Should Kathy Griffin be imprisoned for posting her offensive Donald Trump decapitated head depiction?

[LateForLunch]

I think she's being punished enough without jail.  My question though is with what crime would she be charged?

I dunno, we'll just make up something as we go, just like the Eightball and the 'Crats were so fond of doing.

I favor a punishment of defenestration - from the Burj Khalifa after injection  with Ketamine, PCP and pure crystal meth. Then run some high speed cams at the ground so we can see the little vermin impact in super-duper slo-mo.

Pay-per-view and other sales could go to charity. Selah!

[XenaLee]

I think she's being punished enough without jail.  My question though is with what crime would she be charged?

Encouraging and inciting violence (jihadist violence) against the Commander In Chief, for one.

What she did is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded venue.   And yes, there are laws against that kind of outrageous behavior..... and malicious intent is an oft-used legal term.

[XenaLee]

And by the by - it was said that we don't make politically motivated arrests in this country,
but. oh hell yes we do and have been doing so for around 200 hundred years.

I'm all for the rule of law, but there's nothing that says we can't feel good about
throwing a lefty in jail, now is there?

Exactly!

[XenaLee]

Ahem.

Is that the guy that made the infamous Benghazi video?   They sure as hell locked him up fast enough... even though nobody in Benghazi had even SEEN the video. 

[Oceander]

Encouraging and inciting violence (jihadist violence) against the Commander In Chief, for one.

What she did is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded venue.   And yes, there are laws against that kind of outrageous behavior..... and malicious intent is an oft-used legal term.

Absolutely not.  She did nothing of the sort. 

[LateForLunch]

Absolutely not.  She did nothing of the sort.

Absolutely is a strong term. sieur! Did the little vermin do something that would be encouraging to ISIS? Most people would say "absolutely she did". The moral equivalent would be to someone in an allied nation during WWII publicly displaying a photograph of some Allied leader being gassed, burned alive or machine-gunned in a ditch.

Since we are not in a declared war, treason for giving comfort and aid to the enemy would be a very challenging prosecution. If it were easy to get a conviction for that alone, half of the 'Crats in government would be in prison for their actions during Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.

 That being said, being unutterably stupid and pointlessly offensive is not per se illegal.

[XenaLee]

Absolutely not.  She did nothing of the sort.

Then....why did the Secret Service pay her a visit?

[LateForLunch]

Then....why did the Secret Service pay her a visit?

SOP. They are documenting the contact so that if there is a recurrence they will have recourse. Some of that is CYA as well for the SS. Intent is 9/10ths of the law. The SS is vested with the task of separating real, sincere threats from simple venting/vituperation.

[Smokin Joe]

Then....why did the Secret Service pay her a visit?

Probably to quietly tell her her arse was over the line and to knock that crap off. They may not have been so nice about it, either. It's their job to take anything which can be construed as a threat seriously.

[Suppressed]

That's the poor fellow they threw in jail for supposedly making the video that was "responsible" for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.

The man makes a really good point!

@Bigun  @Old Warrior in Exile
He wasn't jailed for a video being illegal.  He was put back into prison for violating his parole or probation (I can't recall which).  He was out after serving part of his sentence from bank fraud, using identity theft...names and Social Security numbers from other people, including children.  He was picked up for using an alias and the Internet, both in violation of his conditions.

[LateForLunch]

@Bigun  @Old Warrior in Exile
He wasn't jailed for a video being illegal.  He was put back into prison for violating his parole or probation (I can't recall which).  He was out after serving part of his sentence from bank fraud, using identity theft...names and Social Security numbers from other people, including children.  He was picked up for using an alias and the Internet, both in violation of his conditions.

Yet of all the thousands of others with similar violations/charges, only he was singled out for a late-night no-knock, Elian Gonzales-style TAC-squad assault and imposition of the maximum sentencing. As an added bonus, no less than a presidential candidate made him an international celebrity with any muzz homicidal lunatic by trying to make him the fall guy in her own political cover-up.

'Sounds to me like the guy got righteously f-ed up and that trying to spin it any other way is  species of prevarication. He's a creep but even he did not deserve all of that.

[ABX]

Simple answer- no.
Obviously the Secret Service should do their due diligence to determine if it was an actionable threat; but a political statement, even gruesome, in itself is not only not a crime, but is protected. It is up to the people (aka us) to decide if we want it and 'punish' her through impacting the product she sells (ie, don't go to her shows, don't buy her sponsored products, etc). That's how a free society works. One is free to use their voice and others are free to give their opinion of it without government repercussions. 

[Cripplecreek]

Simple answer- no.
Obviously the Secret Service should do their due diligence to determine if it was an actionable threat; but a political statement, even gruesome, in itself is not only not a crime, but is protected. It is up to the people (aka us) to decide if we want it and 'punish' her through impacting the product she sells (ie, don't go to her shows, don't buy her sponsored products, etc). That's how a free society works. One is free to use their voice and others are free to give their opinion of it without government repercussions.

Sadly we give them far more attention than they would normally get.

As far as I'm concerned she should be getting as much attention as the photographer who actually came up with the idea. I'm sure he's not happy that Griffin is getting all the attention.

[Suppressed]

Yet of all the thousands of others with similar violations/charges, only he was singled out for a late-night no-knock, Elian Gonzales-style TAC-squad assault and imposition of the maximum sentencing. As an added bonus, no less than a presidential candidate made him an international celebrity with any muzz homicidal lunatic by trying to make him the fall guy in her own political cover-up.

'Sounds to me like the guy got righteously f-ed up and that trying to spin it any other way is  species of prevarication. He's a creep but even he did not deserve all of that.

Agreed. But it would be disingenuous to imply that the video, per se, was why he was locked up. 

[Wingnut]

Agreed. But it would be disingenuous to imply that the video, per se, was why he was locked up.

Only to say that if Hitlary hadn't  needed a scapegoat for her F-up... anyone else in his same situation would not have been bum rushed and perpwalked live on CNN for political cover.

So lets just leave it at that and get back on predicting the possibility of Griffin looking thu bars.  :)

[Oceander]

Then....why did the Secret Service pay her a visit?

To see if she was up to anything else.  Obviously.  And just as obviously, they didn't find anything.

[LateForLunch]

To see if she was up to anything else.  Obviously.  And just as obviously, they didn't find anything.

Sure, that was one reason. They also needed to make an example of her in the sense of sending a message to anyone who would emulate her behavior, that such expressions have consequences in the real world - to fight against the assumption of the grossly ignorant, that verbal, video or written expressions are NOT behaviors/actions which can carry criminal consequences. 

[AllThatJazzZ]

Yes - 5 (14.3%)
No - 30 (85.7%)

I'm proud of 85.7% of this board. It's safe to say that the numbers would have been reversed if this question had been asked of liberals concerning an idiotic act by a conservative. Heck, with their herd mentality, they might have voted 100% for imprisonment.

[Wingnut]

We are enlightened mouth breathers round here.   

[Smokin Joe]

We are enlightened mouth breathers round here.   

Its that damb code go-ink around. Stuffy nose, watery eyes...

[Joe Wooten]

No, merely ridiculed mercilessly 24/7

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Sadly we give them far more attention than they would normally get.

As far as I'm concerned she should be getting as much attention as the photographer who actually came up with the idea. I'm sure he's not happy that Griffin is getting all the attention.

Conservative media exists purely to get senior's blood pressure up these days. Judging from the reaction of people posting here, it seems to be working wonderfully.

[DB]

Ahem.

Tit for tat isn't justice.

[Smokin Joe]

Tit for tat isn't justice.

Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Jazzhead]

Absolutely not.  The consequences she's already suffered are much more meaningful and locking her up just for the image itself will turn her into a martyr.

Agreed.   Let her dangle following her conviction in the court of public opinion.