Posted on 12/13/2001 2:41:52 PM PST by Timesink
Davie-
You may have been around for 6 years, and you might have just gone through another round of "re-financing", but I think we BOTH know your hayday was during the Clinton years, and I'd wager that your "re-financing" was trying to keep from going bankrupt.
Face it: you run a two-bit publication that caters to the most extreme left-wing fringe. Salon.com has gone so far downhill, you had to start charging money for an "adult content" section. As for myself, I'm a successful computer/network technician, musician, and webmaster.
Send me a note when you need me to buy the office furniture.
ahahahhahahahaa
Ditto. Talbot and Lay need to be detained ...
Talbot actually RESPONDED? I guess I gotta give him at least a little credit for that. Most of these types just read and delete emails from the public, if they even read them at all.
Don't waste your time, either. Powell's is a totally left-wing company. They probably printed this cartoon out and posted it on the wall of their office.
[It might help if the airheaded wench was actually funny.......or even witty; I come up with better stuff than this on my WORST days............]
Yes, it is. The simple fact is that, regardless of what the cartoonist's intentions were, it is against federal law to discuss assassinating the actual President of the United States. You can talk about taking out fictional presidents all you want, as any number of bad movies over the years have shown us. You can talk about the issues raised by a potential assassination of a generic "president" as a concept; otherwise nobody would even be able to discuss how to prevent such an incident from ever occurring. But you cannot talk about bringing physical harm to the real-life man actually holding that office. (Nor can you discuss such things about actual living ex-presidents.) You of course will not actually go to prison, or even be arrested, unless there is reason to believe you constitute a true threat. But you WILL get a visit from your friendly neighborhood sunglasses-wearing dudes who talk into their lapels. The legality of this has been well-established for eons.
Carol Lay thinks she is above this law, or is utterly ignorant of it. Ditto for Salon's editors.
No, it isn't. See my response 70. It's not a massive violation, and she's obviously no true threat to George W. Bush. But the law is the law, and established procedures are that anyone that makes "jokes" like this tends to get a visit from the Secret Service, "just to make sure." The fact that it was published doesn't give her some sort of special First Amendment protection.
Not that I care that much. I'm certainly not calling the Secret Service about this; I'm perfectly content with having her actions ripped apart here on FR. But if she does end up having to spend an hour or two explaining herself to those guys, I won't be complaining.
|
Situational ethics, double standards.
Ahhhh, ya gotta love those silly liberals.
Not any more! "No current Freeper by that name."
WHEN will they learn: Liberals are welcome here if they post reasoned responses. Post insults and you'll be out on your butt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.