Gunco Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Arizona Supreme Court agrees to hear case over letter published by newspaper

PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, January 5, 2005


(01-05) 10:09 PST PHOENIX (AP) --

The Arizona Supreme Court said Wednesday it will decide whether a newspaper can be sued for publishing a letter suggesting that American soldiers in Iraq respond to attacks by killing Muslims at nearby mosques.

The Supreme Court agreed without comment to hear the Tucson Citizen's appeal of a judge's decision to hold a trial in a lawsuit accusing the newspaper of distressing residents by printing the letter.

The Supreme Court ordered legal briefs filed within 30 days. No date was set for oral arguments.

Two Tucson men filed a class-action lawsuit against the Gannett Co. newspaper in January 2004 over a letter printed Dec. 2, 2003, as deadly attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq mounted.

The letter prompted some fearful Tucson Muslims to keep their children home from religious schools and resulted in protests from readers and a published apology by the Citizen, which also sent staff members to meet with members of a local mosque.

The lawsuit argued that the newspaper's decision to publish the letter was not constitutionally protected because it was a direct call to violence that could extend to Islamic-Americans.

Superior Court Judge Leslie Miller ruled May 10 that the lawsuit's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress should stand.

The Citizen argued on appeal that the case put at risk the fundamental First Amendment right to engage in robust political debate.

"If the trial court's ruling is allowed to stand, political speech that falls well short of advocating immediate violence may be subject to sanction in Arizona -- making this state a uniquely risky jurisdiction in which to publish news and commentary," the Citizen's appeal said.

Without any immediate physical threat to anyone, publication of the letter is constitutionally protected, the newspaper argued.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Well that sucks. Hope the newspaper wins.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Damn liberals put us in this stupid spot about speech and now we may pay for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
How do you figure the liberals fit into this - what appears to me to be a pretty bogus civil suit for damages?

The libs said you aren't allowed to print stupid stuff about Muslims? I don't think so.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
These guys are often pretty smart but not wise.

You start carving out exceptions to speech for results you like and you risk not being able to put the genie back into the bottle. They are consistently way too clever for their own good.

They've been playing with things like "commercial' speech or "hate' speech or other allowing various government prohibitions about what you can say in arenas like labor law, FCC and such. Pretty soon it does not seem so unreasonable to go a bit further.

If you can regulate commercial speech, I don't know why someone can not make a case to regulate any paper, book or magazine, CD, video game or anything put out for profit regarless of its content.

I think most people were shocked when the campaign finance law was upheld. Debbie Does Dallas is protected speech but running ads during portions of the election is not.

Who woulda thunk it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Alas, Custer, I don't have any nifty answers to the campaign finance quandary. I hate to see elections go to the highest bidder, yet, like you, I don't like to see free speech infringed, either. Anyway, it's my understanding that the president who signed the campaign finance reform bill into law is generally not considered to be a liberal.

You do raise an intersting point with regard to the lesser protection given to commercial speech compared to political speech. Weird part is that the campaign finance reform law infringes upon the latter, which generally is considered sacrosanct.

As is Debbie Does Dallas.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Obviously their take, but if it is only 1/2 true it is disturbing...



PA Christians face 47 years for reading Bible in public and condemning homosexuality and abortion
http://www.AFA.net ^ | 1/5/04 | Donald E. Wildmon

What we have been saying has now happened. You cannot quote what the Bible has to say about homosexuality in public or you will be charged with a "hate crime." Philadelphia is only the beginning. If we fail to take a stand here, this "crime" will soon be applied across America.

In the 27 years of this ministry, I have never witnessed a more outrageous miscarriage of justice than what is happening in Philadelphia. Four Christians are facing up to 47-years in prison and $90,000 in fines for preaching the Gospel on a public sidewalk, a right fully protected by the First Amendment.

On October 10, 2004, the four Christians were arrested in Philadelphia. They are part of Repent America. Along with founder Michael Marcavage, members of Repent America?with police approval--were preaching near Outfest, a homosexual event, handing out Gospel literature and carrying banners with Biblical messages.

When they tried to speak, they were surrounded by a group of radical homosexual activists dubbed the Pink Angels. A videotape of the incident shows the Pink Angels interfering with the Christians? movement on the street, holding up large pink symbols of angels to cover up the Christians' messages and blowing high pitched whistles to drown out their preaching.

Rather than arrest the homosexual activists and allow the Christians to exercise their First Amendment rights, the Philadelphia police arrested and jailed the Christians!

They were charged with eight crimes, including three felonies: possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible some passages relating to homosexuality) despite the fact that no riot occurred.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Heard about this on the O'Reilly Factor last night, didn't know the specifics. O'Reilly's take was that the cops did the right thing by arresting them because they didn't move along when told to do so, that had they not been arrested there probably would have been a riot, and when a cop tells you to move along and you don't you can expect to be arrested*. But that the charges should be dropped now that the situation has been de-fused, and the charges themselves are an outrageous violation of the First Amendment.

I thought that was a good take. If the charges aren't dropped, these guys hopefully will fight this.

* Standard rules of engagement during antiwar protests of the 60's were that you wouldn't get busted so long as you kept walking. But that the moment you stood still you'd be busted on a charge of blocking the sidewalk.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
The nature of the charges, hate speech, for example, deeply trouble me.

It also troubled me that it appears that the counter protesters had planned the trouble and were prepared to create a bad scene yet the police arrested the permit holders.

How would this have come out had Blacks been protesting ________ and the KKK showed up to counter protest?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
There should be no laws against hate speech. And a law against "ethnic intimidation" sure sounds like such a law. And I was not aware that homosexuals comprise an ethnic group.

But, anyway, if I want to stand on a soapbox and denounce the genetic inferiority of Lithuanian Slovaks, I should be allowed to. As long as I don't incite a riot or block the sidewalk.

At the same time, when a threatening crowd of Lithuanian Slovaks gather about and a cop asks me to move along, I think he'd be within his rights to arrest me on whatever BS charge he could come up with to defuse the situation. Although the DA then should drop the charges and have me released as soon as possible. That's what should happen in this case, should have happened already.
 

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
At the same time, when a threatening crowd of Lithuanian Slovaks gather about and a cop asks me to move along, I think he'd be within his rights to arrest me on whatever BS charge he could come up with to defuse the situation. Although the DA then should drop the charges and have me released as soon as possible. That's what should happen in this case, should have happened already.
I'd agree within limitations. Otherwise, an opposing group could appear everytime a group they disagreed with tried to speak and create a tense atmosphere and in effect deny that group their right to free speech. And, that is what some political activist groups have been doing the last couple of years.

What action was taken against the sexual deviates that actually caused the problem? I know, you weren't there, but I'll bet none. That is quite often a method that cities have recently been using to deny the right of free speech to groups that aren't currently PC. Who knows what group might not be PC sometime in the future?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,351 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
There should be no laws against hate speech. And a law against "ethnic intimidation" sure sounds like such a law. And I was not aware that homosexuals comprise an ethnic group.

But, anyway, if I want to stand on a soapbox and denounce the genetic inferiority of Lithuanian Slovaks, I should be allowed to. As long as I don't incite a riot or block the sidewalk.

At the same time, when a threatening crowd of Lithuanian Slovaks gather about and a cop asks me to move along, I think he'd be within his rights to arrest me on whatever BS charge he could come up with to defuse the situation. Although the DA then should drop the charges and have me released as soon as possible. That's what should happen in this case, should have happened already.
Outstanding comment :thumbup1:

What's happening here?

I'm finding myself in agreement with S ... errr .....Mr. D. more and more lately.

Obviously I need to get back to Idaho and the Ayran Nation re-training program ASAP!

Pogo is also correct in his statement!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
5KNIVES said:
...I'm finding myself in agreement with S ... errr .....Mr. D. more and more lately...
Yes, political re-education is as effective as it is subtle. We are pleased to see that you are coming along nicely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Spent some time searching the net for more info on this case. There's stuff from WorldNet and from various Christian sites, but I couldn't find zip from what I would consider to be a reliable source of objective information.

Which doesn't say much that's very good about the mainstream media.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Here's a link with several links to the story:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1304823/posts

Maybe they should go about it the way Rush Limbaugh talked about. He told a story about a man that was sued by a female co-worker for sexual harassment. Security cameras proved the man was innocent but the woman won anyway. So the man appealed and countersued her for discrimination because he was a male lesbian. A male lesbian is a woman in spirit that likes women but trapped in a mans body. Once he became a minroity, he won his case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
I was under the impression that the First Amendment guaranteed the right to speak in public without being prosecuted by the government ...

... but then I was also under the impression that the government could not interfere with my right to keep and bear arms....

Silly me.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
There should be no laws against hate speech. And a law against "ethnic intimidation" sure sounds like such a law. And I was not aware that homosexuals comprise an ethnic group.

But, anyway, if I want to stand on a soapbox and denounce the genetic inferiority of Lithuanian Slovaks, I should be allowed to. As long as I don't incite a riot or block the sidewalk.

At the same time, when a threatening crowd of Lithuanian Slovaks gather about and a cop asks me to move along, I think he'd be within his rights to arrest me on whatever BS charge he could come up with to defuse the situation. Although the DA then should drop the charges and have me released as soon as possible. That's what should happen in this case, should have happened already.
I doubt you agreed with that when The Hardhats moved in on your comrades 30+ years ago.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top