1. They told me that if George Bush were elected, that Congress would try to limit free speech - and they were right. (HT: Instapundit)
2. I knew it was Rock The Cash Bar!
3. Last week, I flipped, then I flopped.
4. Mike Tallent is a YouTube star.
5. My candidate is more Christian than yours.
6. Ric Starnes makes sense. I checked, and they are not calling for frost in Hell today.
7. Dear Mrs. Theide, your station wagon is as old as I!
8. The papers missed it - so you’ll have to look for yourself. Note that the proposed $140 million in COPS goes to a little more than schools.
9. We’re not the only county with jail construction problems.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe via E-mail
14 responses so far ↓
1 LiberalNC // Oct 15, 2007 at 12:43 pm
When it comes to limiting freedom of speech, Republicans in Congress have a long record. Ever heard of MoveOn ads?
It’ll be a cold day in hell when Ric Starnes makes any sense. What does the Concord City council have to do with Pillowtex leaving Kannapolis, CTC and Northeast Medical being sold and Phillip Morris shutting down??
2 Justin Thibault // Oct 16, 2007 at 6:37 am
What did they do that actually limited freedom of speech? Did they pass some pointless resolution expressing the sense of the House decrying the nature of the ad?
Whatever it was - it wasn’t nearly as far-reaching and Stalinesque as the “Fairness Doctrine”
True, it was ripe with hyperbole; but the point he was making is that local government does more for businesses that aren’t here than those that are.
3 LiberalNC // Oct 16, 2007 at 6:55 pm
“What did they do that actually limited freedom of speech?”
two words: Patriot Act
4 Justin Thibault // Oct 17, 2007 at 8:38 am
So, are you saying that the Patriot Act limits what MoveOn.org can put in its ads?
How exactly does the Patriot Act limit free speech?
5 LiberalNC // Oct 17, 2007 at 11:47 am
“How exactly does the Patriot Act limit free speech?”
We can write a whole encyclopedia about that, but I’ll try to make it short.
I also know that our friends in the Libertarian party have a whole lot to say about this
The USA PATRIOT Act section 802 defines domestic terrorism so broadly that it could apply to an individual exercising his or her freedom of speech, expression, and assembly through acts of civil disobedience. The Department of Justice has not revealed how it is using section 802.
In June 2004, Buffalo, New York, artist Steve Kurtz was detained by law enforcement and had his home searched by FBI agents. Despite finding only harmless substances, which Kurtz uses in his politically motivated art projects, the FBI proceeded with a Grand Jury hearing to decide whether to indict Kurtz under the USA PATRIOT Act’s biological agents provision. On June 29th, Kurtz’s bio-terrorism related charges (USA PATRIOT Act section 817) were dropped.
Also pitting the USA PATRIOT Act against the First Amendment, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Saudi computer science doctoral student in Idaho, was charged with providing material support to terrorist groups (USA PATRIOT Act section 805) by being a webmaster. A jury acquitted al-Hussayen of all terrorism-related charges in June of 2004, and prosecutors subsequently dropped all remaining charges.
Moreover, Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act permits the FBI to seek records from bookstores and libraries of books that a person has purchased or read, or of his or her activities on a library’s computer. This change puts people at risk for exercising their free speech rights to read, recommend, or discuss a book, to write an email, or to participate in a chat room, and thus could have the effect of chilling constitutionally protected speech. It also denies booksellers and library personnel the free speech right to inform anyone, including an attorney, that the FBI has asked for someone’s reading list.
Additionally, it was revealed that the FBI has been collecting information on antiwar demonstrators. Its October 15, 2003, memo asks local law enforcement to report “potentially illegal acts” to the nearest Joint Terrorism Task Force. The FBI’s listing of what constitutes suspicious behavior shows how broad “domestic terrorism” may become: rehearsing for demonstrations, raising money via the Internet, and acquiring gas masks in case tear gas is used. Police in some cities may consider the mere act of demonstrating against a war to be suspicious activity that warrants additional investigation by counterterrorism forces.
Finally, about the moveon ad, when conservative Republicans in the senate sponsor a resolution to condemn an ad placed by an anti-war group, isn’t the whole purpose of that resolution basically to make moveon shut up? I don’t see the same people introduce a resolution to condemn Rush “dope head” Limbaugh when he calls Iraq war veterans, who don’t agree with the Presidents’ Iraq policy, “phony soldiers”. Isn’t trying to make people shut up limiting their free speech?
6 LiberalNC // Oct 17, 2007 at 11:54 am
By the way, I wasn’t saying that the Patriot Act limits what moveon can put in their ads, I was using that patriot act as a prime example of my first point: When it comes to limiting freedom of speech, Republicans in Congress have a long record.
7 Justin Thibault // Oct 17, 2007 at 1:33 pm
You have presented two arguments.
1) That the USA Patriot Act has effectively prohibited speech
and 2)That this is part of a distinctly Republican effort.
Here’s how your first argument is incorrect:
Example #1:
Example #2:
If the Patriot Act had actually given the government “chilling” powers - both of these people would be in prison; but these were two cases of law enforcement pushing the boundaries of a new law - that’s not new.
In both cases, the judicial system threw the prosecutions out.
As for the library and bookstores, if you think that your reading list was Constitutionally guaranteed before the Patriot Act - you’ve never had a seriously overdue book.
They aren’t quiet about those.
Also, if you were arrested, law enforcement could pull bank records and subpeona the same information from both bookstores and libraries.
So, your examples have failed to yield one instance where the government explicitly prohibited any form of speech under the USA Patriot Act.
Now, to deal with this being distinctly “Republican”
And you don’t think this happened in Vietnam under Johnson?
As history distills each presidency, there’s always been revealed some questionable use of Executive powers to make critics uncomfortable. For instance, Clinton got the Secret Service to pounce on Jesse Helms after he made the comment that Clinton “ought to watch out” when visiting North Carolina. Some would view that as a friendly warning; but the Secret Service felt differently. I’m sure you can find much, much more threatening being said about the current President by cruising BlueNC than what Helms said to Clinton; but the Secret Service hasn’t been knocking on any doors around there.
You can look all the way back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to see that the US Government has always responded to threats be reevaluating, debating, and challenging what free speech looks like in a nation trying to defend itself against enemies both foreign and domestic.
We’ve gotten it right and we’ve gotten it wrong. Probably the most egregious example of getting it wrong was rounding up citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII that was done under an executive order by Roosevelt - a Democrat by the way.
No, it would be very difficult for the Senate to actually make a paper shutup, especially for the minority party to do so. This was a political move on the part of Republicans to demonstrate either one of two things - 1) the sentiments of MoveOn.org are so far out that most Democrats don’t agree with them or 2) the far-out liberal statements are in line with the true feelings of mainstream Democrats.
The MoveOn.org “General Betray Us” ad was a gift for Republicans. I hope they can keep up the pace through November 2008.
From what I understand (I don’t listen to AM talk radio as a rule), Rush was challenging the credentials of some people who were claiming combat experience to come out against the war.
You’ve failed to demonstrate how anybody in the government has successfully forced any citizen to “shut up”. In both the Senate Resolution and with Rush Limbaugh - the sources of the rhetoric for the current majority in both the House and Senate was being challenged: MoveOn.org and former “soldiers” who make false claims about their experiences. Attacking the source is part of debate - just ask the political operatives that worked under the Clinton Administration.
The Constitution guarantees free speech - not fair speech. For instance, the “fairness doctrine” will force broadcasters to match Rush Limbaugh with programming equal to that of the failed “Air America”. That will make speech less free by forcing people to listen to the neo-Bolshevism being rejected by the rest of the free world (and by radio advertisers); but remains in the Democratic platform.
8 LiberalNC // Oct 17, 2007 at 7:35 pm
So, let me get this straight, you don’t have an issue with a law trying to prohibit freedom of speech as long as it’s not effective?
That’s the same kind of logic as saying you don’t have a problem with someone trying to shoot people as long as no one gets actually hit.
It is indeed thanks to lawsuits and some good lawyers that in the few examples I used the merits of the Patriot act were thrown out. Isn’t it bad enough that people have to actually hire lawyers to defend their rights? The few examples I used, I managed to find within 10 minutes of online research.
I’m sure I can find others where people actually got in deeper trouble. Just give me some more time, which I don’t have right now because I’m packing my bags to join a bloggers conference until Sunday. I’m sure the FBI already knows about it
From what I understand (I don’t listen to AM talk radio as a rule), Rush was challenging the credentials of some people who were claiming combat experience to come out against the war.
First of all, thanks for not listening to that garbage. Secondly, if what you say is true, what’s the difference between Limbaugh challenging the “credentials” of people (basically saying they’re lying) and Moveon challenging the objectivity of another person (also claiming that person might be lying)?
By the way, thanks for using the term “neo-bolshevism”, I haven’t laughed this hard since last Monday, when I was watching Coy Privette’s antics at the County Commissioner meeting.
I hope you have a nice weekend, I’ll be back Sunday.
9 Justin Thibault // Oct 17, 2007 at 9:31 pm
No, that’s not what I said. The point that I was making is that if the law could accomplish all of the things that you claim it can, then the people would be incarcerated.
Don’t flatter yourself.
Maybe if you were blogging about Mecklenburg County…
The difference is that MoveOn.org was going after someone who is trusted by Congress and the President to execute the War prior to his testimony. Rush was only pointing out that a number of people making these claims that they’d been in combat weren’t true after they had made the statement.
10 Aaron // Oct 21, 2007 at 11:28 am
“First of all, thanks for not listening to that garbage. Secondly, if what you say is true, what’s the difference between Limbaugh challenging the “credentials” of people (basically saying they’re lying) and Moveon challenging the objectivity of another person (also claiming that person might be lying)?”
Well I listen to AM talk radio every day! How else am I gonna find the line on the pathers starting a 43 year old quarterback? Or find out which pro ball player is attempting suicide or using steroids?
Seriously,
The Limbaugh flap was about ONE soldier, he was one of those most outspoken about the war. He claimed to be an Army Ranger who witnessed the murder of Iraqi civilians. As it turned out, he never made it out of army bootcamp. He washed out and claimed all these things at the behest of the major “anti-war” groups like code pink and moveon.
The guy was sentanced to 5 months in prison for forging his DD-214 form to file a claim for veterans benefits. That’s where the “phony solider” comment came from
Our current general has a squeaky clean record of service and Moveon just claims he’s a liar. With no evidence at all. It’s just a purely political stunt that the IMPOTENT democrat controlled congress is using. Just look at the lambasting he took before he issued his report.
Bottom line, I’m against the war in principle but in reality, we can’t just leave overnight. In the end, we’ll divide the area into a Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish zone and that’ll be the way it works. And no democrat candidate will pull us out if they get elected to the presidency. Just look at the list of ever changing soundbites of the front runners Obama and Clinton.
Additional Bottom Line: I’m also against the Patriot Act. It does absolutely nothing new to find terrorists. It’s a lot of red tape and new useless paper that won’t work at all because of our ever tightening noose of “political correctness” and looking at the TSA, that should be extremely obvious…
11 LiberalNC // Oct 22, 2007 at 12:34 am
“Just look at the list of ever changing soundbites of the front runners Obama and Clinton.”
I’m very interested in seeing the list you have of “ever changing sound bites” on Iraq from Barack Obama.
12 Aaron // Oct 23, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Yeah, my bad, probably shouldn’t have thrown Obama in there with Hillary’s backtracking and sidestepping.
He’s recently taken the Samuel Clemens approach: “Better to say nothing and be perceived a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
At least that’s what I took from is “absence” when the senate voted on the Kyl-Lieberman bill and then he attacked his opponents for voting for it.
Talk about being in the cheap seats…
13 LiberalNC // Oct 23, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Barack Obama not saying anything on the Iraq war?
Now I know you’re smoking something.
Not that I have a problem with that
14 Aaron // Oct 23, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Oh no, not that he hasn’t been saying anything a few weeks ago or even last week but when that ammendment was voted on, he was conveniently absent.
I guess he couldn’t vote against his party and keep saying he’s a democrat. Whatever it was, his comments against those who voted for it have reduced him to the level of one of us lowly bloggers who comment on things we can’t weigh in on. The only problem was, he could weigh in on it but chose not to.
And dang it man, don’t you know drugs are bad! Nancy Reagan said so!!!