Town Square

Post a New Topic

Another attempt to limit speech through intimidation

Original post made by Perspective, Midtown, on Oct 18, 2008

Web Link

Those of you who laugh at those of us concerned about the ever growing onslaught against freedom of this.

A "civil attorney" is suing McCain-Palin for hate speech.

Over statements in a rally that were "heard" only by the "reporter" who reported them ( anybody know how to spell Jason of the NYT lying fame?).. and not one other person questioned by the FBI heard them.

Over "McCain's campaign "intentionally, recklessly and irresponsibly portrayed presidential candidate Barack Obama as un-American, a terrorist by association, and "not like us," a non-white individual."

Huh? Let's pretend this is all true, which is silly, but let's do it for the sake of making the argument. So, now it is clear..there are actually people in this country, ATTORNEYS who supposedly know our constitution, who want to stop freedom of speech. Even if you believed this is an appropriate action, where was she with the burning effigies of Bush and calling him Hitler? Where does she stand on the SF move to name a sewage plant after Bush?

Oh, I guess that's not hate speech. Just drawing conclusions about associations ( let's throw out thousands of years of our mothers telling us "you are the company you keep"), and drawing purposefully ridiculous conclusions from word parsing out of context what was meant by "not like us"..meaning not conservative ( is that a hateful thing to say?).

And to think my father and brother each spent 27 years in the military, ready to defend the freedom of this woman, and anyone else, to bring ridiculous lawsuits in an attempt to overthrow the first amendment of the constitution they were ready to die defending.

Comments (10)

Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Perspective--you do not get it. This is what our country is all about. She has the right to bring a lawsuit and the courts will decide it's merits.
You are right--your father and brother served in the military exactly for that reason--to preserve the freedoms that others in the world do not have
Go back and re-read the first amendment

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Ok, I see. The first amendment guarantees the right of people to sue to limit freedom of giving an opinion...?

Gosh, I guess I missed that interpretation of the "living document". I think I prefer the dead document.

Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Perspective--you clearly do not understand the First amendment--it says the government cannot regulate speech. people have the right to sue over speech by others for a variety of reasons---sexual harrassment, hate speech, slander etc. And there have been many, many cases of this over the years. Free speech is a not an absolute (youc annot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre)
This is one of the things that makes this country great--this person can sue and if it is frivolous it will be thrown out of court. Too bad you do not respect her right to sue and are trying to turn into "look the democrats are trying to limit free speech" (and by the way, aren;t you trying to limit her free speech, by saying she cannot claim that McCain's words were hate speech??)
Stop your whining and read the first amendment and some history books as well--your argument is ridiculous and flawed

Posted by Mary
a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Unless prop 8 passes we will lose free speech in California

It’s a shame that we allow this issue of same sex marriage to be framed as an issue of civil rights.
Who is against the civil rights of anybody but the worse deviants? The key connection for the left here is the connection of same sex marriage to race.
It’s one thing if this is the opinion of people of the left, but quite another if this analogy becomes entrenched in our laws and courts.
Those who believe that homosexuality is wrong or deviant or something their religion says they cannot support will be branded as bigots. Their beliefs will be considered hate speech, or hate thought.
It will not be allowed.
One left-wing columnist for the Chicago Tribune called people like that “heterosexist.”
Get it. Racist, heterosexist, what’s the difference?

not to mention the coming polygamophobia

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 18, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Wow, I see we have people who really like to infer all kinds of rights into the first amendment here, and deliberately misunderstand the point of free speech.

The point of free speech, what the framers were referring to, is not yelling "fire"..of course. It was the very thing they had fought against, the ability of the government to limit through imprisonment, fines, loss of jobs, harrassment, your expression of political opinion. Literalists like to interpret it to mean that you can dunk holy items into urine or cover them with manure, or say any disgusting word or act in public or on TV or around kids..but that is not what this is about. The "civil attorneys" who scream "freedom of speech" when the f-bomb is dropped on a TV show, are on the same side as this one who is suing for to force a political opinion out of someone "and she'll drop the suit" other words, doing intimidation tactics to dampen political opinion expression.

No, I actually completely disagree. We use lawsuits in this country as a legal form of harassment.

Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 18, 2008 at 3:42 pm


Being branded a bigot does not interfere with your First Amendment rights. The government's making no law there. People are simply expressing their low opinion of you.

Posted by Audi
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 18, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I do not understand why people care if two consenting adults want to get married. I see this as a human rights issue, why don't we let two people marry just because they happen to be the same sex. It no different then saying two people of different races cannot marry. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH FAITH. May athist get married!!!!! and believe me the children will be fine!!!! We have more important things to worry about then same sex marriege.
What did scare me is in the Yes on prop 8 pamphelet state that doctors will not be able to refuse to perform artificial insemination on a gay couple...I am a staight women, and I don't want my doctor to make a moral judgement on weather I should have a child. Photographers and doctors are in a SERVICE INDUSTRY, if they cannot manage that, then should recosider their professional.Just like any service industry they already have the right to refuse service.
YES on 8 is the first step towards certain people taking away our rights. What happen to the old style republicans that wanted less government.....and Love your neighbor and casting the first stone.

Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2008 at 8:16 pm


The wisdom and insight of Shakespeare speaks through the centuries in your support.

"First, kill all the lawyers", and "Hell hath no fury like a (liberal) woman scorned".

And even with our current financial crisis "Neither a borrower nor a lender be".

Common sense of the 15th century, and we lack it now, not only as a culture, but across the species.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 19, 2008 at 2:08 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I support the move to put the Bush name on the Frisco water pollution control plant. Imagine a world with Saddam still in power, imagine a Frisco with no sewer system. I could even accept their naming a bar grate or elutriator after me.

Posted by Perpsective
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 19, 2008 at 9:41 am

OP: You don't understand slippery slope in a litigious society. Words have power. Legal definitions have more. "hate" crimes are more punished than "crimes" of the exact same nature..who reads the mind of the perpetrator? Who decides it was from "group hate" versus "hate" versus insanity versus personal? Who decides that THIS life/murder is worth more than THAT life/murder? In a culture of all genders/colors/races/sexual proclivities, who decides which person is worth more?

Follow the dots here...hate speech comes from anything someone ELSE decides promotes hate or violence, even if nobody says go rape, kill, maim etc. Just implying a conclusion from someone's associations is now grounds for an attorney to sue for "hate speech". So, if I get labeled a "heterosexist", ..what is next? You believe you are a liberal. Think about it.

Outside Observer, you made my day with your humor. Thanks!

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Is California engaging in wishful thinking or rigorous planning?
By Sherry Listgarten | 10 comments | 4,591 views

Curry and reubens: Local Kitchens opens "micro food halls" on the Peninsula
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 4,283 views