Do you think Ted Nugent went too far?
yes, though I agree with him that this administration needs to go
12.9% (8)
12.9% (8)
no, though I agree with him that this administration needs to go
21% (13)
21% (13)
yes, though I don't mind this administration
43.5% (27)
43.5% (27)
no, though I don't mind this administration
21% (13)
21% (13)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Ted Nugent and the Limit of the Freedom of Speech

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

In case you didn't hear, Ted Nugent, infamous for two episodes of rather vulgar things about President Obama as well as a few members of his administration, has had another recent episode where he said to an NRA congregation that "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year," and that "If you can't go home and get everybody in your lives to clean house in this vile, evil, America-hating administration, I don't even know what you're made out of."

Now, as I'm sure all of you learned in Free Speech 101, here in the US, we're allowed to say things, even revolting things, so long as we don't say threaten or say something to incite violence. A good example of the former would be "I'm going to kill you", and the latter has the famous example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Now, I'm sure we can agree that, regardless of our political views, Ted Nugent went a bit toward one of those two exceptions. As a result, the Secret Service (you know, the guys who are being investigated after a sex scandal, and also protect the President and his Administration) has started an interview with Ted Nugent, trying to see if he was unintentional with his slander.

Here's a link to source
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/18/ted-nugent-to-be-interviewed-by-secret-service/?hpt=hp_t2

So, I guess what I'm trying to ask is, at what point does the freedom of speech end? What point is insults and slander too far? And more importantly, did Ted Nugent go too far?

edit: for those of you who thought I meant "joking" on the "I will kill you" part, I meant the literal sense, not joking about it. Also, Ted Nugent is complying to the Secret Service, and is also bringing his lawyer (in is an investigation after all)

Just my opinion, but Ted Nugent is an ass. Plain and simple. Between his concert shout out of saying Obama and Hilary should suck on his gun and this, it's not surprising that Secret Service finally has gone to tell him to shut up.

Free Speech is nice and all, but it has always been established that the moment you legitimately/imply a threat to another person with physical harm, that is no longer Free Speech and goes into Aggravated Speech. He may be the coward and is just yapping away like a lot of people, but there are those that do view him as a some sort of preacher, and would do what he said. So it's only natural the Secret Service would go to him.

Basically, Free Speech ends when you threaten another person. Especially when you insinuate killing the leader of your country. That is an act of treason.

worldruler8:
Now, as I'm sure all of you learned in Free Speech 101, here in the US, we're allowed to say things, even revolting things, so long as we don't say threaten or say something to incite violence.

Seems like a rather good limit, doesn't it?

Ted Nugent just needs to shut up and play Stranglehold. I really think he does go too far with some of his speech, and I'm kinda surprised it took this long for the Secret Service to pay him a visit and tell him to quit with the death threat stuff

Also I saw this brought up in the comments.

Gee, remember back in 2006 (I think) when the Dixie Chicks just said that they were embarrassed that the president was from Texas? Those poor gals had their careers ruined, received death threats, were called unpatriotic , and the right screamed from the mountaintops that even if you didn't like the president you should respect the office. What a surprise that they've changed the rules now.

I wouldn't say it's only the Right that's changing the rules (both sides do it), but yeah this really bothers me. At least The Dixie Chicks weren't talking about killing a President or trying

If he meant that he's going to try to assassinate the PotUS, and to encourage others to take up arms against the government...yeah, that's a bit too far.

Hmmm...as an aside, though, would it be wrong if he was saying this about the Canadian government? Calling to overthrow/kill foreign governments seems to be fine.

Nugent's a fucking retard. For a guy who dodged the draft during Vietnam claiming student status even though he was touring 300 days a year in his band he sure is an uber-patriot.

Another whiney extremist right wing blowhard.

If it had been an isolated incident it would have been laughed off with a large number of hyperbolic "second amendment solution" style comments over the last 3 years. He's been vocal enough it shouldn't be surprising someone's taking it seriously.

worldruler8:
Now, as I'm sure all of you learned in Free Speech 101, here in the US, we're allowed to say things, even revolting things, so long as we don't say threaten or say something to incite violence. A good example of the former would be "I'm going to kill you", and the latter has the famous example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Edit: Derpaderp, nm, that's basically what you said. Shut up, it's the morning and I haven't fully woken up yet. >.<

OT: It's probably just chest thumping, but he's done this enough that he should be investigated.

Enjoy your visit from the Secret Service, Nuge. I hear they're real gentle with people who say stuff like this.

Who else is there besides Obama? If he goes, some of the religious loonies are going to defecate the oval office. Tried that. Did not work so well did it?

And who cares about Nugent ranting.

The Secret service is probably only investigating him because he keeps doing it. He doesn't have the balls to make good on any of those threats himself. And we know this because he had his chance during the Vietnam War and he fucking wussed out. At this point, everyone knows he got out, but for those who don't know how, he stopped bathing for a month and lived in his pants for a week (on a diet of Pepsi, sausage, and nothing else) before showing up at the drafty office whereupon they threw him out immediately.

The strange thing is that an NRA convention is a weird place to make remarks like that. Yes, they are populated by a lot of unstable, callous, uncaring, irresponsible psychopaths. But there are also a lot of people at gun shows and conventions who are in favor of more regulations on handguns because they know that's what almost all gun violence is committed with. The NRA lobbyists are the true paragons of batshit. The pro-second amendment crowd needs some better speakers.

Anyway, Teddy-boy talks a big game, but with the Secret Service keeping an eye on him, I don't think we'll be hearing anymore violent rhetoric from him in the near future. He is free to speak his mind, but if he's a real conservative, then he'll be a man and take some personal responsibility for his actions. Who wants to bet he'll whine like a little bitch instead?

DrVornoff:
At this point, everyone knows he got out, but for those who don't know how, he stopped bathing for a month and lived in his pants for a week (on a diet of Pepsi, sausage, and nothing else) before showing up at the drafty office whereupon they threw him out immediately.

Why would you ever admit that? To anyone? If it'd been me I'd have just frenched the draft guy that'd be the sort of thing that I'd take to my grave.

Looks like Ted needs to do something about that Cat Scratch Fever of his. ;D

Anyway, Nugent is just crazy. Everyone knows that, and has known that for a long time. Don't know why it took you guys till now to figure it out. :/

Nugent prides himself on his belligerent speech. I do not see this as any different. He is well within his right to say what he said. I doubt he is actually planning to physically attack Obama and this is just more of what he does.

DrVornoff:
The strange thing is that an NRA convention is a weird place to make remarks like that. Yes, they are populated by a lot of unstable, callous, uncaring, irresponsible psychopaths. But there are also a lot of people at gun shows and conventions who are in favor of more regulations on handguns because they know that's what almost all gun violence is committed with. The NRA lobbyists are the true paragons of batshit. The pro-second amendment crowd needs some better speakers.

Strange then that so many people keep giving the NRA money. In fact the big reasons that I hear people give for not joining the NRA is "the Second Amendment does not need my money to be protected", "the NRA doesn't go far enough to support the RKBA", and the classic "I would rather spend my money on guns and ammo than give more money to them".

BTW you do realize that the board of directors of the NRA is voted in right? In fact I just did it a few months ago. Maybe you do not know as much about gun rights supporters or the NRA as you think.

Ted Nugent is being very indirect about this, he never directly said I am "going to kill Obama," just "clean house" which could technically mean several other things, nor did he say when. The Supreme Court actually held the statement "Let's get them (the government) later" said at a rally of very unhappy people in Washington completely constitutional since he didn't say "now" and later could be any time.

If it had just been the "I will be dead or in jail" bit, it might've only raised a few eyebrows. After all, he could be talking about anything.

But take that wit hhis rant about chopping peoples heads off...

While he didn't say anything illegal AFAIK, he was way, way over the line and deserves whatever consequences he gets. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, after all.

Sounds like a good way to deal with a prick like him. Pressing charges probably won't work yet, but invite him over for an interview to get the message across that he's about reached the limit of his Right to Stupidity.

BreakfastMan:
Anyway, Nugent is just crazy. Everyone knows that, and has known that for a long time. Don't know why it took you guys till now to figure it out. :/

In another topic we're debating the sanity of Anders Breivik, a guy with similar ideals, and it's not because he said silly things at a rally.

Crazy, yes. Harmless crazy? I doubt it. There's always a danger from people like Nugent. Either directly, or because they inspire someone slightly more crazy than they themselves are. See the shooting with the assasination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords for example.

Would such a thing have happened without the radical wing of the GOP preaching violent hatred about their political adversaries? I don't think so.

farson135:
Strange then that so many people keep giving the NRA money. In fact the big reasons that I hear people give for not joining the NRA is "the Second Amendment does not need my money to be protected", "the NRA doesn't go far enough to support the RKBA", and the classic "I would rather spend my money on guns and ammo than give more money to them".

BTW you do realize that the board of directors of the NRA is voted in right? In fact I just did it a few months ago. Maybe you do not know as much about gun rights supporters or the NRA as you think.

Perhaps. My experience with gun rights supporters has been two types of people: weirdos with a weapon fetish, and people who have had firearms in their family for generations and are extremely realistic about the fact that a gun is a weapon. The latter are the kind whose company I prefer to keep and none of them really like the NRA's board of directors all that much.

For the sake of clarity, I believe that people have a right to own weapons within reason. For example, if you have been convicted of a violent crime, you don't get to own guns anymore. If you want to keep a gun to protect your home, have a handgun. You don't need an assault rifle to do that unless you're defending your home from the Mongol horde. You don't need expanded magazines when a single warning shot is all it takes to scare off an intruder. I'm not terribly concerned with hunting rifles as just about anyone who owns one has had safety drilled into their skulls from day one and only a tiny percentage of gun violence is committed with rifles. As long as there's basic safety regulations on the damn things, I'm okay. Most of the regulation I'm in favor of is on handguns because those are the most commonly used in gun violence.

Like I said, a gun is a weapon. If you only wound somebody with a gun, it's because you missed. Most gun owners I've met are cognizant of this fact and quite reasonable about regulation. The people buying stockpiles of guns and ammo then burying them in hidden caches because they're afraid Obama wants to take away their guns? Not so much.

Huh, didn't think I'd get such a response. Well, let me say my views on the matter, and I'll edit the OP to change a few things to make it a bit more clear.

I think what Nugent said was not wrong, persay, in the sense it was illegal. However, the thing I'd be worried about most isn't him doing action, but someone hearing him and interpreting "clear house" as "kill who's there". The thing is, we don't know his intention, nor his interpretation, and with others listening to him, we don't know how others will interpret it. Honestly, if you want to "clear house", and the Administration isn't doing something akin to 1984, just wait and vote. We live in a society where we play like grownups, and to see Ted Nugent act so immature (though he has every right to do so, just as I have every right to criticize him) is just insulting to human ingenuity.

Not G. Ivingname:
Ted Nugent is being very indirect about this, he never directly said I am "going to kill Obama," just "clean house" which could technically mean several other things, nor did he say when. The Supreme Court actually held the statement "Let's get them (the government) later" said at a rally of very unhappy people in Washington completely constitutional since he didn't say "now" and later could be any time.

Yes, I can totally see how:

If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year,

Is very indirect. There's a whole host of things he could have meant. Or not.

Mortai Gravesend:

Not G. Ivingname:
Ted Nugent is being very indirect about this, he never directly said I am "going to kill Obama," just "clean house" which could technically mean several other things, nor did he say when. The Supreme Court actually held the statement "Let's get them (the government) later" said at a rally of very unhappy people in Washington completely constitutional since he didn't say "now" and later could be any time.

Yes, I can totally see how:

If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year,

Is very indirect. There's a whole host of things he could have meant. Or not.

Well, it could technically mean he either would be in jail for attempted suicide, or be dead because he shot himself.

We both know what he really means, but he never actually said it.

DrVornoff:
You don't need expanded magazines when a single warning shot is all it takes to scare off an intruder.

You... you are aware that warning shots are a Hollywood myth, correct? Doing one of those in a self-defense situation is about the stupidest thing you can do.

It just sounds like the same crap that comes out of any superrightwinger's mouth these days. Nothing really special 'bout it. Don't know why the Secret Service is involved: people say this kind of stuff all the time.

Not G. Ivingname:

Mortai Gravesend:

Not G. Ivingname:
Ted Nugent is being very indirect about this, he never directly said I am "going to kill Obama," just "clean house" which could technically mean several other things, nor did he say when. The Supreme Court actually held the statement "Let's get them (the government) later" said at a rally of very unhappy people in Washington completely constitutional since he didn't say "now" and later could be any time.

Yes, I can totally see how:

If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year,

Is very indirect. There's a whole host of things he could have meant. Or not.

Well, it could technically mean he either would be in jail for attempted suicide, or be dead because he shot himself.

We both know what he really means, but he never actually said it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation#United_States

No, technically it couldn't.

DrVornoff:
Perhaps. My experience with gun rights supporters has been two types of people: weirdos with a weapon fetish, and people who have had firearms in their family for generations and are extremely realistic about the fact that a gun is a weapon.

Those are absurdly narrow categories. If what you experienced was accurate the entire gun world would be made up of Mall Ninjas and Fudds. There are an estimated 80 million gun owners out there and those are nowhere near the only categories (in so far as there are categories).

The latter are the kind whose company I prefer to keep and none of them really like the NRA's board of directors all that much.

Do they vote for them? Do they even know their names? Have they ever met any of the board members? I have and do and guess what, a lot of these guys are good honest people.

If you want to keep a gun to protect your home, have a handgun.

Why? My aunt uses a shotgun for home protection. She uses that because she does not like handguns and prefers shotguns.

You don't need an assault rifle to do that unless you're defending your home from the Mongol horde.

No one in their right minds (in the US at least) would use an assault rifle for home protection. They cost about $10,000 dollars, not including the license needed to purchase it and the ATF would likely revoke your license if they heard about it.

You don't need expanded magazines when a single warning shot is all it takes to scare off an intruder.

An intruder hopped up on PCP is not going to be stopped by a warning shot.

Beyond that, do you know why so many people like large capacity magazines? Imagine you had arthritis and were trying to load a magazine. If you have taken a basic physics course you release that as you compress a spring it takes more and more energy to compress it further. So, are you going to load the magazine all the way? Of course not. You can also use me as the example. I never load my magazines up all the way unless I need to do so. In other words my 9mm doesn't get 16 rounds in the magazine it only gets 10. Even people without arthritis do not feel the need to punish their fingers by constantly reloading. By shortening the magazine it means that it requires more force to put fewer rounds in the magazine and that inhibits everybody.

Like I said, a gun is a weapon.

Not by necessity. The morality of an object is determined by the morality of its master. Are you honestly going to tell me that the rifle I used in competitions is a weapon simply because some other tools in the same category as it are used as weapons?

If you only wound somebody with a gun, it's because you missed.

Or because you meant to wound them and succeeded.

Promethax:
It just sounds like the same crap that comes out of any superrightwinger's mouth these days. Nothing really special 'bout it. Don't know why the Secret Service is involved: people say this kind of stuff all the time.

Because the Secret Service takes pretty much every single threat on the President's* life. Because each one could be a real threat. If they say "Oh well, it's just the same stupid crap, let's ignore it" and then said stupid crap kills the President, then someone dun goofed. They gotta check up on this sort of stuff. That's their job.

*Pretty sure the Secret Service covers some other high profile government people too.

CM156:
You... you are aware that warning shots are a Hollywood myth, correct? Doing one of those in a self-defense situation is about the stupidest thing you can do.

Still better hollywood myths than the NRA gospel. Having someone stop whatever real threat to you they were doing after a warning shot is always preferable to murder.

That's why for most police forces, a warning shot is mandatory before attempting to shoot aimed. The experience is most violent offenders surrender immediatly after one.

Blablahb:
better hollywood myths than the NRA gospel. Having someone stop whatever real threat to you they were doing after a warning shot is always preferable to murder.

Given the fact that in many states giving a warning shot is ILLEGAL and undermines the self defense claim I have to say you are completely wrong.

That's why for most police forces, a warning shot is mandatory before attempting to shoot aimed.

No it isn't. I am not aware of ANY police force in the world that requires that. Why? Because that bullet is not just going to stop because you want it to. If you fire a warning shot that bullet may hit a bystander however if you shoot the suspect then the bullet will at least slow down.

The experience is most violent offenders surrender immediatly after one.

A guy hopped up on PCP is not going to stop because of a warning shot.

I want Obama out of office badly but I agree this guy crossed the line and came very close to breaking the law.

CM156:
You... you are aware that warning shots are a Hollywood myth, correct? Doing one of those in a self-defense situation is about the stupidest thing you can do.

I lived in a small town as a college student for four years. When I arrived I discovered to my displeasure that the Crips were moving into the area to deal heroin. In 4 years, there were two reports of gun violence in the town. In both cases, a single shot was fired and all the perpetrators fled the scene. Partly because in this town, every house had a gun in it. It was on the edge of the rural region and the suburbs, and firearms had been a part of this community for generations. The Crips knew that sticking around for a firefight would be a really stupid idea when there are a lot of armed people around them.

farson135:
Those are absurdly narrow categories. If what you experienced was accurate the entire gun world would be made up of Mall Ninjas and Fudds. There are an estimated 80 million gun owners out there and those are nowhere near the only categories (in so far as there are categories).

I don't pretend that it's a binary choice, though it may seem that I do from that post. I just don't like people who fetishize weaponry and violence.

Do they vote for them? Do they even know their names? Have they ever met any of the board members?

I never asked. They expressed a sentiment and I took them at their word. To be completely honest, I didn't think it was terribly important since it's not a subject we talk about very often.

Why? My aunt uses a shotgun for home protection. She uses that because she does not like handguns and prefers shotguns.

Or a shotgun, whatever. Your business, not mine. Though I personally think the shotgun has a higher potential for collateral damage, but I don't own one myself so take that for what it's worth.

No one in their right minds (in the US at least) would use an assault rifle for home protection. They cost about $10,000 dollars, not including the license needed to purchase it and the ATF would likely revoke your license if they heard about it.

Unfortunately, there are certain... individuals who are not in their right minds. On the other hand, almost every gun owner I've ever met agrees that the idea of giving civilians that kind of firepower is fucking crazy. The weirdos I mentioned earlier are the exceptions. The aberrations.

There is an exception apparently for flamethrowers. The regulations on conduct are very, very strict, but they're actually not too difficult to acquire. And as surreal as that is, I discovered that it was made so because flamethrowers are the most effective weapons against swarms of Africanized killer bees, which are making their way northward every year and pose a very real threat to public safety. So yeah, strange but at least there's some logic behind it that I can get my head around.

An intruder hopped up on PCP is not going to be stopped by a warning shot.

I don't really buy the whole "drugs create super villains" argument.

Beyond that, do you know why so many people like large capacity magazines? Imagine you had arthritis and were trying to load a magazine. If you have taken a basic physics course you release that as you compress a spring it takes more and more energy to compress it further. So, are you going to load the magazine all the way? Of course not. You can also use me as the example. I never load my magazines up all the way unless I need to do so. In other words my 9mm doesn't get 16 rounds in the magazine it only gets 10. Even people without arthritis do not feel the need to punish their fingers by constantly reloading. By shortening the magazine it means that it requires more force to put fewer rounds in the magazine and that inhibits everybody.

How often do you need 16 rounds is my question?

Not by necessity. The morality of an object is determined by the morality of its master. Are you honestly going to tell me that the rifle I used in competitions is a weapon simply because some other tools in the same category as it are used as weapons?

I'm not discussing the morality. The intended function of firearms is to kill things. The tool is always morally neutral because it's an inanimate object. But if you use a gun to shoot a person, that was the intended function. If you use it to hammer a nail, not so much. If I hit someone in the head with a frying pan, that was not the intended function, that was me being "creative."

I'm not unsympathetic to aficionados like yourself. I have a small collection of swords at home. The history and symbolism of weaponry is actually very intriguing to me. Fact remains however that I have weaponry in my house. And I must exercise the utmost responsibility in its display and maintenance even if the objects in question were purchased for aesthetic reasons rather than martial. I expect no less of others. I don't believe that's unreasonable.

What it comes down to is the fact that a gun has one function that makes it extraordinarily dangerous if it is not handled safely and responsibly and with the knowledge of the damage it can cause even accidentally. If you want to enter marksmanship competitions, feel free. I'm going to trust that you are a responsible adult who knows damn well the destructive capacity of the object you're holding. It is ultimately a weapon. And that's the reason you take safety with it as seriously as you do.

Or because you meant to wound them and succeeded.

There are methods for incapacitating someone other than slamming a hunk of metal into their flesh at high speeds. Methods that involve less bleeding. Fewer trips to the emergency room. Less potential for complications or legal liability.

I understand the argument. But... let's just say I'm in the "build a better mousetrap" school of thought. I would like for people to be able to defend their homes and loved ones with methods that don't involve blood spatter or potentially nasty collateral damage. I hope that you and I can find some common ground on that sentiment.

"If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year" the secret service are basically duty bound to ask him what exactly he meant by that.

because if that's a threat against the POTUS its both their job to investigate it and a Federal crime.

there are always limits placed on the ideal of freedom of speech.

there's a whole bunch of them even in the US (perjury, defamation law, slander, libel etc)

you can say anything you want but that doesn't mean that its said without consequence.

Blablahb:

CM156:
You... you are aware that warning shots are a Hollywood myth, correct? Doing one of those in a self-defense situation is about the stupidest thing you can do.

Still better hollywood myths than the NRA gospel. Having someone stop whatever real threat to you they were doing after a warning shot is always preferable to murder.

That's why for most police forces, a warning shot is mandatory before attempting to shoot aimed. The experience is most violent offenders surrender immediatly after one.

Like Farson pointed out, it's illegal in some areas.

I'm not going to break a law like that and risk being punished just for the sake of the person who's attacking me. See, I don't think criminals have a right to commit violent crimes, sans any resistance from victims, including deadly force. But that's just me

DrVornoff:

Or a shotgun, whatever. Your business, not mine. Though I personally think the shotgun has a higher potential for collateral damage, but I don't own one myself so take that for what it's worth.

Not G. Ivingname:

Thank you. I'm not a gun enthusiast myself outside of researching some of the history on early 20th century firearms for the sake a screenplay I was writing, so that helps.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked