Secret Service questions high school student on anti-war drawings
Originally Posted by white_n_slow
fair enough...
oh yeah, and since nobody has posted it up yet in this thread, I might as well be the first :db:
oh yeah, and since nobody has posted it up yet in this thread, I might as well be the first :db:
true story
Originally Posted by white_n_slow
once again, we're talking about an interpretation of art that we have not seen. The article doesn't make clear whether the picture depicted the president decapitated or whether is was an image of his head as on a sign post, or anything else.
Originally Posted by /^Blackmagik^\
:blah: there's a difference between reporting negative stuff and puting a negative spin on everything for ratings. hate and violence sells.
true story
true story
h:
Originally Posted by white_n_slow
fair enough...
oh yeah, and since nobody has posted it up yet in this thread, I might as well be the first :db:
oh yeah, and since nobody has posted it up yet in this thread, I might as well be the first :db:
Sold a computer to the author of that comic... really cool guy
*end off-topic*
Originally Posted by LiLRexen
The kid said it's an "effigy", but why would you go to the possible suspect and ask him to make a ruling on the situation. It's like going to a thief and taking his word that he was just there to do some organizing. Obviously, the drawings alarmed an instructor and the FBI. If the kid wants to play political games, he needs to follow the rules and not cry "foul play" when he breaks the law.
He certainly didn't break the law. There's nothing on the books against political satire, and that's all he did.
Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
Effigy is a real word in the dictionary, you don't need to keep putting it in quotes like it's some made up term. It's a graphical representation of someone else. A doll, poster, dummy, etcetera. So because the school misinterpreted the drawing and he explained it after the fact, he is equivalent to a criminal lying to cover his tracks? What's to say that wasn't his intent all along and he really was just misinterpreted?
He certainly didn't break the law. There's nothing on the books against political satire, and that's all he did.
He certainly didn't break the law. There's nothing on the books against political satire, and that's all he did.
Ok, fine..alleged effigy. Better? My point is that just because some 15 year old kid who uses his school work to make a political statement says his work is an effigy doesn't mean it is.
Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
Effigy is a real word in the dictionary, you don't need to keep putting it in quotes like it's some made up term. It's a graphical representation of someone else. A doll, poster, dummy, etcetera. So because the school misinterpreted the drawing and he explained it after the fact, he is equivalent to a criminal lying to cover his tracks? What's to say that wasn't his intent all along and he really was just misinterpreted?
He certainly didn't break the law. There's nothing on the books against political satire, and that's all he did.
He certainly didn't break the law. There's nothing on the books against political satire, and that's all he did.
Originally Posted by qtiger
Regardless of whether it was an effigy or a bleeding, dripping severed head he still didn't do anything wrong.


