Julia Wilson, a 14-year-old high school freshman from Sacramento, Calif., recently was interrogated at her school by Secret Service and Homeland Security agents investigating her MySpace page. The Web page was for a group called ”People who want to stab Bush” and included a image of a knife penetrating a hand under the words “Kill Bush,” the Modesto Bee reported.
There are a few things of which Julia should be well aware by now: You can't threaten the president; You don't have to speak to law enforcement alone (especially at 14); And you can't threaten the president.
Whether or not the contents of Wilson’s MySpace page actually broke the law is not too unclear. According to 18 U.S.C. § 871, “Whoever knowingly and willfully … makes any such threat (to “take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm”) against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President … shall be fined … or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” Nonetheless, it appears Wilson will not be prosecuted. This is a good choice. And while the statute seems to dredge up First Amendment concerns, we do not directly address those today.
Instead we question the efficiency of sending valuable federal agents into the field to personally investigate so-called threats that really are incredible, fantastic or simply appallingly juvenile expressions of political dissent coupled with no evidence of an intent to harm.
“Every year,” according to About.com, “the Secret Service investigates over 1,500 reported or discovered threats against the President. While most people who threaten the President are just venting, even joking, all reported threats are taken very seriously and those who make them are in for, at least, a tough time.”
Was it necessary for government agents to bring a schoolgirl to tears over her childish expression of political anger toward President Bush? From what we know, not this time. (Click here for other examples of 18 U.S.C. § 871 enforcement, along with an explanation of the law.)
In fact, Wilson amended her Web site after learning in school that it is illegal to threaten the president and before the agents had her pulled from class for questioning. The cost to taxpayers – and maybe freedom - of sending agents out into the field to track down a teenager while actual terrorists are afoot is too high. Instead, a cease-and-desist letter likely would have been highly effective in driving home Wilson's prior civics lesson with less burden on the public purse.
We do not mean to imply that credible or possibly credible threats to the president should be answered by post. That, of course, is foolish. Instead, we support a reexamination of how threats are determined to be possibly credible. A simple example explains the flaw in the current regime: Any individual or group, including comparatively harmless pranksters, who wants to distract and annoy law enforcement simply can pepper the Internet with false threats to the president, either wasting federal and other resources or obfuscating a real danger. Such an operation is not a far-fetched fantasy.
What we propose is that agents be given the authority to use common sense when determining whether a questionable statement is a possibly credible threat. Is it fantastic, overtly juvenile, implausible or otherwise incredible? If yes, then maybe a personal visit is not immediately called for.
Such judgments obviously should be made on a case-by-case basis. Suppose, for example, that Wilson had an upcoming class trip to the White House or U.S. Capitol. Suddenly, a personal investigation seems much more appropriate and perhaps demanded. Otherwise, a few simple Internet and ISP queries or even a phone call could show that no real threat is materializing. Broad authority exists, fortunately or not, for law enforcement officials to demand information from ISPs and content providers, like MySpace, that would immediately lead reasonable investigators to conclude some statements are not credible threats.
We understand it is easier to critique those that protect us than to actually bear the burden of ensuring the safety of U.S. citizens and our president. Still, it is difficult to look back on the Wilson investigation and believe we are focusing our investigative energies in the correct places.
Wilson surely now realizes what is lost on many: Expression on the Internet is not at all private, and may as well be spoken at a city council meeting or televised during the Super Bowl. What you say always has consequences. We hope Wilson will receive public support and understanding of her youthful indiscretion so that - rather than be frightened or shamed into silence - she can learn, as we all hope to, to express political views in a more mature and effective way. [The Sacramento Bee via The Modesto Bee, About.com] TheSequitur.com Editorial Board welcomes its newest member-at-large, , of Nashville, Tenn. Senior Editor did not participate in this week’s editorial. Senior Editor abstains from all staff editorials.
Conclusions 
