Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
(Not directly a response to RB, just to the situation: )
The horrible incident on politics yesterday? Good gawd, it was RT, not the most unreasonable or reactionary type, and she made a quick judgment call. It was an arguable call, but it WAS arguable. BFD. Move on.org.
|
It was RT, acting under pressure from people who were hardcore Bush supporters, invoking a federal criminal statute that clearly did not apply to the post, in order to force the editing or deletion of something because it offended them.
RT presented the poster with the choice of toning down em's post or she would delete it. It was not arguabl at all. The most cursory reading of the statute at issue, 18 USC 871, establishes that the post was not in violation of the statute, nevertheless, one or more posters took the position that it was in order to intimidate the editing of the post for the simple reason that the speech offended them.
I don't believe that RT's call was arguable. I also don't believe she had any bad faith motive in making the call. Nevertheless, if we as lawyers are going to allow our speech to be chilled for political expediency, that would seem to mean the general public is pretty well fucked, wouldn't it?
Just because it isn't your ox getting gored (no pun intended) doesn't mean that it was no big deal Bilmore.
