MyFox
 

Basher51's Bluff and Bluster

by Basher51 from Sussex

Last Post 8 hours Ago


The One Disses The First Amendment
Sep 27, 2008 | 11:57 AM
Category: Political
Report This Post

This is wrong on so many levels.  First off, the obvious question is:  "And who will be monitoring The One's campaign ads?"  But then, given that campaign ads from BOTH SIDES and their allies frequently include just enough truth to pass muster, how will these folks decide if an ad is "truth" or  lies and deceit?

But beyond that, here are law enforcement people and officers of the court who are sworn to uphold the law in an equal fashion.  Did they forget that the statue of Lady Justice is blindfolded?  Or that the US Supreme Court building has engraved on its facade "Equal Justice Under The Law"?  Here these folks are proclaiming that they are going to be looking out for lies directed at The One, but apparently could care less about lies directed at Big Mac.  They public proclaim that they are biased and somehow a guy arrested for attempted burglary is supposed to believe that he is going to get a fair shake from these people?  What if someone has a McCain bumper sticker on his car when he gets pulled over for drunk driving?  Can he now expect fair treatment from the courts?

I think that the answer is that in Missouri, if you are smart you will have Obama bumper stickers on your car...and on your burglar tools.

8 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 8
Page 1 of 1
rasguy24 read my blog
Sep 27, 2008 | 8:16 PM

"The One" faithful have been anointed with his power to never be wrong.
Katbird read my blog view my photos
Sep 28, 2008 | 11:02 PM

Since when is spreading lies and propaganda protected by the first amendment?
adoseoftruth read my blog view my photos
Sep 29, 2008 | 12:38 PM

In the case of Obama, you can spread "lies and propaganda, half/truths".........as long as it is about someone else.

For example, I have heard numerous times an ad by Obama on the radio claiming that McCain is against "stem cell research". When in fact, he is in FAVOR of most forms of stem cell research, including adult stem cell research. The only exception is "embryonic" stem cell research and fetal farming.

Can you say: "hypocrisy"??
adoseoftruth read my blog view my photos
Sep 29, 2008 | 12:47 PM

"As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos."

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b
6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm
Katbird read my blog view my photos
Sep 29, 2008 | 12:53 PM

I'm not saying it's one-sided.
I was just pointing out that slander is actually illegal. Especially if it's televised or in some media that addresses the public.
It's all a game and both sides lie trying to get votes to sway their way.
adoseoftruth read my blog view my photos
Sep 29, 2008 | 2:08 PM

In the case of political ads, what is really going on is the the tort called the "tort of false light":

The Tort of "False Light" is one of the most problematic of all the "Privacy" Torts, because of its close similarity to the Tort of "Defamation," and because of various conflicts which the recognition of such a Tort potentially creates with respect to the First Amendment exercise of Free Speech. Like several of the other "Privacy" Torts, the Tort of "False Light" is intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being. And, like each of the other Privacy Torts (except the Tort of "Intrusion"), the Tort of "False Light" also requires (at least implicitly) some kind of "publication" to be actionable. As the name of this Tort implies, "False Light" requires some type of false (or at least misleading) statement, and for this reason it often appears to overlap somewhat with the separate Tort of "Defamation." In one sense, if the information communited about the plaintiff is indeed truly false, then an action can be pursued on the basis of "Defamation," and there is no need for any separate "Privacy" Tort action. However, there are many situations involving the communication of information which, although perhaps not "technically" false, is still "misleading." The effect of publishing such misleading information about the plaintiff to the "public eye" is nonetheless embarassing and potentially injurious to the plainitff. The specific elements of the Tort of FALSE LIGHT vary considerably even among those jurisdictions which do recognize this Tort.

h
adoseoftruth read my blog view my photos
Sep 29, 2008 | 2:09 PM

The above came from the following:

http://netlaw.samford.edu/Martin/AdvancedTorts/falselig
ht.htm

Probably more than you ever wanted to know, huh?!
Katbird read my blog view my photos
Sep 29, 2008 | 4:36 PM

No....I always want to know more.
My brain is always searching and learning.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




Basher51

I'm a middle-aged guy who is somewhat overweight and desperately trying to get into the shape that I was 25 years ago. I'm a retired firefighter (City of Waukesha) and I now work as an inspector for insurance companies. I love the work and since I'm an independent contractor I get to set my own schedule. I am also a track chaplain with Motor Racing Outreach Association and minister at Slinger Speedway. As for hobbies, I enjoy watching all types of stock car racing, and am devoted to fishing, travel, photographing Great Lakes ore carriers. I'm a member of the International Defensive Pistol Association and compete locally in action pistol competition.

Member Since: 1/5/2007


 

View All Photos


RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?