Comments on: More crushing of dissent

By: B Smith

B Smith — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:40:34 +0000

It is a shame that we have become so sissified as a society that a good ass-whipping is now a criminal act, because these people desperately need one.

Ahab-clawhammer, anyone? Heh heh heh…

By: Jr

Jr — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:17:08 +0000

What else would you expect from a socialist?

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:38:25 +0000

The deleterious effects of this is not the likelihood that they can ever even get anyone to trial, but that they can force the hiring of defense attorneys and the compilation of legal fees prior to dismissal of charges (which they have no real intention of filing, this is just intimidation by threat). Thereby forcing the more timid or less affluent opinion holders from publicly stating those opinions.

In that, they will have achieved their goals. They can’t be sued, or charged with misfeasance or malfeasance until they actually cause harm, but they still reap the benefit of discouraging some from participating in the arena of open debate on the merits or lack thereof of their favored candidate.

It is a shame that we have become so sissified as a society that a good ass-whipping is now a criminal act, because these people desperately need one.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:10:15 +0000

No government body has any business going after anyone for supposedly false political ads. If one political candidate crosses the line between fact and fiction, let his opponent address it in his own ad. That won’t work if the TV and radio stations are afraid to run the rebuttal ad just because the original candidate claims his opponent is lying (i.e., always).

By: Manish

Manish — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:49:50 +0000

relax, I was just playing off of one of SU’s favorite sayings (my bad, I had meant to put a smiley). The story appears to be that Obama supporters are going to go after McCain falsehoods within their official capacity as prosecutors and that does concern me. Perhaps there should be someone going after false political ads, but it should the FEC or some other non-partisan body.

By: nk

nk — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 01:56:21 +0000

This is why it’s very important for Missouri residents to vote in this election. Remember, Republicans vote on Tuesday, November 4. Democrats vote on Wednesday, November 5. Missourians, vote! Your vote counts.

By: Huck

Huck — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:41:05 +0000

IMHO, this is a taste of what’s in store should the false messiah become POTUS. With this as a precident what’s likely to happen to anyone who criticizes or opposes him and his policies?

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:35:41 +0000

Manish Says:

and this is crushing dissent because McCain has to lie to win right?

No, dumbass, it’s crushing dissent because it crushes dissent. Whether the statements Obama’s goons label as “lies” really are lies is irrelevant. Free speech is free speech. Government censorship allowing only “truthful” (according to government) speech is not.

By: Lyle

Lyle — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:19:35 +0000

“and this is crushing dissent because McCain has to lie to win right?”

This is a variation of the tried and true; “If you don’t have anything to hide, surely you won’t mind (insert abuse of human right here: checkpoints, random searches of homes and financial records, reading of mail, et al).”

And of course it will be Obama’s people who decide what is truth.

Let McCain suggest anything similar and see the reaction. Heh! He’d be beat up by both parties, tarred, feathered, and excommunicated. And properly so. The difference is Obama’s a lefty, and they’re largely immune.

Actually, if lying were a crime in and of itself, the Democratic Party and all their supporters would be arrested en masse today, followed by 99% of the Republicans.

By: Mikee

Mikee — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:00:21 +0000

Mannish: McCain does not have to lie to win. He does not have to do anything to win, except use Obama’s own words and voting record to demonstrate the undesirability of electing Obama. This action by
Obama is crushing dissent because: It is an attempt to chill the use of free speech with threat of legal action; it is abusive of existing campaign processes that address ads by opponents; it is requesting selective enforcement of law against one side only in a political campaign; differences between factual truth and what a campaign claims is a lie against it cannot be moderated by law enforcement agents; the historical answer to speech with which one disagrees is more, not less, speech; it shows disrespect for one’s opponent (who is by the way not one’s enemy, just an opponent operating under the same rules as oneself) thus demeaning the office one seeks. I could go on, but if you don’t get the point so far, nevermind.

By: chris

chris — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:50:33 +0000

am I the only one that this scares the hell out of?

By: Manish

Manish — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:50:27 +0000

and this is crushing dissent because McCain has to lie to win right?

By: chrisb

chrisb — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:48:02 +0000

Right. This reminds me of something Joseph Goebbels would have come up with.

By: karrde

karrde — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:35:14 +0000

Actually, the fundamental problem is not the truth content.

It is that a powerful politician is using his political power to push law-enforcement agencies to stop free speech he disagrees with.

Especially when said law enforcement agency would be operating far outside of its jurisdiction. (If there is any law/policy/regulation concerning such things, it would be overseen by the FCC, not the State-level police agencies.)

I mean, we like the First Amendment as much as we like the Second, right?

If the First Amendment covers Hustler, it ought to cover political ads, right?

By: KCSteve

KCSteve — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:30:23 +0000

That’s not quite correct – ads for Obama are exempt from these attacks.

Which is a big timesaver for them because if Obama’s ads were included in this ‘no lies’ campaign they’d never have time to get to anything else.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:06:37 +0000

Given the obama camp’s history of calling ads lies when they are not, I don’t think they should have a say in what constitutes truth.

By: OCKerouac

OCKerouac — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:04:41 +0000

So…This is a problem because?

Your FOR lying in political ads?