because it COULD be perceived as one. if it was written about me...i would perceive it that way and the paper would get an earful from me for running it

ahhh the could have, would have, should have category.

I see nothing wrong with ad. Freedom of speech.

Just because someone 'reads' it as such, does not make it illegal

May the bird of paradise poop on your shoulder. (just an old saying)
to some that is good luck
to others it is good luck the bird pooped elsewhere

in this case...I don't think it's a legal issue. but the person it is about should have a say as well.

agree not a legal issue? it is more of an opinion, a wish, nothing more.

You said because it COULD be perceived as one -

perceptions will vary according to who reads/interprets ad

who is right?
who is wrong?

i said I do NOT think it's a legal issue....i'm not a lawyer. I don't know if someone who reads it and assassinates the president if they would hold the paper and the writer responsible for something.

i said it COULD be perceived as a threat...adn it could...I would take it as a threat

Only the guilty would think the world is out to get them

Just kidding Rose.

I know you said it's not a legal issue, I placed a question mark there in error.

*if we were to live, talk and go through life as others perceive us or our actions to be, there would be no such thing as freedom of anything (jmo) everything would be predetermined by those in power.

there is a difference between saying someone doesn't like someone and why vs saying someone should follow in the footsteps of assassinated presidents vs saying I want to kill this person.

if this article IS a notice saying he wants to kill or someone else to kill...then that could go to premeditation or to incite...and I would want to wait until it happens to do something. as well as it could just be saying he isn't happy with BHO. this shouldn't have been printed because it's unclear. it is not the same or handle the same as someone clearly posting a death threat

Ok I'll cede, but why not print it because it made no sense to the reader or the editor, or because it 'could' be misconstrued?

Remember an ad is just that paid advertising space in paper. Without ads, there is no paper.

"May Obama follow in the footsteps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy,"

While the words are inflammatory in nature, they do not pose a threat. It can be taken that this person "wishes" it to happen. Here is the argument on legal terms,,,
A person may wish to win the lottery. Can he "make" it happen?
No
The person, if brought up on charges, should be smart enough to get a lawyer who will no doubt, go for a trial by judge and not by jury to eliminate any bias and have evidence presented as fact and taken as fact.

Now, as to why it wasn't caught before publishing, it might have been someone who wasn't educated in history or their job was so mundane as to only look for spelling or,,,
maybe they felt the same and decided to test the limits of freedom of speech,,,/

I pretty much agree with what you've been saying.