Posted on 09/26/2008 1:42:06 PM PDT by doug from upland
NOTE: this is info from a previous thread, but I thought the phone call to the prosecutor's office was important enough for its own thread.
KMOV VIDEO - THREAT OF PROSECUTION FOR TELLING "LIES" ABOUT OBAMA
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THIS!
I just called county prosecutor Bob McCulloch's office. I spoke with his secretary Cindy.
DFU: I saw the KMOV piece last night regarding the lies being told about Barack Obama. It is about time someone is doing something about this. Last night I saw a bumper sticker that said BARACK OBAMA IS A MUSLIM. I asked the guy about it and where he got it, and I think I may know the printer in St. Louis who is printing that bumper sticker. When I can verify the information, would Mr. McCulloch like to have that information?
CINDY: In light of what Mr. McCulloch has said, I would gather that would be something he would need to know.
TO ALL:
Why don’t we all print out an “Obama is a Muslim” sticker and mail it to McCulloch’s office!
Of course, an “Obama’s a bamboozler” sticker would be fun too!
STE=Q
And after everyone gives these domestic enemies some American-styled righteous indignation be sure to thank them for outing themselves in this way.
Yes, thank them—it’ll freak them out, guaranteed.
IMO the threat of criminal action in this case is a violation of the law. I cannot believe they did this or that they will get away with it. Immediate removal from office and prosecution.
I’d LOVE to do something like that, but I don’t think I have the editing software to do the idea justice...Otherwise, I’d be completely on-board.
I think that Democrat Sheriffs have as much right to politic as any other elected official, as stupid as their desire to politic in this way may be. They are elected officials, after all.
If they are actually planning to intimidate the public via the powers of their Office, then there are HUGE problem with civil rights violations. It's hard for me to believe that they would be that stupid to risk multimillion dollar lawsuits, so I lean toward interpreting their statements as indicating that they plan to propagandize for Obama as private citizens.
Since they are Democrats, though, I certainly don't put it past them to capitalize on the ambiguity of their statements.
Cordially,
Equivalent to George Wallace standing in the school house door refusing black citizens their civil rights.
President Bush needs to send in US Marshalls to arrest these sleazey fascists.
Or, maybe I’ll light her up on YouTube.
This sounds so much like Hitler’s “brown shirts” that it makes me ill.
“This sounds so much like Hitler’s ‘brown shirts’ that it makes me ill.”
If it walks like a duck... talks like a duck... it’s probably a duck!
We can’t afford to take any chances.
Like a cancer early detection and removal of the malignant tissue is often critical to survival.
We can’t allow public servants that WE have untrusted with authority to subvert OUR constitutional rights — no matter what party they support.
STE=Q
This muslim tax-raiser must never be President of my good country.
**This sounds so much like Hitler’s “brown shirts” that it makes me ill.**
I watched some of Hussein O’s speech in Germany .... I turned the sound down, and it looked just like the Hitler Speech film I mentioned earlier. And the Liberals call US the Nazi’s. If they only knew ... actually they DO KNOW, they just refuse to ADMIT!!
Someone was talking about Obama’s Minnesota speech and his motions to the audience at the end and their responses. A side-by-side of that would be truly scary... It looks and sounds like the hysteria of Hitler’s speeches.
(PS - My daughter forgot to ping you on her response, but she doesn’t think she’d be able to do your idea justice with the software we have. I hope someone does this though — it’d be very interesting...)
I probably should’ve taken some time to come up with something a little more clever, and biting, but here is what I wrote to Ms. Joyce. (BTW: Is she an elected official, and can she be recalled? Sorry if this seems like a silly question...)
Thanks for emailing Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce
To: Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce
Subject: RE: Truth Squad
Comment:
So, as an officer of the court, are you actually ALLOWED to be a part of a specific campaign, and push for prosecutions that violate the First Amendment? Interesting... I hope your citizens start some kind of a recall election on you ASAP. Gestapo tactics don’t fly too well here in the US. I suggest you read the First Amendment before you go back to work on Monday.
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
TYPO: pasages = passages
VERY interesting! Thanks for the ping to that. Looks like Obama is going to be rather disappointed...
.
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.