Posted on 09/12/2006 8:34:00 AM PDT by DocFarmer
I appreciate your idealism. I doubt the attorney general would accept your wish and open an investigation (it is not GWBs nature to fight his political fights in the same aggressive spirit as the Dims).
However, in the arena of public opinion, with the enough help ($$$) the mass marketing of a public notice of your request could help achieve the public sanctioning of the Dims that they deserve.
>Frankly, I'm not too concerned with what the Senators or the DoJ think. I'm more concerned with doing what I believe to be right.<
I'd be willing to co-sign that letter with you, Doc. We all know what happens when good men do nothing, so go for it!
Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification!
Using an official public government office and the power of that office to threaten to take action against those who make political statements in dissent to your political sentiments, simply because you do not want their political statements aired does constitute the use of an official position to attempt to extort the said action demanded in the threat. It is illegal; whether or not the threat was answered by meeting its demands.
Whether or not GWB wants to engage his political position in acknowledging that clear power-abusing threat and its illegality is another matter.
I appreciate the offer, Paperdoll. When I complete the letter's final draft, I'll send a formatted copy to anyone who wishes to send it themselves. I'll also do what I can to include all the e-Mail addresses/contacts required to send it to the DoJ and the folks on the cc list.
Many thanks.
It wouldn't hurt in my opinion. But as long as you're sending it out widely, make sure to include all the members of the Ethics Committee, the majority leader, the whip, and anyone else who seems like they might be amenable to reason. Include any Dem Sens you can; Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson?
I wonder if a mass distribution/mailing of the letter from Freepers would be a low-cost alternative.
I'll make sure to send the message to ALL members of the committees and leadership as you suggest. Many thanks.
So your position is that words can be illegal even if they aren't even intended to be followed up with action? Wow, that's a weak branch you're sitting on. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theather would be illegal, but I don't see the Dem Senators' speech as rising to that level.
I think this is much more akin to someone saying, "You know, a lot of rich people keep money in that bank and there's not even a security guard." In your world, that would be enough to convict of conspiracy to rob a bank.
I disagree with your analogy. If I threaten to extort you for a million dollars if you don't do what I say, and you go to the cops with that information instead, I'm still guilty of extortion. If I threaten your ability to speak out against the government, even if you go ahead and speak, I'm still guilty of violating the First Amendment.
First of all we are not talking about mere "words", as if someone just wrote a string of meaningless words on a page.
Communicating a threat is not simply "words", the communication itself is a form of action. It is not germane if the person to whom the threat is made believes or does not believe the threat will be acted on. The person receiving the threat has no way and no requirement to know if the person making the threat intends that threat as a bluff of not. The intent to act or not is irrelevant to the law with regard to the act of communicating a threat.
Did the Dim Senate Leaders threaten Disney/ABC? Yes, by direct implication. Did they imply that they would take action against Disney/ABC if Disney/ABC did not give in to their threat? Yes. Was the cause of that threat the fact that Disney/ABC, exercising its free speech rights, was going to air something that portrayed an opinion that differed with the opinions of the Dims and they did not want the public to hear that opinion? Yes. Does any American public official have the right to abridge the free speech rights of someone, simply to abridge those rights for their own political benefit and due soley to political differences of opinion? No.
Second: The analogies you presented are not analogous to the exact particulars of the situation.
It would. If attempted, they should be encouraged to use all their Internet based abilities - Email address book, other blogs they are members of, other Email "lists" that they are on, other conservative outfits and lists that they receive notices from.
Maybe some conservative venues with a good size audience will even post it on their web page. Make sure to mention that anyone can reproduce it in any manner as long as you are given attribution as the source. That would allow it to be used on venues that people have to pay to get to. It would also allow commercial venues to publish it (without paying you) but then I figure wide distribution and not money is what you seek.
Here are the updates I've made thanks to your comments...
When I get the last of the comments in from here, I'll post the final version for you folks.
Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton are lawyers, so your expectations of what the "legal" advice the Dim Senators got far exceeds the quality you should expect they actually got.
Did you even read the letter?
I read the letter. That's why I'm writing to the DoJ.
Oops, I think I replied to the wrong person there. Sorry 'bout that...
I agree with you Doc. All you mainly have to do is sketch out the facts and sign a valid name. What usually happens is a great complaint is made but it is anonymous, and thus easily ignored. This is extortion/criminal intimidation and may even work into a RICO action (like the pro-life people protesting abortion clinics, expressing their "free" (HA!) speech rights)
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.