RE: First amendment and a Senator.

RE: First amendment and a Senator. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

DDraigeuraid -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/16/2008 9:16:13 PM)
I missed that part. Asking the Justice Dept to get involved would constitute a breach of the First Amendment...if they decided to pursue the matter. However, since the JD is controlled by the Bush Admin., not likley to happen. However, that could be troublesome if Obama should pursue a similar policy if he should become POTUS. Dragon

philosophy -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/16/2008 9:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hoodie If protestors are being disruptive to the meeting going on in the hall, they should be tossed. Lest we not forget MSNBC giving SEVERAL Code Pinkers entrance passes to do just that, interrupt the speeches at the RNC. .......so a 61 year old woman with a sign is disruptive? We may have to define exactly what we mean by disruptive. quote: However, there's a problem with your post. The topic was Obama attempting to silence those who give a dissenting opinion to him and his candidacy. Is it possible to discuss the topic without bringing McCain into it? Unless McCain's attempted to silence broadcasters who've dissented against him, you're comparing apples to oranges, yes? ....well, your substantive point is true. Although i did try to preface my remarks with why i thought it was apposite. i look forward though to you castigating those who bring Obama into threads regarding McCain with the same enthusiasm though :)

hoodie -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/16/2008 9:55:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: hoodie If protestors are being disruptive to the meeting going on in the hall, they should be tossed. Lest we not forget MSNBC giving SEVERAL Code Pinkers entrance passes to do just that, interrupt the speeches at the RNC. .......so a 61 year old woman with a sign is disruptive? We may have to define exactly what we mean by disruptive. quote: However, there's a problem with your post. The topic was Obama attempting to silence those who give a dissenting opinion to him and his candidacy. Is it possible to discuss the topic without bringing McCain into it? Unless McCain's attempted to silence broadcasters who've dissented against him, you're comparing apples to oranges, yes? ....well, your substantive point is true. Although i did try to preface my remarks with why i thought it was apposite. i look forward though to you castigating those who bring Obama into threads regarding McCain with the same enthusiasm though :) I wasn't speaking of a specific case. I was speaking in general about protestors disrupting meetings. I'm not familiar with the 61 year old woman holding the sign, so my apologies if that was who was intended. As for your second point. I haven't been around the threads long enough to see it happen. However, if it is irrelevant to the issue, I will be sure to do so.

DomKen -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/16/2008 10:02:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DDraigeuraid I missed that part. Asking the Justice Dept to get involved would constitute a breach of the First Amendment...if they decided to pursue the matter. However, since the JD is controlled by the Bush Admin., not likley to happen. However, that could be troublesome if Obama should pursue a similar policy if he should become POTUS. Dragon Not really. The JD was requested to get involved over a clear violation of campaign finance law. Which really is something the JD is supposed to care about.

philosophy -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/16/2008 10:09:15 PM)
Well, welcome to the fora. We're a nice enough lot representing pretty much every shade of opinion. We occasionally get bit..er...passionate and then Mod XI steps in with her big hob nailed stilettoes and sorts things out. There's little mercy for humbug but a lot of tolerance for people doing the best they can. i like it here, hope you enjoy your stay.

slvemike4u -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/16/2008 10:19:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Well, welcome to the fora. We're a nice enough lot representing pretty much every shade of opinion. We occasionally get bit..er...passionate and then Mod XI steps in with her big hob nailed stilettoes and sorts things out. There's little mercy for humbug but a lot of tolerance for people doing the best they can. i like it here, hope you enjoy your stay. Speakin as one who recently spent time "in the corner"I would like to echo al that Philo said...welcome to the party and I hope you enjoy the discourse.

Thadius -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/17/2008 8:39:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DDraigeuraid I missed that part. Asking the Justice Dept to get involved would constitute a breach of the First Amendment...if they decided to pursue the matter. However, since the JD is controlled by the Bush Admin., not likley to happen. However, that could be troublesome if Obama should pursue a similar policy if he should become POTUS. Dragon Not really. The JD was requested to get involved over a clear violation of campaign finance law. Which really is something the JD is supposed to care about. The place to go for violations of campaign finance law or more importantly the claims being made about this particular case, would be the FEC, FCC or a civil court. Which makes me wonder, if the things were as you said slanderous or outright false (namely the books) why hasn't there been a lawsuit filed yet? Afterall, it should be a slam dunk to prove those things are lies, no?

DomKen -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/17/2008 8:47:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DDraigeuraid I missed that part. Asking the Justice Dept to get involved would constitute a breach of the First Amendment...if they decided to pursue the matter. However, since the JD is controlled by the Bush Admin., not likley to happen. However, that could be troublesome if Obama should pursue a similar policy if he should become POTUS. Dragon Not really. The JD was requested to get involved over a clear violation of campaign finance law. Which really is something the JD is supposed to care about. The place to go for violations of campaign finance law or more importantly the claims being made about this particular case, would be the FEC, FCC or a civil court. Which makes me wonder, if the things were as you said slanderous or outright false (namely the books) why hasn't there been a lawsuit filed yet? Afterall, it should be a slam dunk to prove those things are lies, no? Are you unaware of the difficulty of winning a defamation suit under US law when the defamed is in the news? Obama would have to prove both that the claims are untrue, simple in this case, and that there was actual malice involved, which is almost impossible. BTW that isn't the issue referred to the JD as you well know. The ads that the Obama campaign complained about were produced by what is legally a tax exempt educational group forbidden from using corporate donations on partisan advertising. Since the group in question refuses to reveal the funding sources for the ads when requested, as is required of them by law, the Obama campaign asked the JD, who is supposed to care about tax fraud and the like, to investigate.

JohnWarren -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/17/2008 8:47:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Which makes me wonder, if the things were as you said slanderous or outright false (namely the books) why hasn't there been a lawsuit filed yet? Afterall, it should be a slam dunk to prove those things are lies, no? Actually, no. Because of the Supreme Court decision Sullivan v US, a political figure not only has to prove the defamatory material was false, but that they defendant knew it was false. This is almost an insurmountable obstacle since it requires almost reading someone's mind. Let's say, I state that Palin is a crossdresser. Proving the statement false is relatively easy. However, proving that I knew it was false is almost impossible. I could say "Well, I had a feeling" "I thought that I saw an adams apple in one of her pictures." "To me, she moves like a guy." and the case would never see court. Actually, the more ignorant I am, the better it works since the plaintiff would have to prove I had knowledge I was lying.

Thadius -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/17/2008 9:41:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Which makes me wonder, if the things were as you said slanderous or outright false (namely the books) why hasn't there been a lawsuit filed yet? Afterall, it should be a slam dunk to prove those things are lies, no? Actually, no. Because of the Supreme Court decision Sullivan v US, a political figure not only has to prove the defamatory material was false, but that they defendant knew it was false. This is almost an insurmountable obstacle since it requires almost reading someone's mind. Let's say, I state that Palin is a crossdresser. Proving the statement false is relatively easy. However, proving that I knew it was false is almost impossible. I could say "Well, I had a feeling" "I thought that I saw an adams apple in one of her pictures." "To me, she moves like a guy." and the case would never see court. Actually, the more ignorant I am, the better it works since the plaintiff would have to prove I had knowledge I was lying. Isn't that in order to receive any sort of punitive damages? In other words, there should be no problem with filing suit to get a temporary injunction preventing those things from being placed on the air. Also, as I stated that if it was a violation of federal election law the place to go is the FEC, which hasn't gotten any complaints filed by the campaign yet either. Therefore the threats of using the JD are just that, threats to bully somebody that doesn't know better. I agree with your summation on the requirements to win the case, but for the purposes of what the campaign wishes, silencing the lies, one would think that filing some sort of motion asking for injunctive relief would seem to go a long way toward that goal. Bah, after all the crazy reading I have been doing, I cannot tell if that was a run on sentence or not. I am doomed.[;)]

Vendaval -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/17/2008 10:37:04 AM)
Lol...yes, this is a run-on sentence. Perhaps some fresh coffee and fresh air would aid the perspective. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I agree with your summation on the requirements to win the case, but for the purposes of what the campaign wishes, silencing the lies, one would think that filing some sort of motion asking for injunctive relief would seem to go a long way toward that goal. Bah, after all the crazy reading I have been doing, I cannot tell if that was a run on sentence or not. I am doomed.[;)]

Thadius -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/17/2008 10:41:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Lol...yes, this is a run-on sentence. Perhaps some fresh coffee and fresh air would aid the perspective. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I agree with your summation on the requirements to win the case, but for the purposes of what the campaign wishes, silencing the lies, one would think that filing some sort of motion asking for injunctive relief would seem to go a long way toward that goal. Bah, after all the crazy reading I have been doing, I cannot tell if that was a run on sentence or not. I am doomed.[;)] At least you caught the humor in it. I wish I could head out for a bit, but alas I have things that require me to stay in front of the monitor for a few more hours. [;)] Check your c-mail.

JohnWarren -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/18/2008 1:52:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Which makes me wonder, if the things were as you said slanderous or outright false (namely the books) why hasn't there been a lawsuit filed yet? Afterall, it should be a slam dunk to prove those things are lies, no? Actually, no. Because of the Supreme Court decision Sullivan v US, a political figure not only has to prove the defamatory material was false, but that they defendant knew it was false. This is almost an insurmountable obstacle since it requires almost reading someone's mind. Let's say, I state that Palin is a crossdresser. Proving the statement false is relatively easy. However, proving that I knew it was false is almost impossible. I could say "Well, I had a feeling" "I thought that I saw an adams apple in one of her pictures." "To me, she moves like a guy." and the case would never see court. Actually, the more ignorant I am, the better it works since the plaintiff would have to prove I had knowledge I was lying. Isn't that in order to receive any sort of punitive damages? In a conventional defamation case, a finding of "actual malice" (I hate this term because it has nothing to do with hate rather it has to do with knowledge.) is necessary only for punitive damages, BUT for a public figure, the finding has to be made for any recovery at all. quote: In other words, there should be no problem with filing suit to get a temporary injunction preventing those things from being placed on the air. Also, as I stated that if it was a violation of federal election law the place to go is the FEC, which hasn't gotten any complaints filed by the campaign yet either. Therefore the threats of using the JD are just that, threats to bully somebody that doesn't know better. Courts are highly reluctant to offer injunctive relief when speech is concerned... as well they should.

Thadius -> RE: First amendment and a Senator. (9/18/2008 2:29:38 PM)
quote: Courts are highly reluctant to offer injunctive relief when speech is concerned... as well they should. I completely agree they should be reluctant to get involved. However, if something is completely untrue, as is being claimed, one would think that proving the information is false would be enough to at least get some temporary relief while the case proceeds. Even if that relief was just a gag order prevening discussion of the case and particulars, it would present the desired results; preventing the authors from discussing the books and or the case. As of right now, the only rebuttal to the claims in the books are along the lines of "he is a smear merchant", "he is a bigot", "he is a liar"; there has been little to no rebuttal of the particulars. After reading the 40+ page response to the book released earlier this year by the same guy that did the swiftboat book, that is all I got out of it. Perhaps, I missed something. I am glad that authors still have the right to say and write that which they want to express, even those that I disagree with.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02