some beats and released it as a podcast, you'd likely attract some attention. But prosecution and being roughly interrogated by the Secret Service are different things.
Where do you stand in this debate? Where do your friends stand?
posted by chudmonkey at 11:29 AM on April 10, 2008
Where do you stand in this debate? Where do your friends stand?
posted by chudmonkey at 11:29 AM on April 10, 2008
A plain-text reading of this suggests you could be prosecuted, but given the First Amendment, the prosecution would have a very high hurdle to leap.
Further, there's a fair body of rulings on the issue, both of what constitutes a "true threat," outlined in the context of school responsibility here. Again, because of First Amendment protections, it would be hard to show that the threat was a "true threat," but, theoretically, if a true threat was expressed (say, detailing how to kill the president and conspiring to do so), it could be added to an indictment as a lesser but included charge.
But, I'm not a lawyer.
posted by klangklangston at 11:34 AM on April 10, 2008
Further, there's a fair body of rulings on the issue, both of what constitutes a "true threat," outlined in the context of school responsibility here. Again, because of First Amendment protections, it would be hard to show that the threat was a "true threat," but, theoretically, if a true threat was expressed (say, detailing how to kill the president and conspiring to do so), it could be added to an indictment as a lesser but included charge.
But, I'm not a lawyer.
posted by klangklangston at 11:34 AM on April 10, 2008
Not sure which side you're on, but if you need to win this debate by establishing that it's conceivably possible that you could be prosecuted for such lyrics — well, presumably it's possible to imagine lyrics that could be taken as evidence of conspiracy to assassinate the president, which would be a prosecutable offence. But I guess in that case you would not be being prosecuted "for" the song, technically.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 11:35 AM on April 10, 2008
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 11:35 AM on April 10, 2008
You can't be prosecuted for criminal threating.
The Maine Statute says: "A person is guilty of criminal threatening if he intentionally or knowingly places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury."
Singing a song alone does not violate this statute. The word "imminent" is the kicker here. The president will not reasonably fear that they will be immediately harmed by you singing a song. And likely the president will not be in the same area as anyone singing such a song.
I suppose if the singer was at a political rally and played a song for the president and then pulled out a gun half way through the song...it would have to be more than singing.
posted by unreasonable at 11:43 AM on April 10, 2008
The Maine Statute says: "A person is guilty of criminal threatening if he intentionally or knowingly places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury."
Singing a song alone does not violate this statute. The word "imminent" is the kicker here. The president will not reasonably fear that they will be immediately harmed by you singing a song. And likely the president will not be in the same area as anyone singing such a song.
I suppose if the singer was at a political rally and played a song for the president and then pulled out a gun half way through the song...it would have to be more than singing.
posted by unreasonable at 11:43 AM on April 10, 2008
Mod note: a few comments removed, please USE YOUR WORDS to answer the question even if your answer is some variant of "no"
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:53 AM on April 10, 2008
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:53 AM on April 10, 2008
[PROPRIETOR]
Hey, fella,
Feel like you're a failure?
Bailiff on your tail? Your
Wife run off for good?
Hey, fella, fell misunderstood?
C'mere and kill a president...
[GUITEAU]
Okay!
No, but I think you can win a Tony.
posted by gregvr at 11:55 AM on April 10, 2008
Hey, fella,
Feel like you're a failure?
Bailiff on your tail? Your
Wife run off for good?
Hey, fella, fell misunderstood?
C'mere and kill a president...
[GUITEAU]
Okay!
No, but I think you can win a Tony.
posted by gregvr at 11:55 AM on April 10, 2008
Well, Ice T wasn't prosecuted for Cop Killer. That's an example in practice of what everyone has been saying. Those lyrics are explicit and unambiguous.
posted by prefpara at 11:56 AM on April 10, 2008
posted by prefpara at 11:56 AM on April 10, 2008
There are different ways to look at this question.
The basic answer, in the US, is, No, the First Amendment protects you. On a broad, theoretical level, you have freedom of speech and, in general, without more specifics, this wouldn't fall into an exception to your First Amendment protection (e.g., the president is surrounded by trigger happy terrorists and then you start singing your song; or your song is the key to some state secret; etc.)
The other answer is, well, if they don't like you, they can arrest you and prosecute you for something (e.g., disorderly conduct), even if they know that the charges won't stick.
Footnote: the Secret Service might show up to verify that you're not a lunatic who's really planning to do it.
And in other countries ... in Turkey, you can be sent to prison for insulting Turkishness.
posted by coffeefilter at 12:08 PM on April 10, 2008
The basic answer, in the US, is, No, the First Amendment protects you. On a broad, theoretical level, you have freedom of speech and, in general, without more specifics, this wouldn't fall into an exception to your First Amendment protection (e.g., the president is surrounded by trigger happy terrorists and then you start singing your song; or your song is the key to some state secret; etc.)
The other answer is, well, if they don't like you, they can arrest you and prosecute you for something (e.g., disorderly conduct), even if they know that the charges won't stick.
Footnote: the Secret Service might show up to verify that you're not a lunatic who's really planning to do it.
And in other countries ... in Turkey, you can be sent to prison for insulting Turkishness.
posted by coffeefilter at 12:08 PM on April 10, 2008
Prosecution is unlikely, unless you have an actual plan in place to do harm, but investigation would probably be imminent. The Secret Service investigates any perceived threat the the president or vice-president, even if on the surface it looks like humor or art or whatever. (Here's one ridiculous case, involving song lyrics and politically-minded high school kids.)
There was a case in Austin 10 years or so ago where a talk radio host said she wished there was a modern-day Lee Harvey Oswald to take care of Clinton and Gore. The Secret Service investigated her and she was fired, but the DA declined to press charges. Ah, yes, Rollye James. Her name finally came to me. Here's a summary.
posted by mudpuppie at 12:24 PM on April 10, 2008
There was a case in Austin 10 years or so ago where a talk radio host said she wished there was a modern-day Lee Harvey Oswald to take care of Clinton and Gore. The Secret Service investigated her and she was fired, but the DA declined to press charges. Ah, yes, Rollye James. Her name finally came to me. Here's a summary.
posted by mudpuppie at 12:24 PM on April 10, 2008
Maine law isn't really relevant here, unreasonable. The President would be covered under federal law, and there are specific regulations about it:
THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT - 18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;
Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and
Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.
A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.
The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.
Given that, I doubt you would be prosecuted for the song lyrics, but you might get the Secret Service doing a quick investigation just to make sure. Their job is to protect the President, which occasionally means making sure the non-threats really are non-threats.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 12:29 PM on April 10, 2008
THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT - 18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;
Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and
Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.
A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.
The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.
Given that, I doubt you would be prosecuted for the song lyrics, but you might get the Secret Service doing a quick investigation just to make sure. Their job is to protect the President, which occasionally means making sure the non-threats really are non-threats.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 12:29 PM on April 10, 2008
It's case by case.
I'm sure they evaluate the seriousness of it ("it" being the perceived threat and "they" being the people who make the decision to arrest/detain/question you) based on subjective procedures as well as written law. This is assuming of course "they" even hear of the lyrics/skit/whatever. It probably also depends on how their day is going, how much time they have to spend/waste on the effort to question you, what their schedules look like and a million other trivial things. If you tell a lot of people in all seriousness what you mean to do, they'll for sure come get you and make you extremely uncomfortable. If you make an artistic statement, they may or may not care depending on how many people notice.
Reach matters as much as context - if you make your "artistic statement" on prime time TV, for example, they'll probably be a little concerned and maybe follow up on your little stunt. If you do it in some nightclub in front of 40 people, they won't ever know or care.
So you both lose the debate. (Or win, depending on your POV.)
posted by ostranenie at 2:26 PM on April 10, 2008
I'm sure they evaluate the seriousness of it ("it" being the perceived threat and "they" being the people who make the decision to arrest/detain/question you) based on subjective procedures as well as written law. This is assuming of course "they" even hear of the lyrics/skit/whatever. It probably also depends on how their day is going, how much time they have to spend/waste on the effort to question you, what their schedules look like and a million other trivial things. If you tell a lot of people in all seriousness what you mean to do, they'll for sure come get you and make you extremely uncomfortable. If you make an artistic statement, they may or may not care depending on how many people notice.
Reach matters as much as context - if you make your "artistic statement" on prime time TV, for example, they'll probably be a little concerned and maybe follow up on your little stunt. If you do it in some nightclub in front of 40 people, they won't ever know or care.
So you both lose the debate. (Or win, depending on your POV.)
posted by ostranenie at 2:26 PM on April 10, 2008
I hope this doesn't derail the thread too much (if it does, please delete this comment), but how would a threat against the president differ from this case, where a couple of high school kids made a "murder list" and are now being charged with "terroristic threats"?
Is being "charged" different than being "prosecuted"? I would think that the bar for being charged with a threat against the president would be lower than random students, but I could be mistaken.
I'm honestly interested in this. Reading this brief article bothered me, in that it seems pretty close to "thought crime".
posted by dforemsky at 2:35 PM on April 10, 2008
Is being "charged" different than being "prosecuted"? I would think that the bar for being charged with a threat against the president would be lower than random students, but I could be mistaken.
I'm honestly interested in this. Reading this brief article bothered me, in that it seems pretty close to "thought crime".
posted by dforemsky at 2:35 PM on April 10, 2008
The kicker of Section 871 is the second point: "he meant the words he used as a true threat".
There's obviously a bit of analysis to be done, but you asked a very specific question: "Can you be prosecuted for saying you're going to kill the president in song lyrics?"
The answer is "Yes, you can."
If you had asked "Can you say you're going to kill the president in song lyrics without being guilty of 18 USC 871?" The answer would still be "Yes, you can."
If you had asked "Will I be prosecuted/convicted for saying I'm going to kill the president in song lyrics?" the answer is "It depends"
posted by toomuchpete at 2:38 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
There's obviously a bit of analysis to be done, but you asked a very specific question: "Can you be prosecuted for saying you're going to kill the president in song lyrics?"
The answer is "Yes, you can."
If you had asked "Can you say you're going to kill the president in song lyrics without being guilty of 18 USC 871?" The answer would still be "Yes, you can."
If you had asked "Will I be prosecuted/convicted for saying I'm going to kill the president in song lyrics?" the answer is "It depends"
posted by toomuchpete at 2:38 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
That skit was from "The Whitest Kids U Know"
posted by RustyBrooks at 2:58 PM on April 10, 2008
posted by RustyBrooks at 2:58 PM on April 10, 2008
A similar sketch was done years earlier by The State.
posted by klangklangston at 2:59 PM on April 10, 2008
posted by klangklangston at 2:59 PM on April 10, 2008
Yeah, short answer, probably won't get prosecuted, probably will get SS headaches you didn't know could be so bad. Trust me, I have family and friends that work / ed for them, and they take their jobs very seriously. One of their colleagues has already read this thread, no doubt.
posted by allkindsoftime at 2:09 AM on April 11, 2008
posted by allkindsoftime at 2:09 AM on April 11, 2008
« Older Why does Netflix want me to have no internet... | what is "home" when it isn't a place? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:24 AM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]