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.

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?

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 :)

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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? 

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.

quote:

Courts are highly reluctant to offer injunctive relief when speech is concerned... as well they should.