Political Cartoons

well, that artist is gonna get a visit from the Secret Service soon. The depiction of Bush getting shot is in violation of federal law (yes, even if it is a joke).

From:

No. It's not. Depcitions of the president in various states of duress might generate an investigation, but the depiction by itself is not a violation of federal law. A prosecutor would have to demonstrate the pictures represented an intent to threate. Otherwise I would be under criminal indictment right now…

It is perfectly legal to depict the president in any way shape or form, as long as it is not intended as a threat, and not meant to encourage others to harm the president.

-one who knows

From:

I've heard of people being investigated for similar cartoons before. While you may think you know, I'm willing to bet you're going to be investigated at the least. Indictment isn't what this is about - it's how much they're going to delve into your life before they tell you you're off the hook.

But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

From:

I've already been investigated. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/jlassen/186474.html) The men in (black) asked me all kinds of groovy questions like am I a member of the NRA, and if I have had any mental health problems/can you sign a release so we can see your medical records?, etc.

Looks like I'll probably be loosing my job as a result... (http://www.livejournal.com/users/jlassen/212909.html) Still it's a far cry from being "illegal to depict violence against the president". Freedom of speech still exists. You may have to suffer because of it, but it isn't illegal -- yet. It is unconstitutional to limit political/artistic speech via criminal code. What constitutes artistic/political speech is often up to a prosecutor, or ultimately, a judge and jury. My artwork was not illegal under any criminal codes, and it never constituted a threat, and it did not encourage others to engage in violent acts.

...the most important thing that the America legal system has, (IMO) is the first amendment, and I'll be a martyr for it if necessary.

From:

You go ahead and try and be a martyr. But you should know as well as anyone that there are necessary conditions that have been placed on the 1st amendment (like the illegality of inciting a riot) to protect the well being of the citizenry and/or the President (or a Presidential Candidate). At the end of the day, frankly, you're fighting a battle that not too many people are going to support you on.

From:

Well, I've got over 500+ comments of my live journal in support. The vast majority feel that the investigation is silly, uncalled for, and in one way or another, kind of disturbing.

I've very well aware of what kind of legal limitations have been placed on the first amendment. I've followed 20th century case law and Supreme Court decisions very closely. And the Supreme Court has routinely ruled that artistic and political speech can not be limited. Even cases like you describe (inciting violence, public safety. etc) can not be preemptively limited by statute... a prosecutor has to bring charges, and a jury has to find guilt. The state has to PROVE that the speech caused a threat/danger/etc. The is a long history of political speech in every democracy that involves burning leaders in effigy, including the president. Cartoons like the above, and my artwork are clearly within that tradition. Does anybody else remember anti Clinton Bumber stickers that had a gun site over the face of bill Clinton? I sure do…. It was protected speech then, and it's protected speech now.

The fact that charges were not brought against me demonstrates quite clearly that the Secrete Service felt that there was no case to be proved, and that my speech did not break any laws.

Hysteric suggestions that the above cartoon is somehow illegal simply plays into the hands of the people who would preemptively limit unpopular political or artistic speech. As for not many people supporting me? Well, that’s the problem isn't it? "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither". If everybody was willing to quietly and consistently stand up for their rights, there wouldn't need to be martyrs.

Everybody loves freedom of speech -- except when they don't. This is one of the things that I feel is most important to our democracy, and I will not compromise on it, and neither should anybody else.

I created my art so that people would be cognizant of their rights, and cognizant of the line that is walked every day (by necessity) by law enforcement officials. Where and how that line is drawn is the difference between democracy and fascism. Issues such as this should be discussed loudly and often, and not just dismissed as fate acompli

-jl

From:

Does anybody else remember anti Clinton Bumber stickers that had a gun site over the face of bill Clinton? I sure do…. It was protected speech then, and it's protected speech now.
actually, the same law existed back then, and I'm certain people got investigated then as well.

From:

again... you seem to be missing the point. Investigations are one thing. My point was, nobody was being PROSECUTED, and nobody was being told to remove their bumpestickers or face prosecution.

Something that spawns an ivestigation is not nessessarily something that is illegal. I'm not trying to be pandantic. Their is a subtle point here that I don't think you are getting, or you are purposefully ignoring.

From:

nobody was being told to remove their bumpestickers or face prosecution.
do you have proof of that?

Their is a subtle point here that I don't think you are getting, or you are purposefully ignoring.
no, I do not believe I'm missing any subtle points that THERE are.

That said, it sounds to me like you believe this is something the Bush Administration is uniquely acting upon and that, further, you believe if you had made your little drawings during the Clinton era, you wouldn't have had that problem. Am I correct?

From:

no. you are not correct. I fully expected a reasonable investigation.

From:

nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com

Jeremy, I may not agree with your political beliefs (in fact, I probably don't), but I do respect the strength of your convictions, and your very mature attitude toward personal responsibility. Even though I'm conservative in many respects, I do believe that the freedom to voice one's opinions is a fundamental right, no matter what that opinion is, as long as you are not advocating specific harm to a specific individual.

Being visited by Secret Service agents must have been very intimidating. I salute you.

From:

ps> the "you" is a vague "if you did this type of thing" response. I didn't actually mean you. You know what I mean.

From:

Highly doubtful.

From:

I've heard of people being investigated for similar cartoons before. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

From:

What people? for what cartoon?

From:

there have been numerous stories of this stuff happening around the country. The most recent one that comes to mind is a college paper that did a cartoon with roughly the same type of picture as here (only, in that one, the president is getting stabbed). The secret service investigated and interrogated the cartoonist AND his editor before they let them go.

From:

Well you stated it's a violation of federal law (no law I'm aware of) but if thats the case and its against the law, I'd want to know what law it was. I would imagine that if it was illegal that the cartoonist would have gone to jail. Did they goto jail? No. If what they were doing was illegal like you said I'm sure they would have gone to jail.

From:

It's a violation of federal law to threaten the President's life. Period. Any depiction that seems to either be a threat or could spawn a threat is also illegal. The Secret Service routinely investigates ANY possible threats.

As for the law, all you have to do is spend some time on google to find it.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html

From:

Okay, I know all that. But does a cartoon of satire or of an editorial nature constitute a threat? Looking at this cartoon I'd say no.

Why waste my time googling it when I can have you do it? :P

From:

But does a cartoon of satire or of an editorial nature constitute a threat?
It can, and that's why they do sometimes investigate it.

From:

So does this cartoon look like a threat to you? Meaning is the theme of this cartoon more a threat against Bush or a commentary about Air America?

From:

I didn't think the other cartoon that I saw investigated was a threat either. But the Secret Service does its job the way they think they need to. Part of me is glad to know they actually read the newspaper. ;-)

From:

no... likely, under the current regime... (http://www.livejournal.com/users/jlassen/186474.html)

But an investigation doesn't mean its illegal. Thats the point I was trying to make.

From:

I understand that investigations don't mean what your doing is illegal. But what you were involved with is not the same as an editorial cartoonist doing what they normally do.

From:

even if an editorial cartoonist did something similar, he/she'd receive a visit from secret service.

From:

Well I don't think showing a drawing of an effigy is going to warrant a visit from the presidents security. I'm not saying it won't happen, but the secret service has a brain despite what some people think and I have doubts they'll be contacting the cartoonist.

From:

like I said, I've seen it happen over a much simpler cartoon.

From:

Every situation is different.

From:

Captain Obvious strikes again. ;-)

From:

Hehe. Amusing, 'though the idea that Al Qaeda would disapprove is... rather silly...

From:

nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com

Er...that's sort of the point, I think. The whole point of the cartoon is that left-wing liberals in America, represented here by Air America, are possessed of such rabid hatred and vitriol that even Al-Queda terrorists are shocked and repulsed.

From:

And I'm saying, given Al Qaeda's many homicidal etc. actions, that I tend to doubt they are at all shocked or repulsed at verbal criticisms of Bush and the Administration.

To think that a group that is happy to kill innocent children to accomplish their goals is shocked by verbal criticisms of an American president is absurd.

From:

nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com

Hey, I didn't say it was a good cartoon.

Aren't all political cartoons absurd, by their very nature? Or just the ones that you don't agree with?

From:

No, not all are absurd, and there are plenty of non-absurd ones I disagree with.

From:

hoboclown.livejournal.com

The pretzels are a nice touch. :)

From:

ccnuggie.livejournal.com

I don't get the pretzels part.

From: