The thing is, Obama's relationship with Ayers looks like it has been exaggerated. They have served on the same boards and been in the same places. As to a close friendship, Obama denies it and there is nothing that proves there is one.
^^ agreed....
However in my veiwpoint, any attempt to silence anyone smacks of brownshirt tactics....
If the ad has not broken any laws......then it has every right to be out there...
There are a lot of opinions we may not agree with, but that doesn't mean we silence them.
When the Bushies do it, there's outrage.....
If the FEC finds no irregularites with the non profit issue, then this ad is protected under the 1st ammendment.
All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.
I agree with you also.
Sen. Barack Obama has launched an all-out effort to block a Republican billionaire’s efforts to tie him to domestic and foreign terrorists in a wave of negative television ads.
Why shouldn't he do so?
As I understand it, 'free speech' sounds great, but there are definite limits to it. Stating, or implying somebody is a terrorist, or has terrorist affiliation surely cannot be protected under free speech if it is not true?
ssabmud
When somebody is trying to paint a presidential candidate, Dem or Republican, as a terrorist, and use footage of 9/11 to do it, then the candidate has every right to try and put the brakes on it.Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl
Didn't Obama announce his senate run from Ayers' house? I've heard that claim multiple times. If that's the case, then he has more than a passing acquaintance with Ayers.
The only limits to free speech are 1) libel/slander, 2) obscenity, and 3) incitement (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). Because Obama is a public figure, the threshold for libel (which might apply here) would be pretty high.
Obama camp: Prosecute Simmons
Obama general counsel Bob Bauer today sent a second, sharper letter to the Justice Department, directly attacking the Dallas billionaire funding a harsh attack ad, Harold Simmons.
"We reiterate our request that the Department of Justice fulfill its commitment to take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute the American issues Project, and we further request that the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute Howard (sic) Simmons for a knowing and willful violation of the individual aggregate contribution limits," he wrote.
He called the group's activities "patently illegal."
Bauer made the case that Simmons' group fulfilling its a real nonprofit charter because it hasn't spent any money on anything other than attacking Obama. Simmons' spokesman, Christian Pinkston, told me yesterday that plans to, and dismissed the complaints as an effort to lawyer away charges the campaign can't rebut.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Laura Sweeney, had no comment on the second letter.
It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution.
Rick Hasen has some more thoughts on the law, suggesting that Simmons, at worst, will face fines after it's too late to matter.
Ben Smith's Blog: Obama camp: Prosecute Simmons - Politico.com
All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.
did anybody sue the Swift Boat assholes?
I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.
So much for freedom of speech then.
A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have. ~Thomas Jefferson
So the 527s who did that with Bush in 2004 were wrong, in your opinion?
A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have. ~Thomas Jefferson
Once again, this isn't about freedom of spreech. And I wish people would stop thinking that freedom of speech means you have a free ride to say whatever you please, no matter how offensive or crazy, because that's not what it's intended for. If it were, then people couldn't be sued for libel or slander, or fired from jobs if they say something offensive. Freedom of speech has it boundaries.
Anybody who exploits 9/11 to discredit ANY politician is wrong, even if that politician is Bush.
Here's the ad u guys are talking about - its disgusting but I doubt its illegal (unfortunately)
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY[/YOUTUBE]
Unbelievable. But you know McCain supports it, no matter what the ad says, otherwise he would have put a stop to it before it even got aired.
Thank you for your honesty. The boundaries, however, to free speech are such to not endanger the lives of others, which is why you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Freedom of expression is covered under the first amendment, so as objectionable as some may find the 9-11 footage, it is within the rights of the individual to use it.
Well... unless its within 90 days of the election. Then you can't say shit. Thank you John McCain for that assault on the first amendment called Campaign Finance Reform.
A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have. ~Thomas Jefferson
Ayers is a complicated figure: professor and adviser to the mayor of Chicago despite not having repented his past as a domestic terrorist with the Weather Underground
WTF, people get their weather reports from a terrorist organization?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks