Posted on 09/27/2008 1:36:34 AM PDT by GeeMoney
The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.
Don’t forget Bob - he was the other liberal puke in the video.
Bob McCulloch
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
100 South Central Avenue - Second Floor
Clayton, MO 63105
(314) 615-2600
E-Mail: pa@stlouisco.com
Right .. thank you .. and fantastic, penny!
We should also contact the Missouri Governor’s office, the Missouri Republican party, the FEC, and the Mo. Sec. Of State(she is a democrat..but is responsible for policing this kind of voter intimidation and should not be left off the hook).
Has Congressman Billy Bob been pinged to this yet? If not he needs to be...also any other freepers well versed on Campaign laws. Hope this helps.
I have not seen any libel on free republic against Obama. The truth is not libel.
The Constitution protects your right to say it regardless of your intent. The government has NO RIGHT to abridge expression of opinion as long as it doesn't disturb the peace or is a physical assault (bodily threat), ESPECIALLY regarding politicians, which was the main thought behind this amendment. Obama's violating the Constitution and 1st Amendment. He has NO legal right to stop you from expressing your opinions about him or anyone else or anything else. The justice system will hold you responsible IF you're able to prove libel or slander in court. But you're inalienable right to freedom giver you the right to express it. The burden is on the accuser to prove in a court of law if it was illegal. This is just more "Liberal Tyranny". The liberals and Obama are phonies. They're actually Neo-Nazis.
TO ALL:
From the ‘Civics Library Of The Missouri Bar’
Defamation and the Public Official
http://members.mobar.org/civics/DefamePubOff.htm
Pertinent pasages:
“The court ruled that constitutional guarantees prohibit a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice. Actual malice was defined as (1) knowledge of falsity, or (2) reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement. The court thereby ruled that a conditional privilege and the allowance of the defense of truth required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments applied.”
“The effect of this landmark case was the recognition of a qualified privilege under the U. S. Constitution to criticize public officials and candidates without liability for defamation. However, the court failed to outline the definition of ‘public official.’ What individuals were to be included in the term?”
“The Supreme Court later had the opportunity to clarify that point in its ruling in Rosenblatt v. Baer. Here the court stated, ‘The term public official applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.’ It also indicated that the public official must occupy a position that would invite public scrutiny and discussion of the person holding it.”
“In the Sullivan and Rosenblatt cases, the Supreme Court once again walked the fine but discernible line between the public official and the private citizen engaged in open discussion. The First Amendment was adopted in order to preserve the open discussion by the public of all political issues, including public officials. To allow a public official to recover every time someone made a statement that was not completely true would result in self-censorship of the press and the public discussion of these officials.”
END
Notice the last sentence:
“To allow a public official to recover every time someone made a statement that was not completely true would result in self-censorship of the press and the public discussion of these officials.”
STE=Q
Someone in Missouri with time and money as a backup ought to see if they can get themselves arrested for daring to criticise The Messiah, THE ONE. We have the new media, and certain folks at Fox who will focus on this. Then McCain’s campain can put out the ad “Obama proves he is an enemy of the 1st amendment”
Good post and good info. I hope Obama gets slammed.
I hope so , the sooner the better. Get it up to the Supreme Court NOW, and get Obama thrown off the train...
Then To help this along, McCain’s campaign can needs now to put out the ad “Obama proves he is an enemy of the 1st amendment”
“The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.”
After much reflection I have now come to the uncomfortable conclusion that Obama WANTS to cause dissension and strife in our country... maybe even riots if he loses the election.
This is VERY SERIOUS and needs to be nipped in the bud NOW by ANY and ALL LEGAL means at our disposal!
The nasty little fascist and his brawn shirts must be stopped!
Perhaps the United States Department of Justice can be encouraged to look into this.
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT (18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242)
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/overview.htm
STE=Q
He won't get it. But if he wins, militia camps in outlying places all over the country will strengthen and grow as they did when the Clintonistas were in power. Riots, civil war - good chance if his Nazi buddies somehow manage get him elected. A disaster from which I'm not sure we would recover.
Obama and his Nazi Buddies...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnb9YarAOFM&feature=related
The Good Guys (Us, the Real Americans):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTfmPgYPCe8&feature=related
“Someone in Missouri with time and money as a backup ought to see if they can get themselves arrested for daring to criticize The Messiah”
Someone — with a camera crew to follow them around — could wear a T-shirt that had every possible Anti-Obama slogan we could think of printed on it... maybe even picket outside the prosecutors office.
If I were there (I’m in California) and had ‘backup’ I’d be tempted to do it myself.
The first amendment is intended to protect speech — especially political speech — that I may vehemently disagree with.
As the saying goes:
I may hate what you say but I will defend your right to say it!(with certain obvious exceptions like yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded auditorium etc.)
By the way where’s the ACLU?
(crickets)
Oh yeah, did I mention that Obama’s a 2 bit hustling bamboozler?
STE=Q
Truth Squad = Brown Shirts
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.