Starrfall on 29/9/2008 at 20:08
Quote Posted by heretic
Given several recent events linked to the Obama camp such as the WGN radio incidents and the request for Federal LE to investigate AIP, ((
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/092008/09272008/413770) or the banning of signs at an Obama/Biden rally) the mere existence of so-called truth squads is troubling..and
everyone should be concerned. Not so much in a "OMG 1984 is here!" way, but in a "just how fucking far will they take this?" way.
I like the reference regarding how a constitutional law professor should know better (as well as the emotive appeal to white snow turning red with sacrificial blood!), but it looks like the ban is content and viewpoint neutral, making it a time/place/manner restriction, meaning you use a multi-factor balancing test that weighs the interests at stake, the availability of other methods of communication, and the availability of less-restrictive alternatives. I can come up with at least two other interests for banning all signs and banners aside from security, but without going too in-depth I think this one passes constitutional muster as a "manner" restriction.
So the message is not restricted, only the means of communication. Others are open - for example there's no word on whether shirts with opinions are banned, and as far as I can tell the secret service will not be putting duct tape over anyone's mouths as they enter.
We could also talk about how we should classify the forum (schools are not traditional public forums, but it's not clear what kind of designated forum this would be - they are treated differently for 1st amendment purposes) but I don't really feel like it and I don't think anyone is really THAT interested.
Suffice it to say 1st amendment issues are not always clear and without more I have no idea why the ACLU doesn't think this works as a manner restriction, other than the fact that the ACLU hates pretty much ALL speech restrictions. Signs are often banned at concert venues and as far as I know the ACLU has never sued over it. (They probably actually have though.)
So I don't think the sign/banner ban goes very far at all in the grand scheme of things. It would be a different matter if they were kicking out everyone with a McCain shirt on.
Quote Posted by paloalto90
From a legal standpoint it is an opinion as far as using any laws to sue someone.
Says who? You have a tendency to just make shit up out of nowhere so it'd be nice to be able to tell whether that's what's happening now.
Matthew on 29/9/2008 at 20:16
Quote Posted by paloalto90
From a legal standpoint it is an opinion as far as using any laws to sue someone.That is why this is to intimidate instead of adjudicate.
Precedent cases and legislation please. You can't say that to a lawyer and not back it up.
Stitch on 29/9/2008 at 20:17
Quote Posted by paloalto90
everything posted so far in this thread
Just so you know, that yellow fluid that comes out of your willy is not, in fact, lemonade.
Fafhrd on 29/9/2008 at 20:39
That's just your opinion, Stitch. Stop trying to intimidate paloalto in to not drinking his delicious willy lemonade!
paloalto90 on 29/9/2008 at 20:45
Quote:
Theoretically, a person can be sued for defamation for any remark that he or she might make. As a practical matter, however, only statements of fact are actionable. It is uncommon for someone to be held liable for expressing an opinion. Thus, if calling someone a "charlatan" is merely name-calling or an expression of an opinion, it is unlikely that the person who made the remark could be successfully sued for defamation. On the other hand, if calling someone a "mother fucker" is intended to state a fact that the object of the remark had sexual relations with his mother, that remark may indeed be actionable. Furthermore, in the US, a public figure must show that the statement was made with actual malice or in reckless disregard of the truth.
some legal guy.
heywood on 29/9/2008 at 21:27
I'm very happy that my Representative, normally a rank and file Democrat, ultimately changed her position and voted against the bailout. Here is her statement:
Quote:
“Our economy has been battered by eight years of a financial wild west on Wall Street. There was no oversight and no accountability. I thought it was a mistake for the Administration to ask Congress to vote on a $700 billion bill to bail out Wall Street with only a single week to consider the proposal and a single day to review it. The Administration asked Congress to give up its Constitutional power of the purse and hand over a blank check for $700 billion. Congress said no.
“While I believe it is essential to address our credit and liquidity crisis, I voted against the Bush Bailout. I could not support the bill because it did not address the fundamental problem in our economy that caused the crisis in our financial institutions.
“I voted against the bill because it gave the Secretary of the Treasury -- a political appointee -- unfettered control over the execution of the bailout program. If the bill had passed, the Secretary of the Treasury would have had absolute authority to decide which securities to buy, from whom to purchase, and how much to pay. The Secretary of the Treasury would have also had absolute authority to decide who he would hire to manage the assets he purchased.
“More than four hundred economists, including three Nobel Laureates, appealed to Congress to slow down and make sure we got this right. Congress took about 8 months to draft and pass the legislation establishing the Resolution Trust Corporation -- and this only involved about $100 billion of taxpayer money. Certainly, Congress needs more time than one week to invest $700 billion of taxpayer money in a bailout.
“American taxpayers need a better bill, a better plan, and better protection. That is why I voted to stay in Washington and continue working on this bill. That is why I voted against this bill.”
That just goes to show that when enough people make the effort to call or write their Congressmen & women, you can have an impact. I'm sure it helps that it's an election year, but still.
Starrfall on 29/9/2008 at 21:37
Quote Posted by paloalto90
some legal guy.
What you posted is not at all probative of whether "Obama is a Muslim" is a statement of fact or opinion. Try again!
Turtle on 29/9/2008 at 21:47
I love you, Faf.
EDIT.
o·pin·ion
/əˈpɪnyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.
fact
/fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
—Idioms
6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.
7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.
8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.
jay pettitt on 29/9/2008 at 22:07
Quote Posted by paloalto
some legal guy.
To be honest dude, we've done a really good job in this thread at staying above this level of base blog twaddle (or official governor level twaddle if you're in Missouri) I'd really like it if we could wrap this subject up because, to be honest, I don't think it's worth the pixels it's written on.
If person A wrongly states that person B is, say, a Muslim as though it is a statement of fact (ie in describing Obama's religious or cultural leanings - Obama is a Muslim) and person B is damaged by the claim, then I'd interpret what you've just posted as to say that person B could very well have a claim against person A. Claiming that Obama, a stated Christian with a long history of membership to Christian groups, is a Muslim despite the endlessly promoted evidence in the public domain to the contrary is pretty much the definition of reckless disregard to the truth. Opinions are thoughts which aren't readily verifiable, Obama's religious leanings are easily verified. 'It's my opinion' is not a defense against reckless disregard of truth.
However, nobody is threatening anybody with legal action here.
I know the News Report and Matt Blunt have made a meal (red herring and chips) out of the fact that there were attorneys and sheriffs and law enforcers on the Missouri Truth squad, but there has been no suggestion that their capacity as volunteers on the team is to prosecute or law enforce, they only 'threaten' to respond and set the record straight.
A whipped up storm in a teacup. Not worth your time or mine.
Turtle on 29/9/2008 at 22:10
Remember folks, it doesn't have to be true to be a fact.
*cue 'The More You Know' jingle*
