quote:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/03/first-amendment-targeted/
The Obama campaign launched a multipronged assault on the First Amendment when it threatened television and radio stations airing content critical of Mr. Obama. The first targets were TV stations running an advertisement that has proven embarrassing to the presidential candidate.

Another Obama target is Chicago radio station WGN. The source of Mr. Obama's ire is talk-show host Stanley Kurtz who is no Friend of Barry. The Obama campaign has urged supporters to attack WGN for permitting Mr. Kurtz to practice his profession.
Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer warned TV stations against airing the ad he claimed of containing "malicious falsity." Mr. Bauer's repeated demands that the Justice Department intervene is an example of an intrusion the First Amendment was crafted to guard against and the type of heavy-handed tactics Mr. Obama criticized in Kenya. But in 2006, Mr. Obama was the recipient of exclusively fawning media coverage. Reporters from CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, a pair of Chicago TV stations and dozens of international and local media accompanied Mr. Obama on his Kenya visit.
Mr. Bauer called those behind the ads "lawbreakers" and accused them of acting "illegally." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor labeled the ad "false."

quote:

 http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzQ1NGYzZTYzOTVjMmNmYzhlY2Q0NzFmNDUyOGY0ZWQ=

Tuesday, September 16, 2008
[image]http://beta.nationalreview.com/images/blog_dotted_divider.gif[/image]


Obama’s Assault on Free Speech: The Sequel   [Guy Benson]
A few weeks ago, I offered an account of the effort by the Obama campaign to shut down an interview with Stanley Kurtz on Chicago’s WGN radio.
Well, here we go again.

What, pray tell, are Freddoso’s transgressions? According to the Obama Action Wire email, he peddles “baseless lies,” engages in “dishonest, extreme hate mongering,” and has made a career out of “vicious partisan attacks.” The email urges supporters to call in and “confront” Freddoso before “this goes any further.” They’re also encouraged to report back the details of their phone calls through a special dedicated page on Obama’s website.
The email even boasts about the success of a previous blitz on free speech:

A couple weeks ago, we asked you to call into Rosenberg's radio show when he hosted unapologetic smear artist Stanley Kurtz' incoherent rantings about Barack and William Ayers.
And you responded. Rosenberg's producer said the flood of calls and emails the show received was the biggest response ever for something like this.

How true! Never before had Rosenberg’s show been inundated with hysterical telephone calls and threatening emails aimed at not at debate but at disrupting a legitimate interview. The Obama campaign’s characterization of the Kurtz conversation as “the incoherent rantings” of an “unapologetic smear artist” is particularly absurd.

quote:


Threats by the Obama camp should alarm every media organization, and more importantly, the public. Sadly, the number of media outlets that criticized brazen attempts in 2004 by Kerry officials and supporters to undermine the First Amendment could be counted on only one hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Thadius

i respect a lot of what you have to say, your forensic examination of Obamas policy is very welcome. However, your partisanship is starting to grate a little. i don't ever see you apply that excellent forensic ability to McCain. For example, if Obama had flip-flopped on the economy like McCain did a day or so back you'd have been all over it. And rightly so.
You've claimed to be even handed before, but if you continue like this i'm going to have to call BS on that......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


Does the pattern of behavior by the campaign to silence and disrupt those that disagree or report on those that disagree not disturb you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


Does the pattern of behavior by the campaign to silence and disrupt those that disagree or report on those that disagree not disturb you?

...absolutely it does. So does elements of the McCain electoral team. Things like not cooperating with a legitimate enquiry into alleged abuse of power, tossing protestors out of a hall, refusing to answer certain questions in TV interviews, the nasty snide remarks in ads that the McCain camp put out and then disavow. This is a different way of skewing the debate, and has the same effect that the tactics you deride on the Obama side do.
You believe in free speech, so do i. But you give one side a pass on their lies while attacking the other sides lies.  We've all, at one time or another, discussed the negative effects of extreme partisanship. How such an attitude essentially creates a political debate based on falsehood. You appear to be buying into that dynamic, and quite frankly i thought you better than that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

[I don't think Thadius sleeps at night.
He is busy trying to find dirt on Obama.
His posts speak for themself.
A blind man can see a lot on these boards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


Does the pattern of behavior by the campaign to silence and disrupt those that disagree or report on those that disagree not disturb you?

...absolutely it does. So does elements of the McCain electoral team. Things like not cooperating with a legitimate enquiry into alleged abuse of power, tossing protestors out of a hall, refusing to answer certain questions in TV interviews, the nasty snide remarks in ads that the McCain camp put out and then disavow. This is a different way of skewing the debate, and has the same effect that the tactics you deride on the Obama side do.
You believe in free speech, so do i. But you give one side a pass on their lies while attacking the other sides lies.  We've all, at one time or another, discussed the negative effects of extreme partisanship. How such an attitude essentially creates a political debate based on falsehood. You appear to be buying into that dynamic, and quite frankly i thought you better than that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

[I don't think Thadius sleeps at night.
He is busy trying to find dirt on Obama.
His posts speak for themself.
A blind man can see a lot on these boards.

...i think Thadius is an honourable man, but even an honourable man can make an error of judgement. The enemy here is not any individual....well maybe CL, but he's in a class of his own........the real enemy is extreme partisanship, and that's what i'm trying to attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The First Ammendment protection on speech does not protect defamation. As was pointed out to you before the stuff being opposed by Obama's campaign is cut and dried defamation and violates campaign finance laws.

Why don't you tell me why cardboard and wood were on the warrants for confiscation during the raids on homes during the GOP convention? Since what was taken were signs, every single sign in each home, that seems a pretty clear cut case of somebody crushing a group's First Ammendment rights. Of course you don't really care about the US Constitution and are only blathering on about this garbage because you know you can't attack Obama on the issue that really has your panties in a bunch without being revealed for what you are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

So me thinks you are protesting to much on this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

So me thinks you are protesting to much on this one.

...not impossible. i don't share that impression, but i can't rule it out. However, you aren't seriously suggesting you are as even handed in your criticism as you suggest?
Your forensic examinations of Obama's errors are thoughtful and well researched, however if the criticism is of the McCain camp you cut them a lot more slack. Take, for example, the rape kit issue. You and i had a brief exchange on this where we basically agreed that there wasn't a smoking gun but the issue needed more research. You've never readdressed that issue, presumably because it would show Palin in a bad light. You appeared to have inadvertantly destroyed one of the defences of her actions when you posted the quote in another thread which suggested that sexual assault was an 'intractable' issue in Alaska and not the rare event that would have made the situation less appalling.
Free speech is an important issue, one worthy of defence. However lies, or incomplete truths are also worthy of attack....on whatever side of the aisle one hangs ones coat.
All i'm suggesting is that you hold McCain/Palin to the same high standards as you hold Obama/Biden. So when a protestor is slung out of a McCain meeting you treat that denial of a first amendment right as you would if someone was slung out of a Obama meeting.
Both sides here are trampling on the constitution one way or another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I can say that I will do my best to stick to fact, but that does not mean I must do the leg work for the supporters of the Obama campaign.  Know what I mean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Where does Sen. Obama stand on the first amendment?  His recent actions seem to suggest a very troubling trend.

quote:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/03/first-amendment-targeted/
The Obama campaign launched a multipronged assault on the First Amendment when it threatened television and radio stations airing content critical of Mr. Obama. The first targets were TV stations running an advertisement that has proven embarrassing to the presidential candidate.

Another Obama target is Chicago radio station WGN. The source of Mr. Obama's ire is talk-show host Stanley Kurtz who is no Friend of Barry. The Obama campaign has urged supporters to attack WGN for permitting Mr. Kurtz to practice his profession.
Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer warned TV stations against airing the ad he claimed of containing "malicious falsity." Mr. Bauer's repeated demands that the Justice Department intervene is an example of an intrusion the First Amendment was crafted to guard against and the type of heavy-handed tactics Mr. Obama criticized in Kenya. But in 2006, Mr. Obama was the recipient of exclusively fawning media coverage. Reporters from CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, a pair of Chicago TV stations and dozens of international and local media accompanied Mr. Obama on his Kenya visit.
Mr. Bauer called those behind the ads "lawbreakers" and accused them of acting "illegally." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor labeled the ad "false."

And this...

quote:

 http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzQ1NGYzZTYzOTVjMmNmYzhlY2Q0NzFmNDUyOGY0ZWQ=

Tuesday, September 16, 2008
[image]http://beta.nationalreview.com/images/blog_dotted_divider.gif[/image]


Obama’s Assault on Free Speech: The Sequel   [Guy Benson]
A few weeks ago, I offered an account of the effort by the Obama campaign to shut down an interview with Stanley Kurtz on Chicago’s WGN radio.
Well, here we go again.

What, pray tell, are Freddoso’s transgressions? According to the Obama Action Wire email, he peddles “baseless lies,” engages in “dishonest, extreme hate mongering,” and has made a career out of “vicious partisan attacks.” The email urges supporters to call in and “confront” Freddoso before “this goes any further.” They’re also encouraged to report back the details of their phone calls through a special dedicated page on Obama’s website.
The email even boasts about the success of a previous blitz on free speech:

A couple weeks ago, we asked you to call into Rosenberg's radio show when he hosted unapologetic smear artist Stanley Kurtz' incoherent rantings about Barack and William Ayers.
And you responded. Rosenberg's producer said the flood of calls and emails the show received was the biggest response ever for something like this.

How true! Never before had Rosenberg’s show been inundated with hysterical telephone calls and threatening emails aimed at not at debate but at disrupting a legitimate interview. The Obama campaign’s characterization of the Kurtz conversation as “the incoherent rantings” of an “unapologetic smear artist” is particularly absurd.

So let's see, if a radio station or television station says something they disagree with or isn't flattering they are going to threaten lawsuits and to disrupt the operation of those media outlets.

As the post puts it...

quote:


Threats by the Obama camp should alarm every media organization, and more importantly, the public. Sadly, the number of media outlets that criticized brazen attempts in 2004 by Kerry officials and supporters to undermine the First Amendment could be counted on only one hand.

Just sayin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


Does the pattern of behavior by the campaign to silence and disrupt those that disagree or report on those that disagree not disturb you?

...absolutely it does. So does elements of the McCain electoral team. Things like not cooperating with a legitimate enquiry into alleged abuse of power, tossing protestors out of a hall, refusing to answer certain questions in TV interviews, the nasty snide remarks in ads that the McCain camp put out and then disavow. This is a different way of skewing the debate, and has the same effect that the tactics you deride on the Obama side do.
You believe in free speech, so do i. But you give one side a pass on their lies while attacking the other sides lies.  We've all, at one time or another, discussed the negative effects of extreme partisanship. How such an attitude essentially creates a political debate based on falsehood. You appear to be buying into that dynamic, and quite frankly i thought you better than that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DDraigeuraid

This is not a First Amendment Issue.  The government is not restricting the free speech of any of the participants.  As a candidate, either Obama or McCain are allowed to request or even demand that certain people not be heard.  They can enforce that by refusing to spend campaign funds for advertising to any station that offends them.  No blood, no foul.
Dragon