Obama Campaign trying to muzzle criticism

[Astor]

  GarfieldJL said:

Are you making an accusation that the Governor of Missouri is lieing?

 

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

 

You started the thread, with a point (supposedly) to prove, so the burden is on you to prove this point - you can't shift it to others.

[GarfieldJL]

  Astor_Kaine said:

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

 

You started the thread, with a point (supposedly) to prove, so the burden is on you to prove this point - you can't shift it to others.

 

No, I've pointed out that the Governor of Missouri has issued a statement over this, the fact they are television ads, and Yar'El posted one of the ads that Obama's cronies are going after using their government positions.

 

The Governor wouldn't be out there speaking just to be speaking for the fun of it.

 

So I think I've proven my case, and your implying that there is nothing going on is quite frankly calling the Governor of Missouri a liar.

[Astor]

  GarfieldJL said:

So I think I've proven my case, and your implying that there is nothing going on is quite frankly calling the Governor of Missouri a liar.

 

I'll ring him and apologise, then.

 

I haven't said there's nothing going on, but i'm not going to blindly believe what i'm told.

 

Also, we've already pointed out that the Governor, by virtue of being in an opposing party, isn't exactly going to be on the best of terms with Sen. Obama in the first place.

[GarfieldJL]

As we've also pointed out that the Prosecutors and Sheriffs in question are Democrats, hence also raising the issue that the entire situation is political in nature.

[Jae Onasi]

  GarfieldJL said:

As we've also pointed out that the Prosecutors and Sheriffs in question are Democrats, hence also raising the issue that the entire situation is political in nature.

 

Their political affiliation is irrelevant--if Obama's team brings a suit, these guys are required to do their jobs according to the law, regardless of whether Obama is the same party or not.

[GarfieldJL]

  Jae Onasi said:

Their political affiliation is irrelevant--if Obama's team brings a suit, these guys are required to do their jobs according to the law, regardless of whether Obama is the same party or not.

 

Obama is having them use their political positions to sue in a manner that Obama doesn't have to pay a dime for the lawsuit. In order for a lawsuit of that nature to go forward it has to be by a warrant issued by a Judge. Otherwise, it's a civil case in which the Prosecutors and Sheriffs have absolutely no jurisdiction. Since we're looking at neither, they are overstepping their authority.

[Inyri]

I assume you have an unbiased source claiming Obama put them up to this.

[mimartin]

Cease and Desist Order

Can only be issued by a judge!

 

In Texas it is delivered by Sherriff’s department in the same matter as any other suit including divorce.

[GarfieldJL]

  mimartin said:

Cease and Desist Order

Can only be issued by a judge!

 

In Texas it is delivered by Sherriff’s department in the same matter as any other suit including divorce.

 

However it can be prone to abuse as well like it is in this case:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

 

  Quote

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.

 

According to New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined." A number of jurisdictions have made such suits illegal, provided that the appropriate standards of journalistic responsibility have been met by the critic.

 

Anyways I've just seen another story:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html

 

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/wgnam_again_target_of_obama_ca.html?rfdid=4855739

 

http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-thugs-threatening-free-speech.html

 

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/024910.php

 

Seriously this reminds me of tactics used by a dictatorship to style opposition.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2069398/posts

 

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/29791094.html

[El Sitherino]

  Quote

A team of Obama-supporting prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri is preparing to pursue legal challenges to any presidential campaign ads deemed to be false or misleading.

 

Ever hear of the Truth in Advertising Act? That's right.

[GarfieldJL]

  El Sitherino said:

Ever hear of the Truth in Advertising Act? That's right.

 

Yup, problem with that argument is that in this case there is enough information to back up the advertisements.

 

Additionally you ever hear of the Hatch Act, that's what this situation falls under.

[El Sitherino]

  GarfieldJL said:

Yup, problem with that argument is that in this case there is enough information to back up the advertisements.

l didn't really pay attention, what are these politico ads proclaiming?

[GarfieldJL]

  El Sitherino said:

l didn't really pay attention, what are these politico ads proclaiming?

 

It's basically any ads going after Obama on his statements, voting records, associations, etc. It's any bumper sticker etc.

 

You speak out against Obama in Missouri, basically if you speak out against Obama in Missouri and some other states you get arrested or sued.

[mimartin]

  GarfieldJL said:

It's basically any ads going after Obama on his statements, voting records, associations, etc. It's any bumper sticker etc.

 

You speak out against Obama in Missouri, basically if you speak out against Obama in Missouri and some other states you get arrested or sued.

 

Stretching the facts again?

 

El Sitherino check out ET Warriors post for the unbiased details.

  ET Warrior said:

Fact Check: Obama and guns

[El Sitherino]

  GarfieldJL said:

It's basically any ads going after Obama on his statements, voting records, associations, etc. It's any bumper sticker etc.

 

You speak out against Obama in Missouri, basically if you speak out against Obama in Missouri and some other states you get arrested or sued.

 

Or is that just the summary in a highly spun fashion? As far as I can tell (which isn't much considering A. I don't care B. All your sources are ridiculous and biggoted), the Obama campaign is removing ads that spread untruths about Obama's stance (which has been shown not to be his stance) on guns and people who threaten the integrity of the entire situation.

 

And yeah, McCain tried to have those swiftboat ads removed when he was running for the Republican nominee in 2000. Lately I don't know, but then again Obama has well cited ads that protest McCain's policy and ideals.

 

But you can continue to believe FoxNews and what not are the underdog news service. But considering NewsCorp owns half the media of the western hemisphere I'm willing to bet Fox News is quite possibly the mainstreamiest of mainstream news. On top of that I'm fairly certain they own stock in MSNBC which you also seem to have a thing against.

 

 

And before it comes up, I don't like CNN or any of that ****. CSpan represent.

[Jae Onasi]

Foxnews isn't the underdog anymore--they have more market share than CNBC and MSNBC, and I think CNN.

[jrrtoken]

  Jae Onasi said:

Foxnews isn't the underdog anymore--they have more market share than CNBC and MSNBC, and I think CNN.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Fox News is now Emperor Murdoch's Death Star.

[GarfieldJL]

  Jae Onasi said:

Foxnews isn't the underdog anymore--they have more market share than CNBC and MSNBC, and I think CNN.

 

They stopped being the underdog when everyone else lost all credibility. That and the Democrat Primary hurt the other networks badly.

 

  Quote

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Fox News is now Emperor Murdoch's Death Star.

 

Fox News is the perfect cross between the Ebon Hawk and the Millenium Falcon.

 

 

  Quote

Or is that just the summary in a highly spun fashion? As far as I can tell (which isn't much considering A. I don't care B. All your sources are ridiculous and biggoted), the Obama campaign is removing ads that spread untruths about Obama's stance (which has been shown not to be his stance) on guns and people who threaten the integrity of the entire situation.

 

Don't give me that song and dance routine, the Missouri government's own webpage isn't bigoted. And calling everyone that is a conservative a bigot and/or untruthful is quite frankly insulting.

[Tommycat]

Actually Garfield has a point(kindof). The stations are not responsible for the truthfulness of the ads. It is not their place to fact check advertisements. Advertisements are paid for by an outside source, and in fact the station could get in trouble for NOT airing an ad that has been paid for. Look at how many ads there are for "Make a man larger" or "Make huge gobs of cash in minutes" and you may start to understand that the legality of suing the stations is questionable. If I had huge gobs of money available, I could blanket the airways with thousands of ads claiming that Obama rapes goats, and the station would have to air it. I would of course open myself up to legal action.

[Inyri]

  GarfieldJL said:

Fox News is the perfect cross between the Ebon Hawk and the Millenium Falcon.

Fox News was designed for dealing in contraband?

[Tommycat]

  Inyri said:

Fox News was designed for dealing in contraband?

 

OR you could say it's fast, but has a tendancy to not work very well.

[Corinthian]

It looks bad, but it's actually a pretty good ship?

 

Seriously, Garfield, this is hardly unreasonable action. Do I like what he's doing? Not really, but it's perfectly reasonable and legal. Let it go.

[Jae Onasi]

  Tommycat said:

Actually Garfield has a point(kindof). The stations are not responsible for the truthfulness of the ads. It is not their place to fact check advertisements. Advertisements are paid for by an outside source, and in fact the station could get in trouble for NOT airing an ad that has been paid for.

Radio stations can choose not to air certain ads like the bigger-better-faster types, but I heard on WISN this afternoon that if a political candidate pays for advertising in a campaign, they're required to air those ads, regardless of whether they agree with those ads or not. I don't know if that's a Fed law or only WI and radio only or all media--I'm thinking it's a Fed and all-media thing.

[Tommycat]

  Jae Onasi said:

Radio stations can choose not to air certain ads like the bigger-better-faster types, but I heard on WISN this afternoon that if a political candidate pays for advertising in a campaign, they're required to air those ads, regardless of whether they agree with those ads or not. I don't know if that's a Fed law or only WI and radio only or all media--I'm thinking it's a Fed and all-media thing.

 

Well I'm not sure, but from what I understand political ads are governed by different rules. My ex worked for a radio station for a while, and I got a chance to grill their ad sales guy. If they sell time to an advertiser, they are required to play that ad. They also can't play a competing company's ad right after(can't play a Wendy's ad after McDonalds for example), or they get in big trouble. There are all kinds of regulations regarding political ads too. But they aren't allowed NOT to play a political ad, once they have sold them that ad space. It's in some FCC rules, so yeah it's federal. Something about publicly transmitted air signals. I didn't get into the deep down specifics like what part or section(I was making small talk) but that's what I had gathered from them.

 

Obama may not even be trying to get the ads pulled. He may be doing this to have it known that he disagreed with the ad without being too specific about what in the ad was not true. That way it is assumed the whole ad is false rather than specific parts.

[GarfieldJL]

  Jae Onasi said:

Radio stations can choose not to air certain ads like the bigger-better-faster types, but I heard on WISN this afternoon that if a political candidate pays for advertising in a campaign, they're required to air those ads, regardless of whether they agree with those ads or not. I don't know if that's a Fed law or only WI and radio only or all media--I'm thinking it's a Fed and all-media thing.

 

Not sure I'd have to look it up, I do believe it is Federal Law because it would mean that a media organization would be trying to use their position to supress free speech in order to get someone elected.

 

The Obama Campaign however seems to have a tendency to ignore any law that doesn't benefit them. There is hopefully going to be a Federal Investigation into Obama's connections with ACORN, since they've been tied to voter fraud in over 10 states, and the Obama Campaign is financially tied to them.

 

  Quote

Obama may not even be trying to get the ads pulled. He may be doing this to have it known that he disagreed with the ad without being too specific about what in the ad was not true. That way it is assumed the whole ad is false rather than specific parts.

 

Since people have been arrested over bumper stickers and media outlets have been threatened I'm going to go out on a limb and say that odds are Obama is afraid of the ads because they are telling the truth.

 

And Fox News is now reporting on this.

Brit Hume in the beginnings of the Opinion segment of Special Report: (2nd story)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430323,00.html

 

Additional Sourcing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEFqIqoGJ_A&eurl=http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/1st-amendment-attack-video-update-of-missouri-governor/

 

Looks like only one Media outlet stands for the people and it sure as heck isn't one of the "Mainstream Media".

 

Video includes an interview with the Governor of Missouri.

 

Based on people's research here: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/is-this-1984-missouri-public-officials-join-obamas-truth-squad/

 

If Obama's campaign is involved they are in deep trouble: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html