liberal fascism on the radio

[lieberalism]

every time someone says anything other than african american, chinese american, muslim american, etc they get their radio show canned. this is insane. politically correct liberals are trashing free speech.

 

[Ninja]

Yep: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832636/posts

It all started with Flipper Gore. And quickly went downhill from there.

The only amendment the Liberfascisti hate more then the First is the Second.

 

[liberalogic]

every time someone says anything other than african american, chinese american, muslim american, etc they get their radio show canned. this is insane. politically correct liberals are trashing free speech.

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, the liberal antics of late are not compatible with what "liberalism" is, at least according to me. Notice, though, that this is an electorally useful strategy because it is catering to the democrats' base-- minorities.

I think there's an obvious line that can be crossed with regards to political correctness. The comments made by Don Imus and the people who made fun of the Asians is very far from that line.

Why don't we all grow up and get a fucking sense of humor?

 

[red states rule]

DNC Attorneys Send Cease and Desist Letter to Free Republic
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 13, 2007 - 02:09.
The Howard Dean-Kathleen Sebelius-Kansas tornado story has taken an interesting turn.

Scott Johnson at Power Line reported Saturday that attorneys representing the Democratic National Committee have sent a cease and desist letter to Free Republic due to a post at its website concerning allegations made on the “Quinn & Rose” XM Satellite radio show Thursday (h/t Glenn Reynolds).

Howard Dean appears to be doing another “I Have a Scream” speech, only this time through his attorneys.

Isn’t that special?

The letter stated:

A post by “coffee260” on “Freerepublic.com” today states that this morning, on the “Quinn & Rose” show on XM, co-host Jim Quinn stated that DNC Chairman Governor Howard Dean had called Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kan.) “around 5:00 a.m. one morning after a tornado had destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas and discussed with her what to say about the tornado and how to blame the war in Iraq and the Bush administration on a slow response to the aftermath.”

The statement made by Mr. Quinn, repeated on FreeRepublic.com, is demonstrably, unequivocally and absolutely false. Governor Dean had no such conversation with Governor Sebelius, ever.

Power Line’s Johnson was duly unimpressed (emphasis added throughout):

The attorney who sent the letter on behalf of the DNC is attorney Joseph Sandler, representing the Democratic National Committee. In my view, Sandler is a thug representing a bunch of reprobates and bullies. Here's why.

Under the First Amendment, as construed by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, citizens are protected from defamation claim by public figures so long as the statements in issue are lacking in "actual malice," i.e, knowledge of their falsehood or reckless disregard as to whether they are false or not.

After concluding that Sandler’s letter “incorporates no element of ‘actual malice,’" and that “it does not even allege that Jim Quinn had knowledge of the statements' falsity or made them with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity,” Johnson upped the ante:

We therefore associate ourselves with our reader's statements regarding Governor Dean and invite Mr. Sandler to sue us for defamation as he threatens to sue Free Republic. This is to put him and his client on notice, however, that we intend to seek our attorney's fees under federal law for the assertion of a frivolous claim if he does so.

How delicious.

As an interesting sidebar, the folks at Free Republic don't seem too concerned with Sandler's letter, for the post in question is still available. It is also interesting that another Freep post was made on this subject before the one in question. Yet, the DNC didn't ask for its removal.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12717

 

[Dirt McGirt]

politically correct liberals are trashing free speech.

Hey remember when some "not fine, not okay" libtards on another board were quick to talk about free speech after Disney pulled Farenheit 9/11 and Janet Jackson's tit fell out? I laughed my ass off watching the Hugo Chavez nuthuggers contradict themselves by trying to get The Path to 9/11 censored before anyone saw it and rallying to reinstate The Fairness Doctrine. It was funny watching the lieberals on that board cry about free speech when it suits their politics, but then ban war heroes like Grunt for disagreeing with them. Oh well, what do you expect from people who think sitting on a computer all day and eating chocolate can cure thyroid problems.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I think there's an obvious line that can be crossed with regards to political correctness. The comments made by Don Imus and the people who made fun of the Asians is very far from that line.

Why don't we all grow up and get a fucking sense of humor?

I'm sure my idea on where to draw the line differs from yours but I agree with you.

 

[red states rule]

WashPost: Advertising Anti-War Website, Uses Obscene Graphic for GOP
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on May 13, 2007 - 16:05.
In a commencement address to New England College, Democrat Party presidential candidate John Edwards has issued a call to turn Memorial Day from a day to celebrate our troops to a day pushing a political message that attacks them. He has also created a new website to further that goal and the Washington Post is helping him advertise it breaking their more common practice of not posting links taking the reader outside their own website.

How often do you see MSM sources giving direct links to websites outside their own site? How many times have you seen a story mentioning a website, maybe even including the name of the website somewhere within the story, yet the story won't give the full address? Also, how many times do you see a web posting that actually includes a hypertext link to any website outside any paper's site? Not very often. But today the Washington Post has given John Edward's anti-war website a big boost by not only writing a story about it, but creating a direct link to it at the end of their story.

I wonder how many conservative or pro-war websites they have helped advertise in the past with a direct link?

http://newsbusters.org/node/12723