CBS News

Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) Let’s bail out the USPS

 0
WaPo

Ex-U.S. official and wife admit 30 years of spying for Cuba

0
Zogby

North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up

0
SF Chron

Bay Area not maverick enough to read Palin book

 0
KDVR

Anti-Obama billboard stirs controversy

0
All Headlines »

  • Audacity of Truth

    Sister Toldjah's Obama Files

    46 Handshakes, 1 Bow:

    - via UConn Republicans, 11/15/09

  • Obama Links

  • Twitter

  • Day by Day

  • Categories

  • Archives

 

Are the DNC threatening to sue the Free Republic?

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on May 13, 2007 at 9:38 am

Via Scott Johnson at Powerline:

A Free Republic poster writes that he’s a regular reader who enjoys our views on a variety of issues. He writes that he’s enjoyed our posts in which we use our skills as lawyers to weigh in on legal issues. He draws our attention to the cease-and-desist letter from an attorney representing the DNC to Free Republic. He asks whether the letter’s threat of of a defamation claim is bona bide or not. In my view, the letter is sheer thuggery that recalls the same maneuever made on behalf of John Kerry in the 2004 campaign.

Make sure to read it all.

Sound familiar?

In: Law/Judiciary | Email This Post | Print This

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • BitsBlog » Scott Johnson to DNC: Sue us

    • 5 Responses to “Are the DNC threatening to sue the Free Republic?”

    Comments

    1. Jack Deth says:
      May 13, 2007 at 10:42 am

      Hi, ST! \:d/

      Of course, lots of people are weighing in at the FReep
      on this topic, myself included. :d

      The general consensus is “Bring It!” =))=))=))

      Jim Robinson is not one to mess with, and as I understand it, Powerline has already sent a missive to Mr. Sanders, Esq. expressing that same sentiment.

      My guess is that the DNC :-@:-@:-@ and its mindless lackies will fold ;));));)) after this check and raise. :((

      Time for ~o)

      Jack.

    2. Bachbone says:
      May 13, 2007 at 2:52 pm

      This tells us exactly who is running the DNC: Bubba and St. Hillary. During all their troubles while co-presidents, they used surrogates (e.g., lawyers, private detectives, thugs) to attack and intimidate opponents. Remember Kathleen Willey’s cat disappearing, her tires being slashed, and her encounter with a mafioso type while jogging? And anonymous phone calls to Clinton Arkansan paramours telling them to keep silent lest their faces get messed up? Were I the Freep, I’d take it seriously, watch my back and hire a defensive team.

    3. Mwalimu Daudi says:
      May 13, 2007 at 10:44 pm

      I agree with Bachbone. The Constitution is clearly on the side of Free Republic, but the Clintons are not known as the dirtiest campaigners in American history for nothing. And since when has our imperial judiciary even read the Constitution, much less take it seriously?

      RICO laws, “campaign finance reform”, the “Fairness Doctrine”, campus speech codes, “hate crime” legislation – all have been used or threatened against conservative groups that happen to annoy Democrats. And you can be sure that the MSM will do the Democrats’ dirty work for them if push comes to shove.

      Off-topic, but not by a lot – it seems that al Qaeda wants to coordinate its attackes in order to aid Democrats.

      Key quote:

      Mohamad al-Janabi, a reputed al-Qaeda member in the nearby city of Salman Pak, said in a interview that he was unable to contact his comrades in Mahmudiyah to determine whether they were responsible for the attack.
      But he added: “I can assure you that we will start pressuring Bush in a new way at the same time he is facing pressures from the Democrats and the American people. And there will be no problem to sacrifice 10 soldiers in order to abduct a single American soldier and get him on television screens begging for us to release him.”

      Don’t expect the MSM to give this a lot of play in their propaganda organs.

    4. Dana says:
      May 13, 2007 at 10:47 pm

      It seems that to our friends on the left, freedom of speech means that you have the freedom to say things with which they agree.

      Uberleftist Rob Kall, who runs OpEdNews, posted an article in which he said that cable news didn’t cover the news the way he thought it should be covered (at the time, they were doing Anna Nicole Smith almost 24/7) and that the power of government should be used to force the media to cover the news differently:

      We need rules that require that the media must spread news coverage over a wider range of stories, that it is not acceptable to invest 70%, 80% or more of the day, using the public’s airwaves, covering just Anna Marie Simpson, Michael Jackson, the latest kidnapped or lost child, or the latest murder case.

      Mr Kall is, as it happens, on the “Impeach BushCo” far, far left. But if you think he is alone, I had serious commenters on two rather lengthy comment threads (here and here) defending the notion that the government should exercise control over the media to make sure that they present the truth — as they would define the truth, of course!

      Our friends on the left are serious: they want to exercise their freedom of speech, certainly enough, but want to control the media to support what they believe to be true, and squelch media independence if the things they believe are not presented in the way they like.