David Bernstein does his patriotic service below by linking to an anti-Obama advertisement. If we're posting political videos out of service to country, I think someone has to link to the following work of genius (even if the guy who made it is Australian):
runape -- I hate it when they turn the comments off! It always feels like they are trying to prevent dissent. But of course there could be other reasons I haven't thought of.
Maybe Bernstein forbid comments because of his ridiculous claim that Obama was violating the first amendment. Where is the state action? Besides, it is not as if this letter even rose to the level of a typical demand letter. He used the word "should". What lawyer here has ever written a demand letter using "should" instead of "must", "will", or other mandatory rather than aspirational language. Anyone?
McCain has announced that he is unsuspending his campaign to go debate tonight.
So, Wednesday McCain announces that the financial crisis is so serious that he is suspending his campaign until a resolution is reached. He then cancels an appearance on Letterman and says he has to fly back to DC immediately. He then appears in NY to be interviewed by Couric.
He stays in NY and appears Thursday a.m. at the Clinton Global Iniative. During that same time 4 of his senior aides make 5 appearances on Fox news to give interviews. Reporters contact 15 of McCain's campaign headquarters in different states and all are up and running and some have not even heard about "suspension." McCain's ads continue running. McCain meets in White House for photo op with Bush, Obama and others. Financial crisis is not resolved.
McCain announces he is going to fly to Mississippi for debate.
Here are some possible poll questions:
1) was this purely a political stunt from the start?
2) Did McCain (who has voted in Senate only once since April) think that his presence really was vital, but did he just give up when he couldn't solve the problem is 9 hours?
3) Is this the sort of leadership and steadfastness that inspires confidence in financial markets?
For Keith Jackson: The state action is in Missouri, where the Obama camp is telling their state supporters to start threatening state prosecution. See here.
Yes, that's right: You are now being threatened in St. Louis with criminal prosecution if the sheriff and prosecutor (both Obama supporters) don't think your statements about Obama are "correct." If you think it's not a criminal threat, then why is the sheriff and prosecutor the ones making the noise?
And while Obama may not have state power yet, what happens in January when he might? Think those threats won't be fulfilled then? His campaign policy is to silence criticism. And I wish that was made up on my part. All his actions to date show a willingness to silence critics by legal methods if possible.
Maybe Bernstein forbid comments because of his ridiculous claim that Obama was violating the first amendment.
He isn't? Hmmmm.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
Well, Obama is in Congress, but I guess he's not trying to "make" a law, but just to have an existing law implemented in such a way as to abridge freedom of speech. Is that really enough of a difference?
Turkey's okay.... but I'd prefer a nice roast beef and swiss. With Honey Dijon, please. On a white roll. Tomatoes, lettuce, and some mayo--none of that sissy Miracle Whip.
And now that I've probably offended half everyone here with my totally fattening sandwich, all I can say is I look forward to lunch.
Folks, listen to Sarcastro. This is nowhere near as troubling as Sarah Palin asking the librarian to do stuff!
Yes! No ads have ever been banned by Obama, nor state action taken by anyone else! He may have tried to ban the ads in violation of the 1A, but the point is he failed!
I expect we can see this record reflected when he's President. He'll try to quell dissent, but fail!
Freedom through government incompetence. It's the American way!
Bernstein's comment about the First Amendment made me want to pull my hair out. Reminds me of Fox News at the DNC accusing people who didn't wish to interview with them of violating "free speech" principles.
This video is pretty cool, but I'm uncomfortable watching anyone dance.
The issue is not whether Obama violated the First Amendment (he didn't) or whether he acted illegally in sending that letter (he didn't).
It is about the attitude it displays, the lack of respect for critical opinions, a belief that the law should be used to quelch dissent.
I think none of us would have been worried or concerned were it not for the fact that Obama is probably going to be President in two months. What if the lawyers now are Federal agents then?
How is someone who may be president in a few months threatening to have the government revoke the license of a station that plays an NRA ad hostile to his candidacy REMOTELY analogous to someone refusing to grant an interview to Fox? One invokes the power of the state to threaten freedom of speech. The other is just a personal choice.
A fine American company who actually had on their web site at one time that they are not French and the only thing they have in common with the French is their name and the color of their mustard.
Actually the threat is enough. Haven't you ever heard of "chilling" civil rights?
Sarcasto only worries about "chilling civil rights" when the state asks someone for ID before they vote. I mean, no one has to show ID for anything else, right?
Mac, I erred. You are right! Sarah Palin only hypothetically asked the librarian to do stuff! That's even worse! Obama's was a mere hare-brained scheme poorly executed, Palin's scheming far more subtle! Sarcastro was right to be alarmedl!
No, Sarcastro didn't make a flip-flop, since he is really on our side. He's just taking a more nuanced position! Remember, overreach is fine with Sarah Palin, just not Obama! It's different!
Glad to know Bernstein's out there doing his patriotic duty and protecting the 1A. I just know that if the Mc/Pal campaign ever tried to squelch free speech that he would certainly tell us all about it--being the great patriot he is.
Maybe Bernstein forbid comments because of his ridiculous claim that Obama was violating the first amendment. Where is the state action?
Do some basic research on the joint action theory of state action. There's quite a bit of case law on this issue. (You do read cases before calling someone's claim "ridiculous," don't you?)
Obama's letter suggests that he will conspire with the FCC to retaliate against stations that play the ad. ("For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this ad.)
They didn't just say, "We'll sue you for defamation." They instead want to bring the government (the FCC) into the mix. Hence, there might be state action.
Also, please read New York Times v. Sullivan. Where was the state action? That's right: The state action occurred once the courts got involved in a lawsuit. Just as there was state action in Shelley v Kraemer, where private parties asked a court to enforce racially-restrictive covenants.
The state action doctrine is extremely tricky. If you pick up a good civil rights treatise, you'll find an entire chapter devoted to the issue.
It's easy for dilettantes to sneer, "Where's the state action?!" But the issue is not nearly so simple, and that one-hour lecture you may have had in con law or crim pro is only the tip of the iceberg.
Anyway, I'm craving mustard. I think I'll put some on my eggs.
Can we talk about how McCain is winning in the polls because of his perfect timing and flawless strategy execution? Can we also talk about how Sarah Palin is proving all the naysayers wrong with her eloquent and informed answers in recent interviews. Please?
Re Sarah Palin (and sorry Orin, but there hasn't been another thread on which to post this, so I'll briefly misappropriate this one), how about this from National Review writer and all-around conservative Kathleen Parker?
As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion ...
Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there ... If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she's a woman -- and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket -- we are reluctant to say what is painfully true ...
McCain can't repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP's unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability ...
Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
What I want to know, Prof K, is whether you have decided that youe will only post about politics directly, in light of the emphasis lately on the blog otherwise, via hilarity.
In any event, I appreciate it, if only to see that some people (see David N above) will take what is an obvious joke to rip one of the candidates. But seriously, keep it up. This entire political cycle needs to lighten up.
I've seen this Barackroll before, and Barack Really needs dance lessons.
Because he is involved in a conspiracy."
In fairness, I was going to mock him for his relentlessly inane partisanship. So perhaps he had a point.
McCain has announced that he is unsuspending his campaign to go debate tonight.
So, Wednesday McCain announces that the financial crisis is so serious that he is suspending his campaign until a resolution is reached. He then cancels an appearance on Letterman and says he has to fly back to DC immediately. He then appears in NY to be interviewed by Couric.
He stays in NY and appears Thursday a.m. at the Clinton Global Iniative. During that same time 4 of his senior aides make 5 appearances on Fox news to give interviews. Reporters contact 15 of McCain's campaign headquarters in different states and all are up and running and some have not even heard about "suspension." McCain's ads continue running. McCain meets in White House for photo op with Bush, Obama and others. Financial crisis is not resolved.
McCain announces he is going to fly to Mississippi for debate.
Here are some possible poll questions:
1) was this purely a political stunt from the start?
2) Did McCain (who has voted in Senate only once since April) think that his presence really was vital, but did he just give up when he couldn't solve the problem is 9 hours?
3) Is this the sort of leadership and steadfastness that inspires confidence in financial markets?
Yes, that's right: You are now being threatened in St. Louis with criminal prosecution if the sheriff and prosecutor (both Obama supporters) don't think your statements about Obama are "correct." If you think it's not a criminal threat, then why is the sheriff and prosecutor the ones making the noise?
And while Obama may not have state power yet, what happens in January when he might? Think those threats won't be fulfilled then? His campaign policy is to silence criticism. And I wish that was made up on my part. All his actions to date show a willingness to silence critics by legal methods if possible.
Keith, perhaps you weren't aware of this, but Obama is running for President of the United States.
[people, this stuff is troubling, but don't overreach. There hasn't been state action, and thus no violation of the 1A.]
(It's a secret recipe involving farts towards cops)
Actually the threat is enough. Haven't you ever heard of "chilling" civil rights?
Just because he doesn't like their speech. It isn't right and a rational country would run him out of politics for this stuff.
[I'll stand by Sarcastro's response in lieu of dragging this out further. I was merely pointing out hyperbole.]
And now that I've probably offended half everyone here with my totally fattening sandwich, all I can say is I look forward to lunch.
WHAT?! Listen, you're a Dijon guy or a Honey guy. Trying to do both is the sign of a dirty Dijon lover.
Honey mustard marinated chicken--have any problems with that, Sarcastro boy? Huh? Dooooo you?
In reality, I prefer to think of myself as a junk food junkie. I do have a secret stash of Pringles.... but I don't like Twinkies.
Yes! No ads have ever been banned by Obama, nor state action taken by anyone else! He may have tried to ban the ads in violation of the 1A, but the point is he failed!
I expect we can see this record reflected when he's President. He'll try to quell dissent, but fail!
Freedom through government incompetence. It's the American way!
I've always thought it was Jason Donovan's song.
My favorite sandwich is a Cubano. Those always come with mustard. Yum.
He can't talk unscripted, either.
This video is pretty cool, but I'm uncomfortable watching anyone dance.
It is about the attitude it displays, the lack of respect for critical opinions, a belief that the law should be used to quelch dissent.
I think none of us would have been worried or concerned were it not for the fact that Obama is probably going to be President in two months. What if the lawyers now are Federal agents then?
My post on the matter.
Except that she never asked the librarian to do anything.
Ah, what are facts when lies are so much more fun.
How is someone who may be president in a few months threatening to have the government revoke the license of a station that plays an NRA ad hostile to his candidacy REMOTELY analogous to someone refusing to grant an interview to Fox? One invokes the power of the state to threaten freedom of speech. The other is just a personal choice.
A fine American company who actually had on their web site at one time that they are not French and the only thing they have in common with the French is their name and the color of their mustard.
Sarcasto only worries about "chilling civil rights" when the state asks someone for ID before they vote. I mean, no one has to show ID for anything else, right?
Mac, I erred. You are right! Sarah Palin only hypothetically asked the librarian to do stuff! That's even worse! Obama's was a mere hare-brained scheme poorly executed, Palin's scheming far more subtle! Sarcastro was right to be alarmedl!
No, Sarcastro didn't make a flip-flop, since he is really on our side. He's just taking a more nuanced position! Remember, overreach is fine with Sarah Palin, just not Obama! It's different!
Ah, now I see. Thanks for splaining it to me.
Bernstein on McCain and the First Amendment.
Chilling effect.
Do some basic research on the joint action theory of state action. There's quite a bit of case law on this issue. (You do read cases before calling someone's claim "ridiculous," don't you?)
Obama's letter suggests that he will conspire with the FCC to retaliate against stations that play the ad. ("For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this ad.)
They didn't just say, "We'll sue you for defamation." They instead want to bring the government (the FCC) into the mix. Hence, there might be state action.
Also, please read New York Times v. Sullivan. Where was the state action? That's right: The state action occurred once the courts got involved in a lawsuit. Just as there was state action in Shelley v Kraemer, where private parties asked a court to enforce racially-restrictive covenants.
The state action doctrine is extremely tricky. If you pick up a good civil rights treatise, you'll find an entire chapter devoted to the issue.
It's easy for dilettantes to sneer, "Where's the state action?!" But the issue is not nearly so simple, and that one-hour lecture you may have had in con law or crim pro is only the tip of the iceberg.
Anyway, I'm craving mustard. I think I'll put some on my eggs.
That's an amazing case! Speculating on what the facts will be one day makes them fit some laws!
Obama's goin down!
[AGAIN, I think Obama's being dumb and even a bit scary here, but he's not violating anything yet!]
As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion ...
Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there ... If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she's a woman -- and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket -- we are reluctant to say what is painfully true ...
McCain can't repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP's unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability ...
Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
Do it for your country.
Because he's pure class.
Here's the link. You did a nice job of excerpting it, but it's worth reading every word. I like this part:
Heyo!
Umm............ State action, anyone?
Do those of you who mocked Bernstein have any shame? Do you have the integrity to apologize to the man?
In any event, I appreciate it, if only to see that some people (see David N above) will take what is an obvious joke to rip one of the candidates. But seriously, keep it up. This entire political cycle needs to lighten up.