"I say take everything you can to keep you and your family alive, because it took the government five long days to bring fresh food and water. ... I say shoot every cop, national guard and politician who stands in your way, INCLUDING GEORGE W. BUSH if need be," wrote University of Louisville student Philip Bailey on an internet discussion thread dedicated to the unrest in New Orleans. Bailey, who chairs the University's Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, is now being investigated by the Secret Service to determine if he will be charged with threatening the president. If he is, he could face a five year prison sentence. Bailey claims he was not promoting violence: "I'm advocating that people defend themselves and survive," he says.

Bailey's defenders say he was exercising his right to free speech: "Mr. Bailey's comments represent the freedom of speech granted to each citizen of this nation," write the editors of SOULution, the site where Bailey posted his comments. "We stand by our brother 100 percent, and his comments. ... Those wishing to portray Phillip Bailey in a negative light must deal with not one individual, but a movement that will continue to push the envelope of the status quo on an intelligent level. We urge all of our readers to be sure of all of the facts in this case and to view our message board, and see for themselves what was said in the context of the conversation."

Whatever the authorities decide about his initial posting--which strikes me as more rashly intemperate and stupid than as directly threatening--it seems clear enough that his subsequent defense is intellectually dishonest and self-excusing: Recommending that people shoot other people to "defend themselves" and "survive" is by definition recommending that people resort to violence.

Thanks to Maurice Black for the link.

It is not as if he said this to people while handing them guns. It is not as if he said this to people who have the ability to read it right now. I doubt Internet service was at the top of the "restore" list for the embattled parts of New Orleans, or that there were even computers there to begin with. So I find this all terrifyingly ridiculous. If this guy is in trouble, then so is every gangsta-style rapper we have in this country. When we start blaming people for inciting violence, I also think we take a little bit of responsibility away from those who go out and practice violence.

Of course he's the chair of the University's Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee! Who else would advocate...violence?

I don't know what the relationship is between this group calling itself SNCC and that of the 1960s, but remember, leaders of the earlier incarnation dropped their commitment to the "non-violent" part after a few years--and so in that sense, statements such as Bailey's have a long pedigree.

And if there's something disingenuous in the claim that advocating that "people defend themselves" doesn't equal "violence," the local FOP guy says something at least as ridiculous when he claims that "We're concerned that someone out there might believe the remarks of this man."

He's not advicating violence, rather he's advocating force... Can't you see the difference? It's just like how "dispositions" as part of the rubric does not violate the Barnett decision - rather it is academic freedom.

As far as this case goes, it strikes me as the secret service seeing one academic idiotarian and raising him one federal one.

The Secret Service has to investigate stuff like this. It's their job. They can't assume that there's no threat to the President without looking into it. Being investigated does not equal having your First Amendment rights taken away.

I thought everybody knew that you don't make threats against the President in writing. It's like joking about having a gun in an airport. Probably nothing bad will happen to you, but you WILL be investigated.

As to the content of his message, the government has told us all for years now to prepare to take care of ourselves for a few days if anything catastrophic happens. The fact that he is so outraged by the thought of people having to take responsibility for themselves is very indicative of his maturity and general frame of mind, in my opinion, which may explain the stupidity of putting what he did in writing.

yes, those poor, irresponsible people. when they evacuated their homes, they should have brought all their supplies with them. didn't they have enough room in their mercedes for extra rations? perhaps they should have taken the rations store in their vast supply closets.

maybe now they've learned a lesson about responsibility.

Jason, you realize he was talking about the people who did not evacuate.

I didn't mention that I also was struck by the irony of Bailey's chairing the University's Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. I don't think shooting someone who "stands in your way" is usually thought of as self defense.

yes, i also realize many of the people who didn't evacuate didn't have the means to leave. i'm also willing to bet that they couldn't afford to purchase those supplies to get them through--some of them probably struggled with supplies for the present.

also, if they stayed their homes may have been destroyed along with any supplies--although the poor besides not being able to afford emergency supplies may not have had the room for them. And weren't some people who stayed eventually forced to evacuate to other places--like the football stadium.

Bailey's comments were stupid--i don't think there's any doubt about that. And you are right: when one threatens the president (of any party) one gets investigated. that's not really a violation of free speech. i also question the "non-violence" in the organization's name.

however, if we are going to casually throw out comments about lack of responsibility, it would be better to focus those on the local, state, and federal governments (and not just the current administration) that have failed to do anything about the potential for disaster in New Orleans. politicians on both sides and at all levels have been more irresponsible than those people who didn't stock up on supplies. And by focusing on the governments i don't mean threatening them with violence--while that may get attention, it does little to solve any problems.

Eh, this guy is walking a very fine line--citing Street v. New York, one can't advocate violence and claim that it's protected speech. It isn't. But, in order to be unprotected, "fighting words," one's speech must pose "an actual threat of immediate violence," which this guy's do not, but he's kind of an idiot to say such a thing, especially given his position.

"politicians on both sides and at all levels have been more irresponsible than those people who didn't stock up on supplies."

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think some stranger in an office in Washington or even in my state or local government has more responsibility for my personal safety and wellbeing than I do. Sure, if I found myself a victim of natural disaster and hadn't prepared (inexplicably in this case because there was plenty of warning) I hope somebody would help me but I can't see myself complaining that they took "five long days" or whatever.

And I'm really not faulting people who "looted" food or water, but I hope they didn't arbitrarily shoot anyone who crossed their path on the way to get it. On the other hand, there were plenty of people who saw that hurricane approaching and put two and two together and got out even ahead of the evacuation order. That's really ideal.

But this is really OT and I bet Erin wishes we'd quit.

they have responsibility. after all, much of the damage was caused by the levee failure. i don't care how responsible you are for your safety--a breaking levee is the government's responsibility. elected officials-not strangers. people whose job is to be responsible for public safety-not strangers. an individual cannot fix a levee (i don't think a finger in the hole will do it).

to keep this OT, perhaps Bailey's remarks were fueled by anger at this kind of irresponsibility. plus five days is a long time--we can deploy troops across the world in less time.

Now, how can they be "standing in your way" and bringing fresh food and water, albeit late?

For one standing for nonviolence, he has used speech which advocates treating all in a given group (well, two groups and an individual) with an immediate violent solution.

Must be a product of an american school system.

yeah, he doesn't make a lot of sense. i don't think any national guardsman or police officers would stop people from getting food or water--especially if those people used a reasonable approach: "Excuse me, we're really thirsty/hungry--we need this water/food" instead of "Bang." But news footage showed that we needed the national guard because people were taking couches, televisions, and other "essentials." violence, even when necessary, is a bad choice, and should never be the first.

any time you speak of shooting our comander in chieff. you probaly will get a vissit from the men in black. and you should get that vissit!!!!!! relife will never be fast enougg and aid will never be enough.