Free speech. [Archive] - AbsolutePunk.net

bossman calling

12/08/07, 08:23 PM

What the hell are you talking about? America has all those crimes too.
Actually, we don't, at least in the broad sense that you do in the UK. Attempted crimes and conspiracy have to be well into the planning stages, with material evidence, to be prosocuted; while there are hate crime laws, there are no specific laws against talking about or encouraging hate crimes; and our libel and slander laws are very targeted and require a high amount of damage, unlike the broad laws you have.

Well they can't. If you're average trailer park type had their way we'd be up to our eyeballs in racism, homophobia and other such stupidities.
Your ridiculous ad hominem generalization about people who live in trailers aside, doesn't this presuppose that you are an authority on these subjects? What gives you that authority? And aren't you delving into dangerous territory when you claim that one group of people has the authority to police what others say and think because "they can't be trusted?"

Everyone knows this happened. In fact it even happened to someone on another board I post at. There's no need to be petty.
It wasn't petty, it was a serious question. If you are going to ask rhetorical questions like that, you should be prepared to have the answer and cite some examples. And was this person on another board in the US? UK? Somewhere else in Europe?

The holocaust denial laws are way too far but generally speaking I'd like to trust the public but they are largely a bunch of idiots who know nothing about politics, economics or how to properly run a country.
Again, why should you have that authority to stifle the speech of others because you think they are "idiots?" Maybe some people think the same thing about you, should they anoint themselves with smiliar authority to control what you say? Is there freedom in any of that?

All you are proposing is we swap the tyranny of states and government for the tyranny of mob rule and vigilantism which is far worse.
I never proposed anything. Advocating the freedom of speech as opposed to only the freedom of whatever speech someone in power deems "appropirate" is nowhere close to proposing mob rule or vigilantism. I'm not sure where you got that.

A least with government you get people of above average intelligence making usually rational decisions.
That is quite a bold assertion, given the millions of people who have died at the hands of their governments in the last 100 years alone, and the relatively (and non-relatively) small number of people who have died from the hate crimes of other individuals in the same time period.

Without government intervention in many things you wouldn't be free you'd just be subject to the will of a far greater evil, that being whatever batshit opinions popular consensus delivers. I know libertarians have this crazy idea the govenrment is the cause of all problems but they are totally wrong. Back when we had no government in the middle ages and prior to that life wasn't all that great, take it from a History major. Government is what brought about democracy and freedom, not what is runing it. That's people, people who if let loose to do as they pleased with find ways to make things much much worse, especially with the technological advances. Take a look a what happens in Africa when there is no control. Constant warfare. Liberal big government democracies do not go to war with each other and there is a lot to be said for peace.
I never said I was against all government intervention; I did say I was against most government intervention in the area of negative rights, like freedom of speech.

bossman calling

12/10/07, 06:54 AM

I like how you consider yourself a legal expert in British law even though I have actually studied it and know you are talking total trash.
You mean in the same way in which you are considering yourself an expert on US law, even though I have actually studied it? And are there not abuses of libel laws in the UK? Do people not use it to stifle the free-speech of pepole with whom they do not agree with, or people who are speaking out against them?

That our officials are democratically elected (should be through PR etc.. but whatever) and can be cashiered if the people feel the situation warrents it. They don't or shouldn't have the authority to police what others say within the normal realms but if someone is actively encouraging attacks of a certain group then that should be a crime.
I actually agree with you on this, but not to the same extent in which you do. It's called the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" effect; your negative right of free speech is only valid to the point where it does not directly cause harm on someone else's negative rights (such as their free speech, their safety, their lives, etc). Examples:

You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, because that presents an infringement on the rights of others to be safe their life.
You cannot directly order another individual or group to harm the person or property of another individual or group.
You cannot shout down someone who "has the floor" in a public venue, because that is using your speech to infringe on theirs.
You cannot copy someone else's words verbatim for your own profit, because that infringes on their right to their property.

Negative rights are something you have that do not require something to be taken away from someone else in order for you to have them; however, your rights become positive when they are used to take away someone else's negative rights.

Taking that a step further, however, and saying you no longer have the right to say things that might be perceived as hateful even if they do not directly result in the infringement of the negative rights of others is a very dangerous road. At this point, the government is no longer regulating actions, but thoughts, which leads to the need for the government to be an arbatrary judge of what constitutes hate speech and what does not. Not only are there plenty of examples in recent history of this being abused and exploited to stifle free speech, just with merely the threat of investigation, arrest and/or ligigation, but it also discourages rational thought and healthy dissent in the general population. As much as people complain about other people not caring about politics and important controversial issues, why would you want to make that even worse?

http://www.themonitor.com/onset?id=2061&template=article.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11514585/

http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/node/22183
Seriously, that's what you came up with?

1. That teen made documented, direct threats against the lives of others. This is an example of a negative right being turned into a positive right by using it to threaten someone else's negative right to life.

2. That teen was arrested because he posted pictures of himself with handguns, which were illegal for him to possess. That's not even close to being a case of "trivial shit," that's just pure stupidity.

3. Those girls made direct threats against the lives of others, again using negative rights to infringe on the negative rights of others.

Because there is no differance between being subject will of government, education, media etc.. You're moaning that government can't tell you what to think but that is precisely what every media outlet and person you ever meet does. At least with government they are regulated and elected. It's not as though I'm proposing 1984 style party adherance anyway.
You honestly think that there is no difference between being subject to the will of government, which has the authority to force you to obey their laws...and the media, which has no authority to force anyone to do anything? Seriously? That's your argument?

As opposed to what occured before government which is slavery, feudalism all kinda of other horrors.
There has always been some form of government, and that proves my point, government does not have a good track record in being trusted with rights that we give up to them, whether vollunteraly or forcefully.

bossman calling

12/10/07, 07:26 AM

In our society the independent media has a far more negative effect than the government. Something like Fox News is a lot more brainwashing than the BBC for example. You don't need authority to convince someone to do anything, authority is only granted when you follow it's rules. If everyone were to ignore what the government says for example it's authority would cease and so there is no inherent difference in authority between the media and government and a savvy media outlet like Fox can indoctrinate and force opnions on its viewers as efficiently as any police state. Although there is the argument to be made, the people only listen to something they agree with to begin with.
Fox News media brainwashing? Seriously? That is your argument??

You do realize that there are many competing independent news organizations out there, and that only like a million people watch Fox News, out of 300 million people? CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, AP, UPI, newspapers in every town, local news outlets, radio news outlets, etc, etc. Are they all involved in this indoctination conspiracy too??

I think it has a better track record than just letting people do whatever.
Except I never argued for letting people do whatever. I did argue for the government not policing thoughts, but rather actions.

SubrosaSeductiv

12/10/07, 07:43 AM

I think that's the unfortunate situation in your country, not mine...and while none of those are good things to say, having those kinds of anti-free speech laws is definitely not a good thing. Like I said, it's ripe for abuse...I'm not sure of how lawsuits work in the UK, but I'd think having those laws would create alot of abusive lawsuits where people attempt to intimidate people they don't agree with while citing those laws.

Also, don't you think that having laws like that is an insult to the intelligence of the people? Isn't that basically saying that the people can't be trusted to speak out against hate, and so the government has to step in and do their thinking for them?

I don't know, how many? And if you can come up with examples of that actually happening, how many of those were actually convicted?

Which goes back to my point about those governments not trusting the intelligence of the people, and doing their thinking for them. Any rationally thinking citizen of those countries should be able to call out any deniers and make them look stupid in the eyes of the public without any laws.

Are you truly free when the government has to do this type of thinking for you?

Stop talking on behalf of America... please.

Our freedom of speech is not a freedom whatsoever. If I can't tell a teacher to fuck off because I think he is retarded for claiming buddah was able to speak and walk right out of the womb, then that's not freedom. If I get arrested for telling an unjustified police officer that he is wrong for hitting his daughter, then that's not freedom. If I can't slader someone without being sued it is not freedom. If I can't say that I want to kill all black people (which I don't) that's not freedom. If I can get deported for making a joke saying I want to assassinate the president, that's not freedom.

bossman calling

12/10/07, 09:02 AM

Stop talking on behalf of America... please.

Our freedom of speech is not a freedom whatsoever. If I can't tell a teacher to fuck off because I think he is retarded for claiming buddah was able to speak and walk right out of the womb, then that's not freedom. If I get arrested for telling an unjustified police officer that he is wrong for hitting his daughter, then that's not freedom. If I can't slader someone without being sued it is not freedom. If I can't say that I want to kill all black people (which I don't) that's not freedom. If I can get deported for making a joke saying I want to assassinate the president, that's not freedom.
Let's go through these "examples"

You cannot tell a teacher to fuck off, because your school has placed certain restrictions on rude and discrepectful behavior, not only from the children, but also from the teachers themselves. While there is no legal basis for this, by going to said school, you and the teachers mutually agree to abide by these rules, and are given options to change them if you think that is needed. But your teacher cannot have you arrested for telling her to "fuck off" nor can you have him or her arrested for saying it to you. In addition, while you can't tell your teacher to "fuck off," you CAN add to the discussion by saying he or she is wrong, and offering reasons to support yourself.

I have no idea where you got the police hitting his daughter example; can you provide some context? But using that as an abstract example, there is no legal basis for a police officer to arrest you if you call him out on a moral shortcoming in his personal life, and you certainly wouldn't be charged or convicted just for doing that.

As far as slander, libel and defamation laws go, the general concept is that of using your negative rights to infringe on the negative rights of others. You can't use your speech to infringe on their right to free speech, safety from crime, fair trial, habeas corpus, due process, life, property, etc. For example, many times in the US, these laws are enforced against someone who has had their right to due process and a fair trial infringed upon by someone who has falsely accused them of crimes in the media. For example, Al Sharpton has been sued for calling someone a rapist in the media; this infringed upon the right of the accused to go through due process and a fair trail, if indeed he was a rapist. Since it was clear that he was not, he won his lawsuit against Sharpton.

Actually, you can say that you want to kill all black people, if that is what you wish to say, just as other people are free to call you a racist freak for saying such a freakishly racist thing. You cannot, however, directly threaten the right to life or safety from crime on a black person (or any person) or a group. An example being "I wish..." is not a crime, but "I am going to..." followed by a specific direct threat would be a crime.

If you are an American citizen, you cannot get deported. You can be investigated, even charged if the "threat" against the President is found to be more than a joke, but most of those cases never go so far as to bring charges or convictions.

captainhampton

12/10/07, 09:53 AM

SubrosaSeductiv

12/10/07, 10:26 AM

Let's go through these "examples"

1. You cannot tell a teacher to fuck off, because your school has placed certain restrictions on rude and discrepectful behavior, not only from the children, but also from the teachers themselves. While there is no legal basis for this, by going to said school, you and the teachers mutually agree to abide by these rules, and are given options to change them if you think that is needed. But your teacher cannot have you arrested for telling her to "fuck off" nor can you have him or her arrested for saying it to you. In addition, while you can't tell your teacher to "fuck off," you CAN add to the discussion by saying he or she is wrong, and offering reasons to support yourself.

2. I have no idea where you got the police hitting his daughter example; can you provide some context? But using that as an abstract example, there is no legal basis for a police officer to arrest you if you call him out on a moral shortcoming in his personal life, and you certainly wouldn't be charged or convicted just for doing that.

3. As far as slander, libel and defamation laws go, the general concept is that of using your negative rights to infringe on the negative rights of others. You can't use your speech to infringe on their right to free speech, safety from crime, fair trial, habeas corpus, due process, life, property, etc. For example, many times in the US, these laws are enforced against someone who has had their right to due process and a fair trial infringed upon by someone who has falsely accused them of crimes in the media. For example, Al Sharpton has been sued for calling someone a rapist in the media; this infringed upon the right of the accused to go through due process and a fair trail, if indeed he was a rapist. Since it was clear that he was not, he won his lawsuit against Sharpton.

4. Actually, you can say that you want to kill all black people, if that is what you wish to say, just as other people are free to call you a racist freak for saying such a freakishly racist thing. You cannot, however, directly threaten the right to life or safety from crime on a black person (or any person) or a group. An example being "I wish..." is not a crime, but "I am going to..." followed by a specific direct threat would be a crime.

If you are an American citizen, you cannot get deported. You can be investigated, even charged if the "threat" against the President is found to be more than a joke, but most of those cases never go so far as to bring charges or convictions.

1. Yes you can be arrested. The teacher can take that as a direct threat. It is noted that once you enter a public school domain you forfeit certain rights. One of them being freedom of speech.

2. I know a kid who tried to get between her dad, who is a police officer, hitting his daughter. The kid told him to stop, the cop arrested him for obstructing a police officer.

3. That directly opposes the term "free speech", freedom warrants doing anything at anytime. If someone wants to call someone a rapist thats their own perogative. If someone is offended by it he has the means to prove his innocence with background checks etc.

4. If you directly say you want to kill a black person in general not one in particular then you can be arrested. My friend was charged with a hate crime he is 19 and can not attend a college now because he made a dumb ass remark in which some kid reported him and perceived it as a threat.

5. Fine, maybe not being deported, but the consequences can be extremely grave.

"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
That covers a lot of deeds and statements. It gives the Secret Service a lot of latitude when conducting an investigation. There is a very good reason for this. Few jobs are more dangerous than President of the United States.

SgtFumunda, I don't care what you think is dumb or not, but the reality is we do not have freedom of speech. I'm not saying whether it is bad or good. The point was that there are certain things you can not say which constitutes restricted speech. Thanks.

bossman calling

12/10/07, 01:24 PM

An school, a workplace or a courthouse restricting what you say is not violating your free speech. When you enter those places, you agree to follow their rules. They cannot keep you from talking and the certainly can't control what you say outside of them as long as you aren't directly threatening harm on any of them.

Did the kid you know get charged or convicted? Did he physically assault the officer? Was he doing anything else, like posessing drugs or weapons at the time?

Research the concept of negative rights and then rethink your overly broad definition of free speech.

Was the kid arrested, charged and convicted, or just expelled from school? As I said, when you attend a school, you agree to abide by their rules, and many schools have very strict rules on threats. It's similar to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" effect, you can't do stuff like that, especially if you are part of something that has those rules in place.

Intertwined

12/10/07, 03:54 PM

It's freedom and free speech but not absolute. We get punished for speaking our minds.

SubrosaSeductiv

12/11/07, 06:55 AM

bossman calling

12/11/07, 07:24 AM

A literal argument does not work here...that has absolutely nothing to do with the negative right of freedom of speech as protected by the constitution. As I said before, please research the concept of negative rights, and then rethink your assumptions.

EasySkankin

12/11/07, 10:28 AM

Dre Okorley

12/11/07, 11:11 AM

Comparatively, to other countries, Americans have a good amount of freedom of speech.

As far as public speeches and demogogue:
Look at the KKK- they are defended by police with the appropriate license. They have freedom to say what they want, it's not limited, it's actually protected, by the government. Same goes for anyone else who chooses to get a permit. Even if it incites fear or manifests anti- whatever, it's your right.

Within particular settings, like a school, work, etc. the rules are owned by that institution so you've forfeited them once you become a participant.

It's not like in some places where once someone's opinion is printed in a paper they mysteriously disappear- minus when Cointelpro was on a rampage.

bossman calling

12/11/07, 02:29 PM

I lol'd at bold.

Sure, at school you aren't allowed to say certain things, but that is a restriction of the school, not the country, so when a school uses police officers to enforce their violation of free speech, there is something wrong.

A school should implement only it's own powers to enforce it's rules, and it does not have the power to arrest individuals. The police, and it's powers, are extensions of the government, not the school, so unless a person violates the law, the police have no incentive to arrest anyone.

Public schools are an extention of the government as well, but the aren't "the" government. As an extention, it has every right to make certain rules within itself, but not outside of its grounds. Additionally, as it is an extention of the government, most have a police officer assigned during school hours because that has been deemed needed due to safety concerns, most all of which involve some sort of violation of the law. That is unfortunate, but you can't say that it isn't needed.

redalibi

12/11/07, 08:19 PM

freedom is doing anything as you please. but our freedom is limited. pretty ironic but it's necessary.

Dre Okorley

12/11/07, 09:50 PM

redalibi

12/12/07, 09:48 AM

Whatever is "necessary" to be limited is measured by one's own opinion. Some people when making these arguments tend to not factor in cultual context,race and ethnicity, religion, as I said before. If someone who resembles a "Middle Easterner" shouts jokingly "I am a terrorist"! He's free to say it, but must be ready to handle the repercussions depending on who is around, which in turn may compromise his physical/spatial freedom or life.

If you sense in your gut that your choice of words will threaten you either judicially or civically then that's not freedom, that's a form of censorship through paranoia and scare tactics. But you are however, free to say anything you want- it's your mouth and your interpretations.

I agree it's censorship, but I do understand jokingly screaming "I am a terrosit!" is not a joke to other people. It could be a threat to another person. The problem here is if freedom is to do whatever you want, then it will/might violate another person's freedom of [insert reason here]. I think it is a big mess. That's why I say it's necessary that one freedom out weighs another.

SubrosaSeductiv

12/12/07, 09:59 AM

I don't understand how this is such a difficult concept. When I am told I have freedom of speech I have an understanding that I am free to say whatever I want without a form of punishment afterward. Any type of "censorship" or limitation then nullify's the word freedom. It becomes limited. I don't need to study negative rights. I have a general understand of what a negative right is. Some of our "rights" are named incorrectly giving certain people a misunderstanding of what they can and cannot do.

Not only do we have governmental restrictions against speaking our minds freely, but societal pressures also can basically shun you from the rest of the world for saying something you believe.

Once again I am saying whether restrictions are bad or good but the term "free speech" should not exist in America. It's not true freedom. You cannot argue that. You are not at liberty to say any phrase in this country. Therefore we are limited. Fuck.

Dre Okorley

12/12/07, 08:32 PM

I agree it's censorship, but I do understand jokingly screaming "I am a terrosit!" is not a joke to other people. It could be a threat to another person. The problem here is if freedom is to do whatever you want, then it will/might violate another person's freedom of [insert reason here]. I think it is a big mess. That's why I say it's necessary that one freedom out weighs another. And in other words, that's exactly what I said. Thanks for reaffirming.

EasySkankin

12/12/07, 11:26 PM

Freedom in america really is just doublespeak.

bossman calling

12/13/07, 01:31 PM

And in other words, that's exactly what I said. Thanks for reaffirming.

And its exactly what I've been trying to explain this entire time, to no avail. Your rights are yours, unless you use them to violate the rights of others. It's not a paradox, it's not "doublespeak" and it's not rocket science.

Dre Okorley

12/13/07, 07:07 PM

And its exactly what I've been trying to explain this entire time, to no avail. Your rights are yours, unless you use them to violate the rights of others. It's not a paradox, it's not "doublespeak" and it's not rocket science.

Bingo.

redalibi

12/13/07, 07:09 PM

And in other words, that's exactly what I said. Thanks for reaffirming.

Cool. I just felt I should of elaborated more on my "necesarry" comment.

supersonic182

12/15/07, 09:36 AM

I'm amused at the arguement of Fox News brainwashing. I find that a very hypocritical standard with something as prone and existant as Media Matters. Never heard of it? Let me define and enlighten you, then.

Hilary Clinton has recently applauded Media Matters, and associated herself with the founding of the general left swing of the media. It's responsible for the deafening outbreak in liberal headlines, and in the general disapproval of Conservative media. It's funny how she promotes Freedom of Speech, yet she makes it consistently implicant that she wants freedom of speech for the people swinging or thinking even the slightest to the left. She has repeated consistently in a number of debates that she would like to see radio talkshows, and several others have wanted to see the downfall of Fox News, simply for the fact that it helps associate Conservative candidates as well as Liberal.

I've also heard CNN be abbrievated as 'Clinton News Network,' and in a lot of the context, that is the very definition. They only seem to follow particular campaigns, one of the few being hers. If you want to define what exactly is fair and balanced, then to be wise I wouldn't argue that any of the media matters' groups or influenced [CNN, MSNBC, 3 1/4 of the newspapers across America,] are fair and balanced or that namely politicians are. It seems as if there is a constant growing battle of what exactly the definition of freedom of speech is, and if it is and should be liberated just for the liberal media as it has been hinted at. There should be a deafening outcry about now, but it is repeatedly being attempted to be silenced. It sounds like a sad outcome to me. People really should be doing something about this swing, if they want to get an accurate description of what exactly has been going on between candidates and politicians on both sides.

You never hearing the insulting or anything negative towards a great many of the moderate Democrat or hurled accusations against the Liberal Media, yet you see a great deal of bias and outcry against Republican or conservative officials. I find that not cry fair, for many in particular reasons. There is a great deal of cencorship when it comes to newspapers, networks, and whatnot.

And explain how nearly all of CNN's 'panels,' are supposedly versatile when most of them have been prenominately Democratic or tend to swing that way. At least FOXNEWS has panels evenly divided between Democrats, and Republians. Same with the amount of air time when it comes to the race for President.

captainhampton

12/15/07, 12:04 PM

supersonic182

12/15/07, 12:19 PM

I'm not clinically approving and justifying all of the Fox Media.
Every newstory and news network seems to have bias.
It's just I'm aware there is a particularly large liberal swing, and bias in the networks of CNN, MSNBC, and most of the other news networks, radio and broadcast on TV, as well as newspaper.
Just research your reporters, for one.
A good chunk of them have had schooling from prominent liberal schools and universities, taught where liberal influence and debate is prone. A lot of people have no mind of their own, are very heavily slanted and easily justified for a particular side based on 'so-called facts' when really that is not so.

Have you ever noticed that within the last two decades there have only been TWO Democratic Presidents? Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. There's a reason there hasn't been more, the general population and consensus has voted and for reason. Jimmy Carter is the man responsible for shutting down a lot of the reason the United States has been having issues with China, and negotiating shipping through the Panama Canal. We dug the panal, we have to pay for it because he sold it to them , and that's obviously limiting and stretching things just a bit. That's just a little bit of a backstory for you.

Bill Clinton is obviously going to be doing and advertising most of Hilary's campaigning for that prime reason. It's clear that he would manipulate some of the population to vote for her, or any other liberal candidate for that matter. The Democrats are very much banded together in one aspect, they can join forces together and plot to take over something -- including the airwaves if they would -- and their primary focus is to achieve the White House and take back everything that the President has done. With immigration issues, that isn't such a bad subject, but with other issues such as conquering the mass media, it is a very bad one. And if we intend to have a freedom of speech? That is bad news.

Freedom of speech, and freedom are two different aspects.

Freedom is pretty much the very definition of what we've been fighting for, worldwde for centuries now. Take a good look at most of history, and what they've been fighting for -- rights, religion, politics, democracy, we should consider ourselves blessed. But instead? We take advantage of it. And freedom of speech is something that many other countries around the world don't have. It's the ability to say what you want, state what you want, argue what you want, and not be arrested or trialed for it. If you compare the United States, and many other countries' standards of what it is, and compare it to the Middle East. Then you will find yourself very much blessed, and it's sad that the very freedom has been taken advantage of repeatedly. And profoundly, by the liberal media, who wants to use it's advantage to completely redefine it's meaning by what I stated earlier about Media Matters.

To be honest. In some ways, Fox is no better than other news networks.
You would never have even found out about Media Matters on FOX, either.
And it obviously has an apparent favoritism on certain candidates, itself.
All of the above is true, and it is evident and proven to be true, throughout Hilary's campaigning, and if you look at the stance or general consensus of most journalists, scholars, and campaigners.

I'm not arguing for the White House, I'm not arguing for Fox News Network, and I'm neither putting on a slogan or campaign for either of them. I merely am stating factual truths that you wouldn't hear on any radio station or newspaper, and wanting to spread the word so that people know and think when voting. I'm not saying that Conservatism doesn't have it's faults either, because it does. I'm saying that unless the United States wants to shut down freedom of speech for a good percentage of the population, they need to step up and do something about this swing and unfair stance on the media.

You aren't even hearing a good chunk of what's really out there, what really is existent in the United States by reading the newspaper anymore. The Democrats have repeatedly tried to put a bill through Congress that would shut down the Conservative talk shows, and networks. Just the Conservative. And that's where the problem is going. They seem less focused with the struggles, like the war and the economy, and more intent on destroying the Conservatism in the United States. Sound familar? Some more backstory. Research your United States Federalist party from centuries long past, and the very definition of Federalism, head by Alexander Hamilton. Why do you think Thomas Jefferson, the leader of the 'Democratic-Republicans,' was worried? He became concerned that Congress, the House of Reps, were becoming overwhelmed with a majority people that cared more about themselves and PERSONAL GAIN, than for the needs of the country. That's what is evidently happening, people that only have desires and ideals for their party and for their personal gain, are taking over. But did you notice? The approval rating for Congress is 10 points lower than even the President's. That is saying something there, because they're both lower than ever before.

Federalism is something that I know compare with the Democratic Party. During the XYZ affair, many Federalists wanted us to go to war and lose a war with France, that way it would 'weaken the opponents,' and benefit them in similarity to the Democrat's and their feelings toward Iraq. It couldn't be more clear that they want us to withdrawl, and in the sense, lose the war to weaken the GOP and Conservative party and their belief system -- including the loss of Freedom of Speech. And they didn't seem to care that it would weaken the government along with them. And then now notice that the Federalist party is now defuncant, along with Alexander Hamilton, because they put their own concerns before the United States's. It in some aspects can be compared with modern day Democrats, and their moral value and belief systems. And it's very ironic that the opposing party was the practically oxymoron that made up Democrat-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson. But did you notice? That the Federalists ended up being over ran, losing power in Congress, and some day that is going to happen inevitably. It just depends on a matter of time. People need to step up to the plate, and vote for the person that is most likely to put a change -- and a good one -- in the country. Do you want to vote for somebody that is going to eliminate or discriminate against certain freedoms of speech, Hilary Clinton or Obama or one of the many Media Matters influenced candidates? Or do you want somebody that is going to defend the country, and it's very morals that the Founding Fathers sought to protect from the very beginning? People have to step up in 2008.

EasySkankin

12/15/07, 04:20 PM

And explain how nearly all of CNN's 'panels,' are supposedly versatile when most of them have been prenominately Democratic or tend to swing that way. At least FOXNEWS has panels evenly divided between Democrats, and Republians. Same with the amount of air time when it comes to the race for President.

Do you have any sources for this?

I'm not clinically approving and justifying all of the Fox Media.
Every newstory and news network seems to have bias.

In the words of stephen colbert, yes, reality does tend to have a liberal bias.

Bill Clinton is obviously going to be doing and advertising most of Hilary's campaigning for that prime reason. It's clear that he would manipulate some of the population to vote for her, or any other liberal candidate for that matter. The Democrats are very much banded together in one aspect, they can join forces together and plot to take over something -- including the airwaves if they would -- and their primary focus is to achieve the White House and take back everything that the President has done. With immigration issues, that isn't such a bad subject, but with other issues such as conquering the mass media, it is a very bad one. And if we intend to have a freedom of speech? That is bad news.

I'm having a real hard time understanding this. How is biased media deteriorating free speech? If anything, it's a clear sign that we do have freedom of speech. And how do you get the idea that democratics, such as hillary clinton, want to impose on freedom of speech?

Yes, the major players in media are mostly democrat. It's not like the democrats have some sinister mind control machine where they sabatoge, manipulate, and blackmail the media to publish the stories they like. The actual executives and workmen within the media are the ones who engage in the filtering. When the people are in agreement about something, they will talk about it.

Freedom is pretty much the very definition of what we've been fighting for, worldwde for centuries now. Take a good look at most of history, and what they've been fighting for -- rights, religion, politics, democracy, we should consider ourselves blessed.

Ah, yes. The extermination of the native populace, isolation in international affairs, corporate and economic dominance, the industrial revolution, world war 1 and 2, then the severe meddling in the internal political affairs of other nations (see: middle east), the vietnam war, bombing of pharmecutical factories in sudan, our idleness when foreign nations' civil and human rights are being trampled on, partisan limits on political thought and practice, and much, much more.

We just love freedom, don't we?

To be honest. In some ways, Fox is no better than other news networks.

Damn right.

I'm saying that unless the United States wants to shut down freedom of speech for a good percentage of the population, they need to step up and do something about this swing and unfair stance on the media.

1.How the hell are they going to shut down free speech?

2. Ok, do something about the unfair media... Like what? Control it? lol. This situation is common when you have a free media in a country as capitalistic as ours.

Do you want to vote for somebody that is going to eliminate or discriminate against certain freedoms of speech, Hilary Clinton or Obama or one of the many Media Matters influenced candidates?

Again... How and what?

Or do you want somebody that is going to defend the country, and it's very morals that the Founding Fathers sought to protect from the very beginning? People have to step up in 2008.

Yes, the global political, technological, economic, and social circumstances at present are just stark similar to the 18th century scene.

x togepi x

12/15/07, 04:58 PM

You never hearing the insulting or anything negative towards a great many of the moderate Democrat or hurled accusations against the Liberal Media, yet you see a great deal of bias and outcry against Republican or conservative officials. I find that not cry fair, for many in particular reasons. There is a great deal of cencorship when it comes to newspapers, networks, and whatnot.

really?

so the media didn't complain about john edwards getting a haircut or how hillary clinton's laugh sounds bad?

or back in 2004, didn't call into question john kerry's war service, but let bush have a free pass on his current wars?

you're blind if you think the media is liberal. a liberal media works against the interests of the major corporations that run the major media conglomerates. In fact, the media's traditional wisdom towards liberal candidates is that they should shift to the right.

the reason the media criticizes bush so much is because it's in vogue. it's what the people want. did you hear a lot of criticism of bush when he had higher poll numbers? not really.

supersonic182

12/15/07, 06:05 PM

Yes, the major players in media are mostly democrat. It's not like the democrats have some sinister mind control machine where they sabatoge, manipulate, and blackmail the media to publish the stories they like.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO. Most newspapers, such as the New York Times, actually only hire beneficially liberal writers with the exception of editorials. And even then, typically the responses are liberal and outspoken. Have you ever noticed Hilary Clinton planting questions? That's called sabotating. Watergate and trying G Gordan Libby falsely? That was sabotage. President Bill Clinton, and Andrew Jackson were both Democrats, and impeached. Obviously, not just for nothing. Al Gore's documentary on Global Warming has been proven to have flaws, and yet he wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Isn't it just grand that you can win thousands of dollars and a big trophy because you lied to the American press?

http://houston.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2453 (http://houston.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2453)
http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrat-sabotage-of-iraq.html (http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrat-sabotage-of-iraq.html)
http://www.alternet.org/story/67793/ (http://www.alternet.org/story/67793/)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/101072-1.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4925/ (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4925/)
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200705070001 (http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200705070001)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx)

There are actually a big 'list of don't's' that the Media Matters has listed on their website. Here it is:
-- Don't contradict your own reporting and suggest that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "cash[ed] in" on a stock deal in which he lost $13,000.

-- Don't say that Obama's position on Pakistan is "very much in line with what" President Bush says regarding Pakistan.

-- Don't contradict your own reporting -- again -- and say that Obama, in following legal requirements to count purchasers of his campaign merchandise as campaign contributors, is "apparently using some creative math" and "overselling his grassroots support."

-- Don't tell Obama that "[i]t's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops."

-- Don't suggest that former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) work "for financial markets" might "contradict his anti-poverty message."

-- Don't adopt GOP framing and ask Edwards about his "flip-flop" on Iraq "to win the vote."
-- Don't ask about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) "pretty interesting" quip that "[w]e've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."
Those were 7 of the first 8 "don't" suggestions... Seriously stunning. We're guessing Edwards and Obama partisans don't believe they need any more "help" from David Brock and his team.
Meanwhile, here are some of the Clinton "don'ts," buried toward the END of this list.

-- Don't base questions on premises that contradict available polling data, such as whether the Clinton campaign -- while leading all other candidates in head-to-head matchups -- is "feeling desperate."

-- Don't ask whether Clinton -- but not former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) -- is "going too far" and "politicizing 9-11" in her campaign ads.

-- Don't hold Democratic and Republican candidates to differing standards regarding the Iraq war and the budget -- for example, by repeating Republican attacks on Obama and Clinton for voting against an Iraq supplemental funding bill without noting that Republican candidates have also voted against Iraq supplementals.

source: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx) and media matters links.
Sources? Please look ahttpt the recent hirings of several liberal scholars for CNN, and also check out a couple websites I have listed here that are credible sources. You can do your own research on Media Matters if you feel so enlightened to. ALSO, the chief executive and producer of CNN, is a huge, flaming anti-war liberal and has been for years.

They had a lot of the same beliefs, and same desires, including the desperate need to give and hand out loans on an excessive basis. You can thank FDR and JFK for partially getting the United States started on a budget spending that only seemed to increase over the last decade. They also had similar foreign ties, and seeing as France has also gotten a new leader in it's power, it's ties with the United States have improved only little.

What I'm getting at when the biased media deteriorating free speech, is that many of the Democratic candidates are trying to ward off freedom of speech through expression in the media, newspapers, and Conservative talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Micahel Savage are being threatened to be taken off the air thanks to Senators trying to get bills passed that would create more censorship among the radio -- meaning, that those talkshow hosts would be be the equivalent of gone because they were Republicans. The Liberals have been on their case for years, merely because they state things how they are, free of bias, and admit when they're wrong. An issue the Clintons seem to have trouble with. In other words, the Liberals are trying to hide bits and particles of the stories, like important facts that the Iraqi

Excuse me, did I make that comparison? That it had the same technology? No, I did not. I made it with the belief and moral values of both the Federalists of the time, and the modern day Democratic/Liberal slanted party. It seems that they care more about how their house, and their politicians result or turn out in the long run more than how the outcome of the country ends up. Personally, I don't want any leader being in charge, that's more concerned for making upon hundreds of thousands of dollars than the economic, moral, social, and foreign issues of our time.

Every candidate is ridiculed at some point in another, and anybody and everybody in the lime light was, if you dig deep into what Media Matters is; it's a group that is going around actually slandering the media for featuring any Conservative Media. But you cannot admit it's fishy that you can quote John Kerry, and people like Al Gore and John Edwards and Hilary Clinton, saying how they were so against and devestated when Ronald Reagan got into office; and then years later at his funeral they proclaimed the most sincere apologies and how they were on relatively good terms. Bullshit. They're hypocrites, liars, and they do everything to deceive others, and their moment of fading glory? That wasn't anything in comparison to some of the ridicule that Republican Candidates over the years have gotten; and the Watergate Scandal was definitely the top of the list. People such as Nixon, Bush and H. W. Bush, have gotten so much negative publicity that it's eventually slandered their overview as a President. The single exception I may mention is the Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinski thing, when it was 'cool' to dislike the President, and it still apparently is. That's only a glimmer in the pastlife of the President, and God only knows that else he's done. He had it coming.

There's a difference between made up, and ridiculous negative articles running, and negative publicity that was well deserved. As in, they actually did something incredible. You've seen how Hilary Clinton works planting her questions, Bill Clinton cheating on his wife, John Edwards being a two timer, and John Kerry not having even rightfully earned his Purple Heart award. Bill Clinton burned the Goddamn American Flag way before he took office, and he was later pardoned.

Just look at the media these days, please. Look at all the articles ridiculing Rudy Guliani when in September 2001, he was honorarily known as a hero for helping get NYC through those times. And have you ever known that some of the members of the Screen Actors Guild Council are actually prime and big supporters of the Hilary, Obmama Campaigns? They're paying thousands upon thousands, and yet what do you see they're doing for their country? Nada. Zip.

Poll numbers are based on opinion, speculation, and half the time; they don't even poll a large percentage of the opinion of the country. Look at the post above you, in some aspects, he is completely true. Most people recognize the liberal media, and how everything is slandered in the general left direction.

If you want to go to polls? Well, then look at the polls that show that the Congress -- which is made up of generally left wings at this moment in time after the last election and most of the Republican seats were given up -- approval ratings are even daringly lower. Why? They've done NOTHING, except keep the power from going into the Conservatives with their extreme paranoia.

What you were more consistent on asking? Why are they demeaning and how are they going to eliminate, or attempt to eliminate free speech?

They've got the Congress and the House of Representatives, and with the race for control of White House, most likely they could pass any bill they want to. And one of the ones that have recently been suggested is a bill that would eliminate Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts. Namely, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and the list goes on.

Ah, yes. The extermination of the native populace, isolation in international affairs, corporate and economic dominance, the industrial revolution, world war 1 and 2, then the severe meddling in the internal political affairs of other nations (see: middle east), the vietnam war, bombing of pharmecutical factories in sudan, our idleness when foreign nations' civil and human rights are being trampled on, partisan limits on political thought and practice, and much, much more.

We just love freedom, don't we?

I have to quote you on this. So you're critizing the fact that you're living in what was Native American's territory, when tehy have special put aside lands for them?

And you're ACTUALLY anti World War 1, and World War 2; even after we were attacked on Pearl Harbor by Japan, losing thousands, and after witnessing us help eliminate some of the Nazi Concentration Camps over in Germany. You call that meddling? Saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives? And I'm supposing you're one of those hippies, or would have been, protesting the Vietnam War when it was actually a Republican President that ended it.

I'm not even going to begin, because that is your freedom of speech right there. And you're expressing it just as much as I did. No need to argue. It's a matter of variation of basis, fact, and opinion.

rikfrommf

12/15/07, 06:23 PM

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO. Most newspapers, such as the New York Times, actually only hire beneficially liberal writers with the exception of editorials. And even then, typically the responses are liberal and outspoken. Have you ever noticed Hilary Clinton planting questions? That's called sabotating. Watergate and trying G Gordan Libby falsely? That was sabotage. President Bill Clinton, and Andrew Jackson were both Democrats, and impeached. Obviously, not just for nothing. Al Gore's documentary on Global Warming has been proven to have flaws, and yet he wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Isn't it just grand that you can win thousands of dollars and a big trophy because you lied to the American press?

http://houston.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2453 (http://houston.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2453)
http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrat-sabotage-of-iraq.html (http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrat-sabotage-of-iraq.html)
http://www.alternet.org/story/67793/ (http://www.alternet.org/story/67793/)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/101072-1.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4925/ (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4925/)
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200705070001 (http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200705070001)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx)
There are actually a big 'list of don't's' that the Media Matters has listed on their website. Here it is:
-- Don't contradict your own reporting and suggest that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "cash[ed] in" on a stock deal in which he lost $13,000.

-- Don't say that Obama's position on Pakistan is "very much in line with what" President Bush says regarding Pakistan.

-- Don't contradict your own reporting -- again -- and say that Obama, in following legal requirements to count purchasers of his campaign merchandise as campaign contributors, is "apparently using some creative math" and "overselling his grassroots support."

-- Don't tell Obama that "[i]t's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops."

-- Don't suggest that former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) work "for financial markets" might "contradict his anti-poverty message."

-- Don't adopt GOP framing and ask Edwards about his "flip-flop" on Iraq "to win the vote."
-- Don't ask about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) "pretty interesting" quip that "[w]e've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."
Those were 7 of the first 8 "don't" suggestions... Seriously stunning. We're guessing Edwards and Obama partisans don't believe they need any more "help" from David Brock and his team.
Meanwhile, here are some of the Clinton "don'ts," buried toward the END of this list.

-- Don't base questions on premises that contradict available polling data, such as whether the Clinton campaign -- while leading all other candidates in head-to-head matchups -- is "feeling desperate."

-- Don't ask whether Clinton -- but not former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) -- is "going too far" and "politicizing 9-11" in her campaign ads.

-- Don't hold Democratic and Republican candidates to differing standards regarding the Iraq war and the budget -- for example, by repeating Republican attacks on Obama and Clinton for voting against an Iraq supplemental funding bill without noting that Republican candidates have also voted against Iraq supplementals.

source: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx) and media matters links.Sources? Please look ahttpt the recent hirings of several liberal scholars for CNN, and also check out a couple websites I have listed here that are credible sources. You can do your own research on Media Matters if you feel so enlightened to. ALSO, the chief executive and producer of CNN, is a huge, flaming anti-war liberal and has been for years.

They had a lot of the same beliefs, and same desires, including the desperate need to give and hand out loans on an excessive basis. You can thank FDR and JFK for partially getting the United States started on a budget spending that only seemed to increase over the last decade. They also had similar foreign ties, and seeing as France has also gotten a new leader in it's power, it's ties with the United States have improved only little.

What I'm getting at when the biased media deteriorating free speech, is that many of the Democratic candidates are trying to ward off freedom of speech through expression in the media, newspapers, and Conservative talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Micahel Savage are being threatened to be taken off the air thanks to Senators trying to get bills passed that would create more censorship among the radio -- meaning, that those talkshow hosts would be be the equivalent of gone because they were Republicans. The Liberals have been on their case for years, merely because they state things how they are, free of bias, and admit when they're wrong. An issue the Clintons seem to have trouble with. In other words, the Liberals are trying to hide bits and particles of the stories, like important facts that the Iraqi

Excuse me, did I make that comparison? That it had the same technology? No, I did not. I made it with the belief and moral values of both the Federalists of the time, and the modern day Democratic/Liberal slanted party. It seems that they care more about how their house, and their politicians result or turn out in the long run more than how the outcome of the country ends up. Personally, I don't want any leader being in charge, that's more concerned for making upon hundreds of thousands of dollars than the economic, moral, social, and foreign issues of our time.

Every candidate is ridiculed at some point in another, and anybody and everybody in the lime light was, if you dig deep into what Media Matters is; it's a group that is going around actually slandering the media for featuring any Conservative Media. But you cannot admit it's fishy that you can quote John Kerry, and people like Al Gore and John Edwards and Hilary Clinton, saying how they were so against and devestated when Ronald Reagan got into office; and then years later at his funeral they proclaimed the most sincere apologies and how they were on relatively good terms. Bullshit. They're hypocrites, liars, and they do everything to deceive others, and their moment of fading glory? That wasn't anything in comparison to some of the ridicule that Republican Candidates over the years have gotten; and the Watergate Scandal was definitely the top of the list. People such as Nixon, Bush and H. W. Bush, have gotten so much negative publicity that it's eventually slandered their overview as a President. The single exception I may mention is the Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinski thing, when it was 'cool' to dislike the President, and it still apparently is. That's only a glimmer in the pastlife of the President, and God only knows that else he's done. He had it coming.

There's a difference between made up, and ridiculous negative articles running, and negative publicity that was well deserved. As in, they actually did something incredible. You've seen how Hilary Clinton works planting her questions, Bill Clinton cheating on his wife, John Edwards being a two timer, and John Kerry not having even rightfully earned his Purple Heart award. Bill Clinton burned the Goddamn American Flag way before he took office, and he was later pardoned.

Just look at the media these days, please. Look at all the articles ridiculing Rudy Guliani when in September 2001, he was honorarily known as a hero for helping get NYC through those times. And have you ever known that some of the members of the Screen Actors Guild Council are actually prime and big supporters of the Hilary, Obmama Campaigns? They're paying thousands upon thousands, and yet what do you see they're doing for their country? Nada. Zip.

Poll numbers are based on opinion, speculation, and half the time; they don't even poll a large percentage of the opinion of the country. Look at the post above you, in some aspects, he is completely true. Most people recognize the liberal media, and how everything is slandered in the general left direction.

If you want to go to polls? Well, then look at the polls that show that the Congress -- which is made up of generally left wings at this moment in time after the last election and most of the Republican seats were given up -- approval ratings are even daringly lower. Why? They've done NOTHING, except keep the power from going into the Conservatives with their extreme paranoia.

What you were more consistent on asking? Why are they demeaning and how are they going to eliminate, or attempt to eliminate free speech?

They've got the Congress and the House of Representatives, and with the race for control of White House, most likely they could pass any bill they want to. And one of the ones that have recently been suggested is a bill that would eliminate Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts. Namely, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and the list goes on.

I have to quote you on this. So you're critizing the fact that you're living in what was Native American's territory, when tehy have special put aside lands for them?

And you're ACTUALLY anti World War 1, and World War 2; even after we were attacked on Pearl Harbor by Japan, losing thousands, and after witnessing us help eliminate some of the Nazi Concentration Camps over in Germany. You call that meddling? Saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives? And I'm supposing you're one of those hippies, or would have been, protesting the Vietnam War when it was actually a Republican President that ended it.

I'm not even going to begin, because that is your freedom of speech right there. And you're expressing it just as much as I did. No need to argue. It's a matter of variation of basis, fact, and opinion.

I didn't read all of any of your posts but from my skimming you seem to relate a lot of dissimilar things in order to make a point. Nobel Peace Prize and Andrew Jackson? seriously? homeboy those things are far apart. Also on the Al Gore thing (thats about as far as I read) no science is ever infallible. I believe Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and he was wrong about alot of things... now that I mention Hitler, shouldn't this thread be over?

thetrueblood

12/15/07, 06:24 PM

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO. Most newspapers, such as the New York Times, actually only hire beneficially liberal writers with the exception of editorials. And even then, typically the responses are liberal and outspoken. Have you ever noticed Hilary Clinton planting questions? That's called sabotating. Watergate and trying G Gordan Libby falsely? That was sabotage. President Bill Clinton, and Andrew Jackson were both Democrats, and impeached. Obviously, not just for nothing. Al Gore's documentary on Global Warming has been proven to have flaws, and yet he wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Isn't it just grand that you can win thousands of dollars and a big trophy because you lied to the American press?

http://houston.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2453 (http://houston.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2453)
http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrat-sabotage-of-iraq.html (http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrat-sabotage-of-iraq.html)
http://www.alternet.org/story/67793/ (http://www.alternet.org/story/67793/)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/101072-1.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4925/ (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4925/)
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200705070001 (http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200705070001)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx)
There are actually a big 'list of don't's' that the Media Matters has listed on their website. Here it is:
-- Don't contradict your own reporting and suggest that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "cash[ed] in" on a stock deal in which he lost $13,000.

-- Don't say that Obama's position on Pakistan is "very much in line with what" President Bush says regarding Pakistan.

-- Don't contradict your own reporting -- again -- and say that Obama, in following legal requirements to count purchasers of his campaign merchandise as campaign contributors, is "apparently using some creative math" and "overselling his grassroots support."

-- Don't tell Obama that "[i]t's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops."

-- Don't suggest that former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) work "for financial markets" might "contradict his anti-poverty message."

-- Don't adopt GOP framing and ask Edwards about his "flip-flop" on Iraq "to win the vote."
-- Don't ask about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) "pretty interesting" quip that "[w]e've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."
Those were 7 of the first 8 "don't" suggestions... Seriously stunning. We're guessing Edwards and Obama partisans don't believe they need any more "help" from David Brock and his team.
Meanwhile, here are some of the Clinton "don'ts," buried toward the END of this list.

-- Don't base questions on premises that contradict available polling data, such as whether the Clinton campaign -- while leading all other candidates in head-to-head matchups -- is "feeling desperate."

-- Don't ask whether Clinton -- but not former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) -- is "going too far" and "politicizing 9-11" in her campaign ads.

-- Don't hold Democratic and Republican candidates to differing standards regarding the Iraq war and the budget -- for example, by repeating Republican attacks on Obama and Clinton for voting against an Iraq supplemental funding bill without noting that Republican candidates have also voted against Iraq supplementals.

source: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx) and media matters links.Sources? Please look ahttpt the recent hirings of several liberal scholars for CNN, and also check out a couple websites I have listed here that are credible sources. You can do your own research on Media Matters if you feel so enlightened to. ALSO, the chief executive and producer of CNN, is a huge, flaming anti-war liberal and has been for years.

They had a lot of the same beliefs, and same desires, including the desperate need to give and hand out loans on an excessive basis. You can thank FDR and JFK for partially getting the United States started on a budget spending that only seemed to increase over the last decade. They also had similar foreign ties, and seeing as France has also gotten a new leader in it's power, it's ties with the United States have improved only little.

What I'm getting at when the biased media deteriorating free speech, is that many of the Democratic candidates are trying to ward off freedom of speech through expression in the media, newspapers, and Conservative talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Micahel Savage are being threatened to be taken off the air thanks to Senators trying to get bills passed that would create more censorship among the radio -- meaning, that those talkshow hosts would be be the equivalent of gone because they were Republicans. The Liberals have been on their case for years, merely because they state things how they are, free of bias, and admit when they're wrong. An issue the Clintons seem to have trouble with. In other words, the Liberals are trying to hide bits and particles of the stories, like important facts that the Iraqi

Excuse me, did I make that comparison? That it had the same technology? No, I did not. I made it with the belief and moral values of both the Federalists of the time, and the modern day Democratic/Liberal slanted party. It seems that they care more about how their house, and their politicians result or turn out in the long run more than how the outcome of the country ends up. Personally, I don't want any leader being in charge, that's more concerned for making upon hundreds of thousands of dollars than the economic, moral, social, and foreign issues of our time.

Every candidate is ridiculed at some point in another, and anybody and everybody in the lime light was, if you dig deep into what Media Matters is; it's a group that is going around actually slandering the media for featuring any Conservative Media. But you cannot admit it's fishy that you can quote John Kerry, and people like Al Gore and John Edwards and Hilary Clinton, saying how they were so against and devestated when Ronald Reagan got into office; and then years later at his funeral they proclaimed the most sincere apologies and how they were on relatively good terms. Bullshit. They're hypocrites, liars, and they do everything to deceive others, and their moment of fading glory? That wasn't anything in comparison to some of the ridicule that Republican Candidates over the years have gotten; and the Watergate Scandal was definitely the top of the list. People such as Nixon, Bush and H. W. Bush, have gotten so much negative publicity that it's eventually slandered their overview as a President. The single exception I may mention is the Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinski thing, when it was 'cool' to dislike the President, and it still apparently is. That's only a glimmer in the pastlife of the President, and God only knows that else he's done. He had it coming.

There's a difference between made up, and ridiculous negative articles running, and negative publicity that was well deserved. As in, they actually did something incredible. You've seen how Hilary Clinton works planting her questions, Bill Clinton cheating on his wife, John Edwards being a two timer, and John Kerry not having even rightfully earned his Purple Heart award. Bill Clinton burned the Goddamn American Flag way before he took office, and he was later pardoned.

Just look at the media these days, please. Look at all the articles ridiculing Rudy Guliani when in September 2001, he was honorarily known as a hero for helping get NYC through those times. And have you ever known that some of the members of the Screen Actors Guild Council are actually prime and big supporters of the Hilary, Obmama Campaigns? They're paying thousands upon thousands, and yet what do you see they're doing for their country? Nada. Zip.

Poll numbers are based on opinion, speculation, and half the time; they don't even poll a large percentage of the opinion of the country. Look at the post above you, in some aspects, he is completely true. Most people recognize the liberal media, and how everything is slandered in the general left direction.

If you want to go to polls? Well, then look at the polls that show that the Congress -- which is made up of generally left wings at this moment in time after the last election and most of the Republican seats were given up -- approval ratings are even daringly lower. Why? They've done NOTHING, except keep the power from going into the Conservatives with their extreme paranoia.

What you were more consistent on asking? Why are they demeaning and how are they going to eliminate, or attempt to eliminate free speech?

They've got the Congress and the House of Representatives, and with the race for control of White House, most likely they could pass any bill they want to. And one of the ones that have recently been suggested is a bill that would eliminate Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts. Namely, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and the list goes on.

I have to quote you on this. So you're critizing the fact that you're living in what was Native American's territory, when tehy have special put aside lands for them?

And you're ACTUALLY anti World War 1, and World War 2; even after we were attacked on Pearl Harbor by Japan, losing thousands, and after witnessing us help eliminate some of the Nazi Concentration Camps over in Germany. You call that meddling? Saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives? And I'm supposing you're one of those hippies, or would have been, protesting the Vietnam War when it was actually a Republican President that ended it.

I'm not even going to begin, because that is your freedom of speech right there. And you're expressing it just as much as I did. No need to argue. It's a matter of variation of basis, fact, and opinion.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

At first I thought this was going to be too long to read for me to care about...but when I got to the part about Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity stating things "how they are" and "free of bias" I couldn't stop laughing.

EasySkankin

12/15/07, 07:26 PM

Wow. that's a lot of text.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO. Most newspapers, such as the New York Times, actually only hire beneficially liberal writers with the exception of editorials. And even then, typically the responses are liberal and outspoken.

the rest of this paragraph contradicts the first sentence.

President Bill Clinton, and Andrew Jackson were both Democrats, and impeached. Obviously, not just for nothing.

What fucking history book are you reading? I think you mean andrew johnson, and even so, how is this at all relevant?

Al Gore's documentary on Global Warming has been proven to have flaws, and yet he wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Isn't it just grand that you can win thousands of dollars and a big trophy because you lied to the American press?

He got the award for bringing the plight of global warming and environmentalism to the mainstream.

http://houston.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2453 (http://houston.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2453)
http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrat-sabotage-of-iraq.html (http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrat-sabotage-of-iraq.html)
http://www.alternet.org/story/67793/ (http://www.alternet.org/story/67793/)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/101072-1.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4925/ (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4925/)
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200705070001 (http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200705070001)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx
(http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx)

Um. wtf? one of these articles actually contradicts your points, and exposes bias in the right-wing media. one of them is a blog, and the rest seem entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about.

Sources? Please look ahttpt the recent hirings of several liberal scholars for CNN, and also check out a couple websites I have listed here that are credible sources. You can do your own research on Media Matters if you feel so enlightened to. ALSO, the chief executive and producer of CNN, is a huge, flaming anti-war liberal and has been for years.

None of those links provides any evidence that the fox news panel is mixed party-wise.

What I'm getting at when the biased media deteriorating free speech, is that many of the Democratic candidates are trying to ward off freedom of speech through expression in the media, newspapers, and Conservative talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Micahel Savage are being threatened to be taken off the air thanks to Senators trying to get bills passed that would create more censorship among the radio -- meaning, that those talkshow hosts would be be the equivalent of gone because they were Republicans.

What bills? where the hell do you get this shit? And how is a free and biased media deteriorating free speech?

The Liberals have been on their case for years, merely because they state things how they are, free of bias, and admit when they're wrong.

ooh you better not be talking about fox, or the right-wing media, because then I would lose all respect for you.

Excuse me, did I make that comparison? That it had the same technology? No, I did not. I made it with the belief and moral values of both the Federalists of the time, and the modern day Democratic/Liberal slanted party.

rel·a·tiv·ism http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference .com%2Fbrowse%2Frelativism) /ˈrɛlhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtəˌvɪzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəm/ Pronunciation Key (http://www.absolutepunk.net/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://www.absolutepunk.net/)[rel-uh-tuh-viz-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] Pronunciation Key (http://www.absolutepunk.net/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://www.absolutepunk.net/) –noun Philosophy. any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.

Our world is very different, and that means that different measures should be taken for different goals. Sure, Louis XIV was an excellent and cunning leader, but does that mean I should format his methods for the modern world? No. Not only is it impossible, but now there is an entirely different global scene, and the rules are different.

It seems that they care more about how their house, and their politicians result or turn out in the long run more than how the outcome of the country ends up.

Naturally, when someone takes a political stance, he/she believes that stance is best for the country, so ultimately, for the democrats, if they do well, the country does well. It's not a very hard logical concept.

There's a difference between made up, and ridiculous negative articles running, and negative publicity that was well deserved. As in, they actually did something incredible. You've seen how Hilary Clinton works planting her questions, Bill Clinton cheating on his wife, John Edwards being a two timer, and John Kerry not having even rightfully earned his Purple Heart award. Bill Clinton burned the Goddamn American Flag way before he took office, and he was later pardoned.

I'm not even joking, i'm laughing out loud watching you try to argue. This isn't the first time you've contradicted yourself.

Poll numbers are based on opinion, speculation, and half the time; they don't even poll a large percentage of the opinion of the country. Look at the post above you, in some aspects, he is completely true. Most people recognize the liberal media, and how everything is slandered in the general left direction.

If you want to go to polls? Well, then look at the polls that show that the Congress -- which is made up of generally left wings at this moment in time after the last election and most of the Republican seats were given up -- approval ratings are even daringly lower. Why? They've done NOTHING, except keep the power from going into the Conservatives with their extreme paranoia.

1st paragraph: Polls suck and aren't credible

2nd paragraph: The polls tell that congress sucks, which must mean they do nothing.

Do you watch the news? like, at all? Pretty much every day a new bill is being discussed or voted on in congress. Honestly i'm getting tired of erasing all your irrelevant paragraphs and arguing against your retarded toddler logic.

They've got the Congress and the House of Representatives, and with the race for control of White House, most likely they could pass any bill they want to. And one of the ones that have recently been suggested is a bill that would eliminate Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts. Namely, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and the list goes on.

Again, what bill are you talking about?

I have to quote you on this. So you're critizing the fact that you're living in what was Native American's territory, when tehy have special put aside lands for them?

Exactly. You were suggesting that "heh, yeah, america just LOVES freedom! hooyah!". Obviously, reality, with it's oh-so-inconvenient liberal bias, tells otherwise.

The reservations are bullshit. If anyone has a right to this land (which is for another debate), it would be those people.

And you're ACTUALLY anti World War 1, and World War 2; even after we were attacked on Pearl Harbor by Japan, losing thousands, and after witnessing us help eliminate some of the Nazi Concentration Camps over in Germany. You call that meddling? Saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives? And I'm supposing you're one of those hippies, or would have been, protesting the Vietnam War when it was actually a Republican President that ended it.

War is not a friend of freedom. The american people were not aware of the holocaust and the scale of the jewish persecution until after the war, so no, that is not an excuse.

OF COURSE IT IS MEDDLING! DO YOU NEED A FUCKING DICTIONARY?

I'm not even going to begin, because that is your freedom of speech right there. And you're expressing it just as much as I did. No need to argue. It's a matter of variation of basis, fact, and opinion.

funny you should say variation of fact.

There. I actually seriously read and responded to your entire post. It wasn't much different from the last one (60% irrelevant bullshit and 100% faulty logic). It was like hacking through the fucking amazon with a butter knife. Please, even if you don't improve your logic, at least improve your posts and omit what is irrelevant.

saysmydoctor

12/15/07, 08:31 PM

Walk into an airport and yell bomb? Freedom of speech within reason. I don't understand why this would need discussion.

captainhampton

12/15/07, 09:54 PM

Walk into an airport and yell bomb? Freedom of speech within reason. I don't understand why this would need discussion.

this is how i feel. it is laughable that there are people who think you should be able to yell that in an airport without consequences.

thetrueblood

12/15/07, 10:00 PM

this is how i feel. it is laughable that there are people who think you should be able to yell that in an airport without consequences.

what if some kid yelled "that's da bomb" loudly and it is misinterpreted?

captainhampton

12/15/07, 10:03 PM

what if some kid yelled "that's da bomb" loudly and it is misinterpreted?

ummm obviously that is different.

Nevuk

12/15/07, 10:38 PM

ummm obviously that is different.
How? It is the same basic phrase, the only difference is in intonation. If an arab did this in an airport, he would likely get sent to guantanamo due to profiling, no matter what the hell he was actually doing.

x togepi x

12/16/07, 12:28 AM

I don't get it: free speech means you can say what you want. a biased media is expressing their views. complaining about it would be anti-free speech.

more importantly, we've had a bush administration who have basically gotten everything they've wanted for the past few years. if the media is liberal, then obviously it doesn't really matter what the media's bias is.

bossman calling

12/16/07, 06:35 AM

really?

so the media didn't complain about john edwards getting a haircut or how hillary clinton's laugh sounds bad?

or back in 2004, didn't call into question john kerry's war service, but let bush have a free pass on his current wars?

you're blind if you think the media is liberal. a liberal media works against the interests of the major corporations that run the major media conglomerates. In fact, the media's traditional wisdom towards liberal candidates is that they should shift to the right.

the reason the media criticizes bush so much is because it's in vogue. it's what the people want. did you hear a lot of criticism of bush when he had higher poll numbers? not really.
Wait, it is in vogue to citicize Bush, because it's "what the people want," but you're saying the people don't find it funny when a guy who is a supposed champion of the poor and the environment pays $400 for a haircut and builds a massive estate home? The people, 50% of whom have a negative view of Hillary, don't find her laugh (and her overall demeanor) to be kind of fake and creepy? You're saying that the people didn't have an interest in knowing more about the war service by a guy who was using said war service as a major part of his platform in an attempt to contrast himself to his opponent, who wasn't trying to exploit any past military service? And you're saying that Bush had a free pass? Does "Rathergate" not ring any bells?

And by the way, I agree with you that the people do want to critisize the president, and that is why it is out there so much...but it's laughable that you brought up those other examples and tried to use them in that way.

bossman calling

12/16/07, 06:42 AM

I don't get it: free speech means you can say what you want. a biased media is expressing their views. complaining about it would be anti-free speech.
No, looking to pass laws to limit or regulate what the media says would be anti-free speech. Complaining about it in public, pointing out discrepancies, mistakes and flagrant biases, starting other forms of alternative media to counter the mass media are not anti-free speech; they are all what free-speech is all about.

And to answer everyones question towards that kid on proposed laws that are attempting to stifile free speech, specifically conservative speech, look up the so-called "fairness doctrine."

EasySkankin

12/16/07, 02:39 PM

That's American liberal and conservative. Which in itself is significantly more rightist than everywhere else.

bingo bango.

What better way to prevent leftist thought when all you have are pretenders?

x togepi x

12/16/07, 02:42 PM

Wait, it is in vogue to citicize Bush, because it's "what the people want," but you're saying the people don't find it funny when a guy who is a supposed champion of the poor and the environment pays $400 for a haircut and builds a massive estate home?

The people, 50% of whom have a negative view of Hillary, don't find her laugh (and her overall demeanor) to be kind of fake and creepy? You're saying that the people didn't have an interest in knowing more about the war service by a guy who was using said war service as a major part of his platform in an attempt to contrast himself to his opponent, who wasn't trying to exploit any past military service? And you're saying that Bush had a free pass? Does "Rathergate" not ring any bells?

Okay, go back, reread the post, because you entirely missed my point. Original poster that I quoted claimed that the media is sooo liberal and never criticizes democrats. The point of my post was to show that they do. I never claimed that the criticisms didn't make sense (in the case of edwards) or that they didn't criticize bush.

When i said bush got a free pass, I wasn't referring to Vietnam, i was referring to the media's complacency in the run up to the Iraq war. Anyone with the internet could have figured out how shoddy that justification for war was.

And by the way, I agree with you that the people do want to critisize the president, and that is why it is out there so much...but it's laughable that you brought up those other examples and tried to use them in that way.

how is it laughable for me to point out that the media criticizes most political candidates?

No, looking to pass laws to limit or regulate what the media says would be anti-free speech. Complaining about it in public, pointing out discrepancies, mistakes and flagrant biases, starting other forms of alternative media to counter the mass media are not anti-free speech; they are all what free-speech is all about.

And to answer everyones question towards that kid on proposed laws that are attempting to stifile free speech, specifically conservative speech, look up the so-called "fairness doctrine."

most people who are anti-fox news, bias in the media, whatever, don't advocate the fairness doctrine. their solution is "don't watch biased sources". what the democrats might push in congress don't represent the general public (otherwise they wouldn't capitulate to bush over and over). besides, the fairness doctrine will never pass congress anyway because it would paint a target on certain democrats as being anti free speech.

but if we're going to talk about stifling free speech, we ought to point out the great lengths major corporations go to controlling the speech of both their workers and those criticizing them by invoking things like trade secrets.

bossman calling

12/16/07, 03:09 PM

how is it laughable for me to point out that the media criticizes most political candidates?
I misunderstood your point. My Bad!

most people who are anti-fox news, bias in the media, whatever, don't advocate the fairness doctrine. their solution is "don't watch biased sources". what the democrats might push in congress don't represent the general public (otherwise they wouldn't capitulate to bush over and over). besides, the fairness doctrine will never pass congress anyway because it would paint a target on certain democrats as being anti free speech.
That doesn't escape the original point from supersonic that Hillary Clinton supported bringing it back it as early as 1994 after conservative media took a big part in helping turn the politcal tide against her health care proposals, and Media Matters, which is highly connected to Clinton, is a die hard supporter of it. I think it brings up a valid question on her commitment to free speech or the freedom of the press.

but if we're going to talk about stifling free speech, we ought to point out the great lengths major corporations go to controlling the speech of both their workers and those criticizing them by invoking things like trade secrets.
I'm assuming you're talking about companies having their employees sign non-disclosure papers as a precondition for employment...and that has nothing to do with stifling "free-speech," considering that going to work for said companies is strictly voluntary. Once you sign that legal contract, you are bound by it and the government has the responsibility to enforce it should you disclose things that you agreed not to.

If you can't keep trade-secrets, then don't go work for companies that want to keep them. But that has absolutely nothing to do with "stifling free speech."

x togepi x

12/16/07, 03:44 PM

That doesn't escape the original point from supersonic that Hillary Clinton supported bringing it back it as early as 1994 after conservative media took a big part in helping turn the politcal tide against her health care proposals, and Media Matters, which is highly connected to Clinton, is a die hard supporter of it. I think it brings up a valid question on her commitment to free speech or the freedom of the press.

yet another reason why people shouldn't trust hillary clinton then.

I'm assuming you're talking about companies having their employees sign non-disclosure papers as a precondition for employment...and that has nothing to do with stifling "free-speech," considering that going to work for said companies is strictly voluntary.

we can extend this logic to the media and then say it's not a big deal if conservatives can't express their views since they are merely employees. I don't buy the logic that work is voluntary so you don't have free speech. Yes, i realize that's how things work, but I don't think it ought to be that way.

If you can't keep trade-secrets, then don't go work for companies that want to keep them. But that has absolutely nothing to do with "stifling free speech."

actually it does, as there are cases where corporate whistleblowers and others criticizing the businesses they work for have had their speech stifled.

bossman calling

12/16/07, 04:50 PM

Do you have any examples?

x togepi x

12/16/07, 05:37 PM

AT&T kept an office meant on monitoring communication through the internet. They moved to block information on this from coming out in court by claiming it was a trade secret.

of course it really doesn't matter as the conservative court ruled trade secrets to trump free speech anyway.

bossman calling

12/18/07, 03:42 PM

Do you have a source? Who were they monitoring? Their own employees or just everyday, non-AT&T employee customers posting things on the internet?

x togepi x

12/18/07, 07:32 PM

I could probably find a source but i'm too lazy. I saw it on the news a few months back during one of the wiretapping bill debates. it's partially why the fed is pushing for companies who helped out in their wiretapping program to get retroactive protection in the new law.

saysmydoctor

12/20/07, 10:46 AM

what if some kid yelled "that's da bomb" loudly and it is misinterpreted?
I read what I said "Freedom of speech within reason."

If you start micromanaging and overanalyzing everything everybody says, then damn. You can find at least three threats in this sentence, if you look hard enough (take some letters and rearrange them, it could be considered anagram for "Bush needs to be assasinated." Just ignore the other letters. Obviously, that's not my intention or my goal. I'm just implying how we read way way way between the lines.)

bossman calling

12/28/07, 01:44 PM

Here is a piece (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24176) that came out today that presents the case that British libel laws and Canadian "hate speech" laws dangerously intimidate, stifle and restrict free-speech. In the spirit of this thread, discuss this author's assertions and claims:

Islam vs. Free Speech
by Jed Babbin
Posted 12/28/2007 ET

Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom of the press are dead in Britain. The same sorts of people who killed them in Britain are killing them in Canada. They and their allies are using the British and Canadian courts and tribunals to bury our First Amendment rights in America.

Muslims -- individually and in pressure groups -- are using British libel laws and Canadian “human rights” laws to limit what is said about Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark Steyn prove the point.

Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and author of the book, “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop it.” In that book, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz -- a Saudi who is former head of the Saudi National Commercial Bank -- and some of his family are described as having funded terrorism directly and indirectly.

Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it is false.

Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political writing -- free speech -- is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment a politician -- or someone suspected of terrorist ties -- would have to prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he’d not only have to prove that what was written was false, he’d also have to prove it was published maliciously.

Those American laws and standards of proof protect political speech. The First Amendment is intended to protect political speech that people find objectionable. In the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court overturned an Ohio statute which would have outlawed hate speech by the Ku Klux Klan. That’s why Mahfouz sued in Britain, not here.

Ehrenfeld refused to fight the case, saying the Brit courts have no jurisdiction over her. Mahfouz got a default judgment against her for ₤10,000 (for himself, and in equal amounts for his sons). The judgment also requires that there be no further “defamatory” statements published in England and Wales.

In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz’s lawyers gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: “Rather than check her facts, defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her mistakes, Ehrenfeld hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness, the legal lights remain on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism.”

“Harmful journalism” is what tyrants and despots call free speech, especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The “legal lights” Mahfouz’s lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the Magna Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is extinguished in Britain. Consider the fate of the book, “Alms for Jihad.”

In 2006 Cambridge University press published “Alms for Jihad.” It’s a highly detailed and apparently well-researched book that documents Saudi funding of terrorist groups (as well as other funding and the network of Islamic “charities” that contribute to terrorism). “Alms for Jihad” -- like Ehrenfeld’s book -- documents bin Mahfouz’s funding ties to terrorism, including to Usama bin Laden. But “Alms”-- in settlement of a libel suit by bin Mahfouz in the Brit courts -- was withdrawn from stores and libraries and unsold copies destroyed. The Saudi book burners won.

Mahfouz’s case against Ehrenfeld has already done enormous harm in the US. Ehrenfeld told me she’s unable to get book publishers to contract for another book. She said all of the major US publishing houses have turned down a book on the Muslim Brotherhood -- thought to have substantial terrorist ties -- and the Saudis’ involvement in funding it.

If what Ehrenfeld writes about the Brotherhood offends Mahfouz or someone else whose ties to terrorism ought to be exposed, sales could be banned not only in Britain but in the entire European Union and the publisher -- and the author -- made liable for damages. Mahfouz -- using British courts that have no jurisdiction over American authors -- has apparently precluded Ehrenfeld from writing another book. Steyn’s case is another instance of Muslims trying to silence “harmful journalism.”

Mark Steyn’s superb book, “America Alone”, makes two important points: first, that the Muslim baby boom around the world will likely result in Christian nations becoming Muslim by weight of demographics; and second that Islam is a political system, not just a religion:

So it’s not merely that there’s a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in fact, an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever’s your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified.

Steyn’s stance -- written by him and paralleled by other writers in the Canadian magazine, “Macleans” -- is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought by three Muslim law students in Canada, with the apparent support of the Canadian Islamic Conference. That group is similar to the CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted 100% of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then?

Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with probable injunctions against further “harmful journalism” that offends Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And -- because American publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales -- Steyn may, like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.

What has happened to Ehrenfeld and may happen to Steyn is in contravention of their First Amendment rights. No American court would or could do that. No foreign court or commission should be able to. US courts, and each of us who believes in free speech, must stand with both authors. US courts should make it clear that foreign libel judgments or “human rights” decisions that conflict with our First Amendment cannot be enforced.

Each and every presidential candidate should speak -- loudly and clearly -- against this encroachment of foreign law on the First Amendment. Anyone who doesn’t stand forthrightly against these foreign infringements on Americans’ Constitutional rights should receive neither our confidence nor our votes.

What Muslims such as Mahfouz and those complaining against Steyn are doing to destroy free speech overseas has been commenced here by groups such as CAIR. A few weeks ago, CAIR announced its media guide, which is purportedly corrects “misperceptions” about Islam and “…educate(s) the media and disabuse(s) journalists of misinformation.” But the other aspect -- which I and others suspect -- is that it’s not so much a guide as a set of rules against “harmful journalism.” And those who write about terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Islam will be accused of intolerance and racism should they violate them.

We don’t yet know what the CAIR guide says. I requested a copy of it from CAIR by e-mail, as they specified. I have neither received a copy nor received any response. I suspect CAIR wants to hide it from people who would scrutinize it. Having to operate under our Constitution, they will take a more indirect path than Mahfouz and the Canadian law students to preclude what they believe is “harmful journalism.”

bossman calling

12/28/07, 02:53 PM

I see absolutely no problem with this at all. How different is proving something is true as opposed to false. Surely if this Mahfouz character has been accused of funding terrorism (a very serious claim) yet she can't even prove it then he has every right to call her out on that. He could lose everything because of these accusations which she can't even back up. How is this an issue?
You see nothing wrong with a foriegner coming into your country and abusing your laws with direct intent to stifle a viewpoint that they don't like, without having to prove that the viewpoints are actually wrong? That's pretty twisted.

As it is clearly explained in this article, and as I have previously mentioned in this thread, not placing the burden of proof on the accuser opens the laws up for all kinds of abuse. It doesn't take much work for someone to bring a case against someone, and costs all kinds of time, work and money for the accused, who, often times just can't afford it.

Therefore, anyone, especially someone who already has alot of time and money on their hands, can open case after case in order to intimidate people from expressing viewpoints that they don't like. That is a direct attack on the entire concept of free speech.

Haha what a horrible comparison.
How? That ruling decided that our system is different from yours or Canada's. For one, we trust the people to be able to also use their free speech to speak out against things from the KKK.

Bullshit. More like her facts were trash and she daren't let that be proven in public.

New Labour has shit all over certain freedoms in the UK but this is not an example of it. If she is going to claim that a man is funding Al Qaeda without showing any evidence then he has every right to sue.

Because once again he couldn't prove anything. He hadn't researched properly etc..?

That's what you get for spreading (I suspect racially motivated) lies. Call it karma if you like but she clearly couldn't her facts were as she assumedly claimed and thus she deserves what she got.

Who says he is tied to terrorism. If it's so obvious why don't they prove it?

Do you know that the facts in either case were trash, or "racially motivated lies?" And if they were actually trash and lies, then why didn't anyone bring the case in the United States, where they would have to prove it? Surely a rich Saudi has plenty of time and money to do such a thing, or find someone who could do it on his behalf.

In reality, neither had a chance to present their evidence, since the accuser took it to a court outside of the jurisdiction under which they and their publishers fall. And again, the accuser didn't have to present ANY evidence to show that it was false. If the accusers were innocent, what's the problem in proving it on their own behalf?

It's funny you are so quickly in your own arguments to call out fallacy of composition, but isn't this a legally sactioned fallacy of composition to the worst degree going on in your own country? To not actually respond to someone's words with more words that prove your own case, but to instead attack them and force them put up a legal defense everytime you don't like what they say?

What's the point of saying anything controversial at all if that is the case?

Wow...

I think the makers of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion should be the ones suing this guy.
Nice, when you can't properly respond to an argument, pull out comparisons to racist conspiracy theories.

Oh the irony of Christians accusing people of belonging to a blood thirsty religion.
This is for a whole new thread, but how many people have Christians killed in the last century vs the number killed by Muslims?

So people should be free to destroy other people's lives with what amounts to lies (unless they care to show otherwise which they don't) and yet face no opposition or reprisal. That is not freedom at all, it is a total infringement on the freedom of Mahfouz.
They would, if the charges were brought up in a court in which they could actually be accountable.

And again, why hasn't Mahfouz proved otherwise? Why did he feel the need to abuse a law, rather than respond with facts that would presumably make the author look stupid?

bossman calling

12/28/07, 06:13 PM

Hmm...

Fighting Financial Jihad
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

Since March 2002, Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz has sued or threatened to sue in England at least 36 writers and publishers - including many Americans - who have documented his financial contributions to al Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups, through his Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) foundation, and the Saudi National Commercial Bank he owned. Everyone settled with bin Mahfouz, - except me.

England’s libel laws favor the individual’s rights over the public. They allow bin Mahfouz and other terror financiers, known as “libel tourists,” to veil in secrecy their funding of al Qaeda, other Islamic terror organizations and global propagation of radical Islam. British laws earned the U.K. the label—“libel capital of the Western world”—and rained wealth on Britain’s libel bar.

Bin Mahfouz’s legal “victories” in London had the desired effect he and other Saudi terror financiers sought – silencing of the media even in the U.S. where the First Amendment protects writers and publishers. But American book and newspaper publishers are not willing to risk expensive lawsuits in London. Many refuse to publish even the most comprehensively documented reports on alleged wealthy Middle Eastern funding terrorism.

Bin Mahfouz sued me in London in January 2004, shortly after the U.S. publication of my book Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It. I refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of a British court over a book published here; the court then ruled for bin Mahfouz by default, enjoined British publication of Funding Evil, awarded bin Mahfouz $225,900 in damages and expenses and ordered me to publicly apologize and destroy the book. I refuse to acknowledge the British Court or its ruling.

Bin Mahfouz would not enjoy success were he to sue me for libel in U.S. The facts in Funding Evil are well documented by the media and the U.S. Congress, courts and other official statements.

On October 12,2001 the Treasury Department designated as a terrorist, the director of bin Mahfouz’s Muwafaq foundation, Yasin al-Qadi. The Treasury report described the direct support from Muwafaq to bin Laden, quoting the latter’s statement that “The bin-Laden Establishment’s aid…comes in particular from the Human Concern International Society [based, and operating in Gloucester, Ontario]… [and] includes Muwaffaq Society in Zagreb.” The report continues, …”$3 million from the National Commercial Bank, which was run by Khalid bin Mahfouz, [were deposited] into the accounts of the Blessed Relief and other charities that serve as a front for bin Laden.”

Further corroboration comes from the French General Directorate of External Security (DGSE), as reported last summer in the French daily, Le Monde. The DGSE reported that, in 1998, it knew bin Mahfouz to be an architect of the banking scheme built to benefit Osama bin Laden, and that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew it, too. Strangely, neither bin Mahfouz nor his foundation were designated by U.S. authorities as supporting terrorism.

Since British libel law favors suits such as bin Mahfouz’s, and the First Amendment protects U.S. journalists reporting on public issues, I chose to fight his false claims in America. I sued in a New York federal court, for a declaration that bin Mahfouz’ English default judgment is unenforceable in the United States, because it violates my First Amendment rights.

Prominent civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate described it as “one of the most important First Amendment cases in the past 25 years.”

On June 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously declared my case is “ripe” for hearing in a U.S. court, noting that the case has implications for all U.S. authors and publishers, whose First Amendment rights are threatened by foreign libel rulings.

The ruling thus established that all U.S. writers and publishers sued for libel in other countries, can ask U.S. courts to rule the foreign decisions unenforceable here - provided they have jurisdiction over the person who sued for libel overseas. In my case, the New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments on November 15.

This important legal decision weakened bin Mahfouz’ ability to threaten or sue U.S. authors and publishers. Shortly afterwards, bin Mahfouz threatened to sue Cambridge University Press (CUP), the publisher of Alms of Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, but refrained from including the book’s two American writers, J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins.

Facing the mere threat of a lawsuit from Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, Cambridge University Press — the world’s oldest publishing house — agreed in Britain’s High Court on July 30, to pulp all the unsold copies. When the American authors rightfully refused to join, CUP issued a public apology, which in fact defamed the authors. CUP also paid substantial undisclosed damages, a huge “contribution” to a charity of bin Mahfouz’ choice, and sent letters to more than 200 libraries worldwide, asking to pull the book off their shelves. CUP’s capitulation handed an important victory to the Saudis’ financial jihad against free speech.

Winning my case against bin Mahfouz will not change the British ruling against me. But judging by the impact my case has had already one can hope that U.K. writers and publishers would demand changing their libel laws, to allow the freedom of responsible publications without the fear of intimidating, expensive lawsuits.

If foreigners wish to sue Americans for exposing threats to our national security, they are welcome do so in the U.S., under the First Amendment laws. But Congress should terminate this form of Financial Jihad – silencing the media by intimidation – and costly foreign libel suits on matters governed by U.S. jurisdiction.

To better protect our freedom of speech, Congress could reinforce the First Amendment with a new statute prohibiting enforcement of foreign libel judgments in the U.S., whenever American authors and publishers report responsibly on terror -related and other national security threats.

We are at war with enormously wealthy and determined enemies. We should prevent their use of their tremendous wealth to deprive American writers from exposing actions that threaten our safety and freedoms.

How does placing the burden of proof elsewhere prevent this. One is still at the mercy of the how much lawyer you can get for your dollars.
Because it forces the accuser to have to have a solid case in order to take legal action. Just like the state doesn't press charges unless they have a case and an individual can't press charges for any other crime unless they have a case.

For example, if you stole money from me and I wanted to press charges, I'd need a case against you.

Additionally doesn't your system also allow injustice in reverse? In that powerful media outlets can make wild claims against people who couldn't possibly defend themselves?
Not really, because the media outlets are at the mercy of the other media outlets, not to mention their viewers, all of whom would take pleasure in taking each other down for picking on someone like that. And if not the major media outlets, hundreds of independent sources out there would cover it.

And when one can prove a case against someone else for damaging statements of libel, there are plenty of legal routes.

No it isn't. There is a huge differance between say the treatment of Salmon Rushdie and this case. This is not a critique of Islam or a nation it is a personal attack, which he had every right to defend himself from.
Hmm, one case where speech is threatened by violence without any proof being brought against it, and another where it is threatened by dubious legal action without any proof being brought against it. Either way, it is still a threat on free speech, and in the latter, your own country doesn't even back you up.

The KKK criticise black people as a group. That is differant. Please notice that the British National Party were acquitted of all charges when people attempted to stifle their freedom. That is because a personal attack about facts and circumstances it totally different to general racism etc.. I would make no attempt to stop the KKK and the BNP from spewing their intolerance but if you make a specific claim which you consider factual like the accusations against Mahfouz then he has every right to sue and challenge its accuracy.
For the last time, Mahfouz did not have to prove any facts. Therefore, his legal claim to libel against him can still be considered dubious. This is another huge problem with a system that requires no burden on the accuser, and all of the burden on the accused. As explained in the essay above, in cases like this, even with a "victory," you don't prove anything.

Because if what you say is correct then you have nothing to fear. Or if it's not a specific claim on facts but rather a broder assertion.
When someone can bring charges against you without having to provide any proof, you have nothing to fear? You don't fear the lost wages, lost time, lost work you'll have to go through to go through a trial or a hearing? Even if you have a solid case in your defense, you still lose all of those things, and for what? Because someone decided they didn't like what you had to say, and could, without penalty or burden on themselves, bring charges against you just to make your life miserable. That kind of intimidation is something to fear, regardless.

As I said, why say anything controversial if it's like that? And given all of the great ideas that have risen from statements, assertions, theories, etc that were considered controversial at first, that is extremely harmful to society and civilization.

I'd say it's a pretty apt comparison. I'm not going to waste my time further ridiculing such blatant stupidity and scare mongering.
I haven't read this book, but the thesis from it that is presented in this article is based on the facts that Muslim countries have some of the highest birth rates, while European countries have some of the lowest...and how in many European countries, immigrants, many of whom are Muslim, have the highest birth rates. For example, in your country, where 21% of births are by immigrants, while they represent less than 10% of the population.

WW1, WW2, Gulf War, Vietnam, Chechnya, Kosovo.
So a few maybe.
And it's not like I'm a fan of Islam either.
Are you being serious here? Which one of those outside of Kosovo featured Christians murdering others for not being Christian?

Didn't fancy his chances as a muslim defending himself in an American court? Easier victory - regardless of who is correct he is logically going to seek an easier win.
Or saw that the United States has strong protections for free speech, while the UK does not?