Secret Service questions 15 year old about political cartoons

This morning I read an article in the paper regarding a 15 year old boy
who the Secret Service questioned because he drew political cartoons that
were against the war and President Bush. The article is he
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rosser27m.html
or http://tinyurl.com/2bhkj.

I found this article to be terrifying. I have an 11 year old who loves to
draw political cartoons. She will use newsmagazines to find photographs to
copy from. It's not that unusual for her to produce a dozen in a sitting.
Her level of humor is not that sophisticated, but then again, she is only
11 years old. Has she drawn GWB to look like a devil? She certainly has
doodled little horns and spiky ears (etc.) on photographs of him, and made
cartoon baloons come from his mouth to say all kinds of stupid things. Has
she depicted him with his head on a pike? I don't know, but it wouldn't be
impossible -- she has been relatively prolific in these drawings.

Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rice, Rumsfeld -- all of them have been lampooned
in her cartoons, along with other world figures, like Saddam Hussein,
Osama Bin Laden, Vladimir Putin, and Tony Blair.

Recently I took her to a local museum exhibit that showed the political
cartoons of a local artist. I have also found books by various
contemporary political cartoonists for her to look at. She's never been
all that jazzed by art as a means of self-expression, so I've been trying
to cultivate and sharpen this interest constructively.

Now I wonder if that was such a great idea. Just the threat of the Secret
Service coming to question her makes my blood run cold. In fact, it might
not be such a good idea to have this post signed -- moderators, can you
see that this is posted anonymously? I don't mean to be paranoid, but this
just completely freaks me out.

It sounds to me like you're doing a good job of fostering you child's natural
abilities for political satire and art -- that's good!

Apart from her work as a political cartoonist (which I would place in the realm
of artistic license) you might help her learn to separate her artwork from her
actions and attitude in daily life. In our family (where political opinions
run very strong and we make no secret of where we stand to our son), we have a
rule that we speak with respect about anyone, even when we disagree with them.
No name-calling is allowed, no one can call a person "stupid" (although
policies and actions can be deemed "stupid"). We teach to respect the office
of the presidency regardless of who is holding it. In recent years when Henry
has made what we consider to be uncivil comments about the current
administration members, we have let him know that it is NOT acceptable, any
more than it would be acceptable for him to make those remarks about a neighbor
he didn't like.

Henry knows I do not like the current administration's policies and he knows I
will go to great lengths to exercise those beliefs (I just got back from the
March for Women's Lives in Washington), but he also knows that, even when I am
marching with a million people, I do not approve of calling any individual
names or engaging in personal attacks (I saw some doozies on Sunday and they
saddened me and, I think, diluted our message).

Wouldn't it be nice if all of our elected officials did the same? I direct
that remark equally to folks on both sides of the aisle; I was dismayed to
learn of someone in my polical party making a speech on the floor of Congress
(or was it the Senate?) today calling current administration members "chicken
hawks" for not serving in Vietnam. It's hard to teach kids how to disagree
with civility when the role models in society can't seem to do so.

As to the Secret Service's actions, I guess we have some pretty sad evidence in
recent years that some 15 yo kids are indeed capable of violence, so I can't
really blame them for investigating if the cartoon appeared to be a threat or
warning of some kind.

-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 11

I would suggest checking your child's student handbook. If it has any rules
which might be twisted to cover it (like, say, respect for authority), I'd
strongly encourage the editorial cartooning to stay at home. In fact, that
might not be a bad idea regardless.

The recent news coverage on Doonesbury (and lots of other historical
examples, many dealing with Trudeau) might be good to pull up to demonstrate
that political cartoons aren't always well regarded.

In ,
Anonymous wrote:

*Now I wonder if that was such a great idea. Just the threat of the Secret
*Service coming to question her makes my blood run cold. In fact, it might

Well, I can certainly understand being *worried*, given what was reported.
That being said, frankly, it seems to me that the story doesn't really
tell us all of the facts. The policeman they quote said that he felt based
on the available evidence, the school was correct to call the authorities.
I hope that means there was something going on other than some
normal-seeming kid drawing a political cartoon. I mean, some pattern, or
other weirdness, that was concerning.

Also, being questioned by the Secret Service is not the end of the world.
It's just an interview by a government official. If you have nothing to
hide, it really should NOT be a problem at all. For the most part, those
people are not out to get innocent kids in trouble!

I had, years ago when I worked for an ISP, a customer who sent threatening
email to the white house (actually the email he sent seems to be available
for review he http://tinyurl.com/yukzw and is kind of funny...)
The Secret Service questioned me for a few HOURS about it, it was no big
deal being questioned. They also questioned our (mentally ill) customer,
which apparently wasn't a big deal either, although it kind of fed into
his whole "need to wear a tin-foil hat to keep out the voices in my head"
sort of paranoia.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't think the Secret Service in general is
going to start going around harassing political cartoon drawing children,
although I suppose it could happen, and even if they did have time to make
that a priority, it wouldn't be a big deal for the most part.

I hope so, anyway!
--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

In article ,
(Iowacookiemom) wrote:



Henry knows I do not like the current administration's policies and he knows
I
will go to great lengths to exercise those beliefs (I just got back from the
March for Women's Lives in Washington),

OT, but on behalf of the millions of us who couldn't make it . . .

thank you.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Anonymous wrote:

This morning I read an article in the paper regarding a 15 year old boy
who the Secret Service questioned because he drew political cartoons that
were against the war and President Bush. The article is he
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rosser27m.html
or http://tinyurl.com/2bhkj.


The problem here isn't the secret service, isn't the kid. It's the
teacher, principal and school superintendent who called the secret
service. They obviously have no ability to judge the seriousness of a
situation and run to the authorities instead.

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
Anonymous wrote:

*Now I wonder if that was such a great idea. Just the threat of the Secret
*Service coming to question her makes my blood run cold. In fact, it might

Well, I can certainly understand being *worried*, given what was reported.
That being said, frankly, it seems to me that the story doesn't really
tell us all of the facts. The policeman they quote said that he felt based
on the available evidence, the school was correct to call the authorities.
I hope that means there was something going on other than some
normal-seeming kid drawing a political cartoon. I mean, some pattern, or
other weirdness, that was concerning.

That's an assumption on your part with no basis in fact. There might have
been other extenuating circumstances, but you cannot assume there were on
the basis that you think there must have been. None were stated. That sounds
like more of the same kind of thinking that led up to the incident in the
first place.

Also, being questioned by the Secret Service is not the end of the world.
It's just an interview by a government official. If you have nothing to
hide, it really should NOT be a problem at all.

"If you have nothing to hide" being the historically key phrase to the loss
of all freedoms.

For the most part, those
people are not out to get innocent kids in trouble!

You have obviously not read the Patriot Act or the Patriot Act II.

I had, years ago when I worked for an ISP, a customer who sent threatening
email to the white house (actually the email he sent seems to be available
for review he http://tinyurl.com/yukzw and is kind of funny...)
The Secret Service questioned me for a few HOURS about it, it was no big
deal being questioned. They also questioned our (mentally ill) customer,
which apparently wasn't a big deal either, although it kind of fed into
his whole "need to wear a tin-foil hat to keep out the voices in my head"
sort of paranoia.

Actually sending a threatening message the intended target of that threat is
an overt act, and justifiably punishable (though, unfortunately, often not).
But the counterpart to this would be writing a story about a character who
writes a threatening letter, and getting punished for that.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't think the Secret Service in general is
going to start going around harassing political cartoon drawing children,

Well, you've been proven wrong before you even made the statement.

although I suppose it could happen, and even if they did have time to make
that a priority, it wouldn't be a big deal for the most part.

Nah, let's just all forget about it, roll over, and go back to sleep. The
government is our friend.


--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Anonymous wrote:

This morning I read an article in the paper regarding a 15 year old boy
who the Secret Service questioned because he drew political cartoons that
were against the war and President Bush...

I found this article to be terrifying. I have an 11 year old who loves to
draw political cartoons. She will use newsmagazines to find photographs to
copy from. It's not that unusual for her to produce a dozen in a sitting.
Her level of humor is not that sophisticated, but then again, she is only
11 years old. Has she drawn GWB to look like a devil? She certainly has
doodled little horns and spiky ears (etc.) on photographs of him, and made
cartoon baloons come from his mouth to say all kinds of stupid things. Has
she depicted him with his head on a pike? I don't know, but it wouldn't be
impossible -- she has been relatively prolific in these drawings.

So much depends upon context and the sort of details that don't make it
into news coverage.

I don't think the Secret Service aspect of it is all that significant, but
maybe that's because I live near DC, where sooper-seekrit Feds are a dime a
dozen. Heck, Ivan Stang (founder of the Church of the Subgenius) earned
himself a visit from the Secret Service, based on the number of strange
mailing lists where his name appeared from his work writing
High_Weirdness_by_Mail. He handled it appropriately, inviting them in for
coffee and being sure to ordain them before they left.

What is awry is the epidemic of wild overreactions by school officials
(where this incident started) to anything that vaguely seems like violence.
Just as school violence rates have been in such a shocking rate of decline,
officials have responded to the receding threat by blowing all sorts of
things out of proportion. My cow-orker had to engage in legal action to get
his second-grader readmitted to school, after he was suspended (with
mumblings about explusion) for casually gesturing with a pair of blunt
scissors as if they were a gun. That's something with a real, negative
impact on a child. That visit from the Secret Service will be an
entertaining story and a badge of honor for the child.

--
Why *is* everyone so worried about violins in schools?

In ,
Richard wrote:

*Having lived as an expatriot in a state controlled by a totalitarian regime, I
*submit that the real fear, the real danger, is self-censorship. In late-1997,

I would agree, self-censorship due to fear of government repercussions is
bad.

*If the OP's daughter's behavior is changed in any way that decreases the free
*and open expression of her beliefs and ideas, she has been censored. She has

Well, you mean she has censored herself. BIG difference.

*been censored even if the Secret Service never know that she even exists, let
*alone show up at her front door to question her.

Not by the government. By her own fears, which may or may not (and I think
not, but obviously reasonable people can disagree) be well-grounded.

h.
--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

In nv8kc.7542$kp.207409@attbi_s52,
Byron Canfield wrote:

*"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
*
* Well, I can certainly understand being *worried*, given what was reported.
* That being said, frankly, it seems to me that the story doesn't really
* tell us all of the facts. The policeman they quote said that he felt based
* on the available evidence, the school was correct to call the authorities.
* I hope that means there was something going on other than some
* normal-seeming kid drawing a political cartoon. I mean, some pattern, or
* other weirdness, that was concerning.
*
*That's an assumption on your part with no basis in fact. There might have

What's an assumption on my part? That "it seems" to me that the story
doesn't tell the facts? That "I hope" there was something else going on?

Why can't I state an opinion these days without someone wildly
misinterpreting it and making claims about what I said that are patently
untrue? Am I *that* unclear in my prose?

This is distressing.

*been other extenuating circumstances, but you cannot assume there were on
*the basis that you think there must have been. None were stated. That sounds

And I did not say there definitely were. I said I HOPE, not I KNOW FOR
SURE!

* Also, being questioned by the Secret Service is not the end of the world.
* It's just an interview by a government official. If you have nothing to
* hide, it really should NOT be a problem at all.
*
*"If you have nothing to hide" being the historically key phrase to the loss
*of all freedoms.

Well, it wasn't a problem for me.

* I guess what I'm saying is I don't think the Secret Service in general is
* going to start going around harassing political cartoon drawing children,
*
*Well, you've been proven wrong before you even made the statement.

OH, ok. My opinions are wrong. Well, so are yours. Neener neener neener.

-h.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large