Cabarrus Cheap Seats

Late last week, I received the following e-mail from The North Carolina Conservative stating that their First Amendment rights were being infringed by North Carolina Republican Congressman Charles Taylor:

Rep. Taylor’s Office (R-NC11) Threatens Suit Against NC Newspaper 

The February 2006 issue of The North Carolina Conservative newspaper carried an article entitled Ethics Questions Arise for Congressman Taylor, written by Ann Ryder. The article raised serious ethical questions regarding Rep. Taylors business dealings in relation to his office. The article was entirely based on information available in public documents. We believe firmly that the article is accurate.

Before the Feb. issue of The North Carolina Conservative had been printed, before the article concerning Rep. Taylor was posted on our website and before it had been released for public distribution, Rep. Taylors office sent us an email saying that they had heard we were publishing a negative article concerning Rep. Taylor. We responded in a friendly and compliant manner. The next morning, Taylors press secretary responded, threatening lawsuits by surrogates of Representative Charles Taylor. (See correspondence below)

This threatened legal action is a blatant attack on the freedom of the press guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of The United States. Instead of answering legitimate questions raised in our newspaper, Taylors surrogates are attempting to silence the messenger. The voters of North Carolina have a legitimate right to question our elected representatives. The role of the press in our system of government was best summed up by Thomas Jefferson, who said, Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

All members of the press, all North Carolinians and all who value the Constitutionally guaranteed rights that secure our freedoms, have a stake in this fight. I urge you to join The North Carolina Conservative in defending the First Amendment and ensuring honest, representative government.

The North Carolina Conservative is standing behind Ann Ryder, who said:

So, Im not told just who exactly…which surrogates, front men, straw men…may want to sue us for exercising out First Amendment Rights. I researched this article using what is available in the public records. A lawsuit would certainly help shed some light in areas I couldnt get to, by giving us subpoena power. That would help focus and bring out additional information. It will come down to a question of credibility.

Judson Cox
Editor in Chief
The North Carolina Conservative

I just started reading The North Carolina Conservative since I sent a rebuttal e-mail to a post they made written by Harold Smith. What shocked me is that they posted both without investigating any of the facts. As a matter of fact, I had a number of links in the post that I sent him; but he removed the links.

Mine and Harold’s site were highlighted in a piece by Business Today NC where an argument was made that on-line media would replace much of the traditional media market. Well, with not even bothering to check the public records and eliminating references (or not even demanding them) - publications like The North Carolina Conservative won’t be replacing “The National Review” anytime soon.

What’s even worse is that Judson Cox either doesn’t understand how the First Amendment works or he is mischaracterizing the protections offered under it. The article in question does not have one reference to an off-line source or one link to an on-line source. It is full of disparaging remarks about Charles Taylor. Following his wrapping himself in the Constitution, there was an interesting exchange between him and one of Taylor’s staffers. Where it was evident that Judson Cox or anyone else from The North Carolina Conservative bothered to give anyone from Taylor’s office the opportunity to comment or refute the arguments. Cox merely made his mind up and followed assertions without trying to determine the truth based on his own prejudices and ideology. Then he rushed to post the accusations, no matter how baseless they many be.

Does that sound like someone else? Can you think of anyone else like that? Let me give you a hint:

Here’s the deal. Judson Cox could be dead on. He could be dead wrong. However, considering that his source probably had other motivations (and could reference any of her “evidence”) - he’s treading on some pretty thin ice.

And for those of you who think that I’m disparaging fellow conservatives and/or other bloggers - I’ll point recent example of how New Media outmanuvers traditional media to get a good story. Local Blogger “Sister Toldjah” (not her real name - but high on my list for possible girl names for the newest Thibault) posted an article titled: “BondÂ?s GOP/swastika comparison still gets no MSM coverage“. A very good read on NAACP’s Julian Bond behaving badly. You won’t read it in any paper; but it’s better cooberated and researched than anything you’ll find in the paper or on TV.

The First Amendment gives us the right to say whatever we want to and the government can do little about it. However, it also does not protect us from the consequences of our speech. Individuals have a right to protect their reputation. Those of us who use alternative media must remember that standards for evidence and decorum aren’t deemed anachronistic just because the Internet is a new medium. Quite the contrary. In an hour, you can determine who gave money to what politician, who said what in any major newspaper, and you can link back to it. While I haven’t really looked into Charles Taylor’s record - I won’t be going to The North Carolina Conservative as a reference if I choose to.