"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

-Sharon Angle

"Don't retreat. Instead - reload!"

-Sarah Palin

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."
-Michele Backmann

''Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.''
-Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden 

 

''The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.''

-Pat Robertson

''My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.''

-Ann Coulter

''We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals.''
-Ann Coulter

Jaunary 8, 2011

Judith McDaniel

President Obama spoke and he didn't talk about guns.  Governor Brewer spoke and she didn't talk about guns.

I want to talk about guns.  About that fact that this person who shot 16 people with an automatic weapon in just a few minutes this morning did not need a license to carry that gun, nor any permit to conceal it on his person until he got in range, nor was there any background check, nor did he have to have any training in gun safety or use.

I want to talk about the fact that Jesse Kelly, Gifford's opponent in the congressional race just a few months ago, held a fund raiser inviting his supporter to come out and shoot automatic weapons with him.

I want to talk about the fact the Sarah Palin posted a map on her website that drew a rifle bead on congresspeople who voted in favor of the healthcare law.  Gabrielle Gifford's office had a rifle target posted on it.

I want to talk about the fact that both of the southern Arizona congresspersons' offices were vandalized and/or shot at during this last campaign.

I want to talk about the fact that the Arizona state legislature has introduced a bill that would prevent the university, where I teach, from banning guns on campus, whether student or faculty.

I want to talk about the fact that the man who has been arrested in this shooting was escorted off of the University of Arizona campus at least once.

And I don't care whether he is a Nazi or insane or just angry.

I care that the people--who should be modeling a way for us to live together in community whether we agree with one another or not-our "leaders"-have abdicated their responsibility to us.  They are calling for "second amendment remedies" to further their cause.  I have heard it in the midterm election campaigns, I have heard it on talk radio, I have read it on blogs.

And I am sick and tired of it.  Sick in my heart.  And I will keep talking about guns and responsibility to one another for a long time.

Comment on Facebook
 

by Judith McDaniel on Sunday, January 9, 2011 at 9:54am

Christina Taylor-Green, age 9. 9/11/2001 - 1/8/2011

First Amendment rights to "free speech" are invoked over and over again.  And yet we are confused, very confused, about what that means.  I understand some of that confusion.  Some of it was created by our Supreme Court who have ruled that money = speech and therefore limiting the amount of money spent on campaigning is not "constitutional."  I'm sure the founding fathers would be confounded by that one.

But one aspect of free speech was clarified years ago.  You cannot create a "clear and present danger" with your speech and expect it to be protected.  The example usually given is that you cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.  Well, you can, but the results are predictable and if you are apprehended in the aftermath, you will be charged with a crime, not rewarded for practicing your First Amendment rights.

Drawing the line is the problem.  Is it okay to call one another names?  Liberals are corrupt and evil (Rush Limbaugh).  Conservatives are stupid ditto heads (practically every liberal).

When Sharon Angle, running for the U.S. Senate in Nevada called on her followers to exercise Second Amendment remedies (which she did not specify), did that qualify?  When Sarah Palin pasted a rifle target on Gabriel Gifford's office, did that qualify?

And now we have the religious fringe, Fred Phelps and his "church" thanking God for the shooter who gunned down 18 people in Tucson, killing 6 of them.  He had posted his rant on YouTube yesterday before the dead were even named or in funeral homes and he promises to picket each and every funeral, thanking his God for the murder-even the murder of a 9 year old child. Is he allowed First Amendment rights? How close is the nexus between thanking God for murder and creating more murders?

Free speech isn't free.  It is balanced by responsibility.  Let's face it.  We are all living in that crowded theater now. And dozens of people with influence are shouting FIRE FIRE FIRE.  I'd like a tidal wave of protest letters sent to them.

Comment on Facebook
 

First Amendment Rights, Second Amendment "Remedies" and the Responsibility of the Press

News organizations have an obligation to investigate stories and tell the truth. That's not too far-fetched or radical, is it?  Historically, they haven't just reported what people said, they actually investigated to see if the story had any basis in fact.

We expect them to do this.  It is in their job description.

In 1964 the Supreme Court decided a case involvingThe New York Times.  Individuals in southern states who had felt maligned by reporting in The New York Times about the racist incidents in the south had sued the paper for defamation and libel. The intimidation was huge and deliberate. The law suits were devastating to all reporting of events in the south during civil rights, because individuals could allege defamation even when the reporting of events was accurate. When the case finally went to trial, pending civil actions against many newspapers and news organizations totaled about 300 million dollars. Few reporters or editors wanted to report "all the news" when it meant they could be penalized, even for telling the truth.  The victory of the New York Times in this case lifted the self-imposed restrictions and allowed the Civil Rights Movement to be reported in full.

 The Supreme Court said this:

 
The State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice"--that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan)

Reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Newspapers can't be sued UNLESS they print statements with reckless disregard of the truth.

Like, what newspaper would ever do that?  Actually, a lot of newspapers have done that recently by simply reporting without investigating. People in the public eye can be expected to tell it their way. That is certainly what segregationists and anti-Civil Rights politicians in the south did during the fifties and sixties. But the press actually tried to say what really happened.

Today a public figure makes a statement and, no matter how outrageous, it is immediately broadcast on the internet, on the radio, television, and finally, the newspapers.  At some point in this cycle, there may be someone who says, wait, is this true?  But by then the statement has gone around the world at least twice.  Michelle Bachman says President Obama's trip to India will cost $200 million a day.  It is not true.  It was never true.  But three days later, when the real figure was published, it didn't matter. If you'd like to read dozens of similar statements of non-fact asserted as truth, check out this blog: 

Comment on Facebook

Sarah Palin's Target Ad