You know, it isn't a First Amendment issue per se, but it should be noted that some of the Obama supporters here are promoting a kind of de facto censorship, just as Palin is.
Barry, Vaj, do.rflex, Sal, Ruth, and Bhairitu (I'm sure I've forgotten a couple) have all promoted the notion that people should block raunchydog's and my posts, to keep them from seeing criticisms of Obama and his supporters. This is of particular benefit to Barry, who has spearheaded this movement. (He's been at it for many years.) For example, he can claim that I "made up" the statistic about the number of rapes reported in Wasilla during Palin's mayoralty. Readers will have seen that claim, but those who have chosen to block my posts will not have seen the URL I provided that documents my statistic. As I think most readers here know, Barry's stock in trade is vicious attacks on me. Those who go along with Barry's urging and don't read my posts, however, will not be aware that his attacks consist primarily of falsehoods, because they won't see the rebuttals. Ruth the Race-baiter doesn't want people to read my or raunchydog's posts because she doesn't want them to know how bogus her claim is that the Obama illustration on raunchydog's profile page is racist. And Barry, of course, doesn't want anyone to know that his claim that the illustration portrays Obama as Stepin Fetchit is even more blatantly false. Like Barry, do.rflex doesn't want people to know that my statistic on rape in Wasilla is well documented, or that his own attempt to portray sexual assaults in Wasilla as equivalent to rapes is bogus. Sal doesn't want anybody to know how many gross factual errors she makes, especially in connection with politics, so she espouses not reading my posts as well. Vaj likes to lie about me and raunchydog too, so of course he doesn't want folks to read our posts. Bhairitu doesn't like the kind of reasoned criticisms of his conspiracy theories that I present. He'd prefer that readers blocked those. These people, in other words, are suggesting that you should *cut yourself off from other points of view* and read only what *they* have to say. How are these people any different in principle from Sarah Palin, who would prefer that the media not be permitted to criticize her and McCain? Are raunchydog and I somehow infringing on the First Amendment rights of the Obama supporters here by posting our dissenting views? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it's breathtakingly stupid enough that Sarah > Palin doesn't even know what the hell the Vice > President actually does. But, Constitutional scholar > that she is not, she has now declared that it > may be a threat to her First Amendment rights when > newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack > Obama: > http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html
