Prosecuting death threats over internet is a great idea and should be implemented. Besides, if British courts feel the need to sue oversea authors because their books can be sold on U.K. via a website, I don't see why a U.S. citizen can't sue a Middle-East punk because threats of decapitation.

Many people out there thinks that Internet is the perfect anonymous veil and that they can do their worst here. If basic courtesy fail them, I guess I good law will do the job.

> If basic courtesy fail them,
> I guess I good law will
> do the job.

In the whole of recorded human communication, has their ever been a tighter expression of the fascist impulse than that passage?

More astonishment on CNN today. Laments that Sen. Obama's selection process may exclude "qualified individuals".

The process is apparently screening for criminal tendencies.

CNN apparently thinks that's a bad idea.

I think it's the first sign the man knows what to do.

Crid,

I know my last comment sounded a tad fascist (and filled with typos). I just want to clarify something. The Internet looks like a Far-West as far as I know now.

Why should we tolerate on Internet something here that would unleash a lawsuit on other medias? This is why I support Amy's idea of pursuing those who makes death threats on line.

Prosecuting death threats over internet is a great idea and should be implemented.

It already can be, depending on the circumstances. If it is reported to the proper authorities, they figure out the seriousness of the threat and at the least, the person making them gets a good talking to about the illegality of threatening the lives of others. If it is deemed a credible threat, the person can end up getting prosecuted. Threats are threats, regardless of the medium.

I read that CNN article too and was shocked at how they seemed to paint Obama doing intense background checks as such a bad thing. They actually mentioned how looking into the people who gave Bill Clinton money might make things difficult for Hillary Clinton if she takes the Secretary of State job. If that's the case, why in the world should she have been a viable candidate for president?

As far as the internet is concerned: I'm am very much for unregulation, but that does not count with death threats. Death threats are threats no matter what, and should be treated as such. Child pornography, the same. Regulation, taking rid of anonymity (especially in countries with less or no free speech), taxation of internet use, all of these things I stand against. I’m not a compete Libertarian, there are things that should be regulated, things that could be dangerous to health of the public (chemical dumping, dangerous lending practices, etc.), but I fail to see how the internet can or should be regulated.

A guy who was involved in the Marc Rich pardon as Attorney General? What are they thinking?

The best thing you could say is that he was reckless and exhibited poor judgement. Yes, just the man for Justice.