That is why I stand by what I said this isn’t about free speech. I never said he had no right to put this face book poll up. I said it was about the safety of the President.

That's where I fall off again, because it seems inconsistent. Unless what you are saying is "whether or not it is protected speech, the subject we ought to be talking about is hatemongering and its impact on society" — a perfectly reasonable argument — rather than "the question of whether he should be able to do it or not isn't about free speech" — which is not a reasonable argument.

Through deregulation, there has been a rise of a monopolized takeover of free radio that allowed conservative talk radio to take over 98% percent of the market. It is a very influential tool. And a monopoly of one sided ideals can kill democracy for which our country was founded on.

Disclaimer: I think most talk radio figures are bombastic, dishonest morons. But I don't buy the "monopoly" argument. Are right-wing forces doing things to chase left-wing radio off of the airwaves? What, exactly, is the barrier to left-wing voices becoming popular, and therefore growing in scope? What's the proof that it's something other than (1) left-wing efforts have sucked or (2) left-wingers are culturally less interested in radio, or in that style of communication? [A left-winger might say "or (3) left-wingers are too smart to listen to talk radio."]

From my investigation, I have found they systematically persecuted the word liberal, progressive, and democrat to create an enemy that would politically benefit their power and agenda. And they were able to dominate the narrative. I have had enough of their mouthing off. I invite their marionettes (opinion) to mouth off so that I can challenge them. But if they continue to bring arguments forward influenced by this right wing fringe without bothering to consider my arguments, why should I give them any respect?

No, I never came into your blog to persecute you.

I know you aren't persecuting me. I was making fun of the use of the word. See, I'm just not getting "persecute," unless there is an unbecoming indulgence in drama here. I will accept the proposition that talk radio folks are relentless dishonest assholes who demean the national discourse. But I think throwing "persecute" around encourages victimology by liberals — exactly the sort of victimology that has generally led them to mope around and take it in the ass for the last three decades or so. I don't have a lot of respect for that. I most especially don't have respect for it when people try to tell me that left-wing blogs are being persecuted when right-wingers leave mean comments on them. My response to that is MAN UP, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. You know who I'd have respect for? Liberals who reclaimed the word "liberal" the way gays reclaimed "queer." I mean, JESUS CHRIST. Do you think Thoroughgood Marshall would have referred to blog posts as persecution?

After reading your attempts to communicate with Laffy I understand your bitterness towards her but don’t judge her harshly.

I am not "bitter" at Laffy. I am mocking, and criticizing, Laffy's conduct and words in this particular instance. We mock, and criticize, a lot of things there. We are bitter about only some of them. This would not be one.

I apologize.

THat's kind, but really not necessary. You stated your point vigorously. That's fine.

First of all, I do believe in free speech. People have their rights to their opinions and should be free to express them. On this face book issue it wasn’t about the right to put up this poll nor was it about it being a true threat against the President. Whether intentionally or not, the poll fit within the climate of an ongoing campaign, by a powerful media group, to not only illegitimatize this President but to also drum of fear and exploit it that could put the President’s life in danger. I believe this could easily be proven by looking at the transcripts of these media groups and I think you know who I am talking about.

I don’t honestly know if the same threat if made against Bush would have been any more real or not. But, again, this fits within today’s campaign that is ongoing by the right to ferment hatred towards this President. You cannot prove there was a powerful media voice doing so against Bush. I think his presidency has more to do with that. With the rise of militia, hate, and anti-government groups there is little doubt that right wing media including the internet (e.g. newsmax) campaign is working. There has been a 400% rise in death threats against Obama. That is why I stand by what I said this isn’t about free speech. I never said he had no right to put this face book poll up. I said it was about the safety of the President.
“People who allow Limbaugh and others like him to influence their political views have been persecuting progressives (liberals, Democrats) for longer than eight years. They might not be bad people. But if they come into a progressive blog site touting their conservative righteousness they deserve no respect and no compromise for their opinions. And until they renounce these cranks I will consider them fools. Because, these cranks, have truly contributed to screwing up this country and its democracy.”
I should have stated that differently. Again I mistook what this sight was about. But let me justify that statement. Through deregulation, there has been a rise of a monopolized takeover of free radio that allowed conservative talk radio to take over 98% percent of the market. It is a very influential tool. And a monopoly of one sided ideals can kill democracy for which our country was founded on. I have listened to a lot of these right wing cranks (my opinion) over the years. (I even brought myself to read Mark Levin’s book). From my investigation, I have found they systematically persecuted the word liberal, progressive, and democrat to create an enemy that would politically benefit their power and agenda. And they were able to dominate the narrative. I have had enough of their mouthing off. I invite their marionettes (opinion) to mouth off so that I can challenge them. But if they continue to bring arguments forward influenced by this right wing fringe without bothering to consider my arguments, why should I give them any respect?

No, I never came into your blog to persecute you.

I believe Laffy was right, if she thought this was a threat, to bring this attention to the Secret Service… again, considering the climate that is being manufactured out there by the right. I think those face book examples of death threats against Bush was wrong. I certainly did not hang around people who wanted to see Bush assassinated. And if someone did, I would correct them, advocating murder is wrong. Seeing him impeached is the justice we seek. I can’t speak for Laffy on the question of would she turn in the face book threats against Bush. Again the environment is different. I can’t imagine her advocating assassination of any president.

After reading your attempts to communicate with Laffy I understand your bitterness towards her but don’t judge her harshly. Her blog got a little publicity and she got some nice recognition and no one was going to spoil it for her. I like her blog site and though, it certainly isn’t the only blog site I look at. I like it because they mix it up with humor and it is intimate enough that your comments don’t get lost among hundreds of other comments which make it a little more personal. I try to offer thought provoking comments but do from time to time go on a rant because I am righteously angry (opinion) and it’s actually is therapeutic.

And the last statement I made I was just trying to stick up for Laffy. She is a good person. Again, being ignorant to what this site is about there was no reason to make that statement. I apologize.

One last thing, I truly understand how people too far left can be like people to far right. I would say the people I associate with and listen to are the radical center.

Well, I’ll give it to you that you did pick and choose parts of my opinion and gave decent dissenting arguments. But this isn’t a court case and I’m not a lawyer.

Yeah, I hate it when I go to a legal blog run by lawbloggers, and find a post discussing a legal issue, and post a response to a legal question, and they insist on getting all legal with me.

Unfortunately you picked at areas of the comment that you could attack instead of understanding the essence of my whole comment.

Does that mean you won't reply to any of my arguments? Is "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" a valid First Amendment argument?

It sounds like you are more concerned with trying to come across as a wiser and more mature person and I never ever stated or considered anything about “higher traffic”. Gotcha.

Wisdom and maturity are rarely my goals when I write for fun. And the traffic thing is something that one of Laff's flying monkeys — I forgot which one – accused me of. What were you suggesting I was jealous of? Writing ability? Blog design? Love-notes from the Secret Service saying "you're the bestest tipster ever xxxooo?"

If a particular third-party application became a constant source of problems and nothing could be done to prevent them, we'd have to regretfully remove it. I don't know if polls reached that level for them. It seems to me that they nixed the app at a pretty low trouble threshold.

I'm not saying we'd be removing a trouble-magnet app out of political affiliation or even necessarily legal obligation. It's the "more trouble than it's worth" principle, unfortunately. Facebook probably operates with a similar rule.

We haven't had to remove any applications for that sort of reason yet. So far, our approach of removing the troublemakers instead of the technology they use to express their odious personalities has worked well enough.

Unfortunately you picked at areas of the comment that you could attack instead of understanding the essence of my whole comment.

"Shut up, Ken", Mr. jefdongar explained.

Ken rationally explained why he disagreed with you. Then you just whine about it ("you didn't understand the essence/je ne se qwah/bullshit of my, blah, blah, blah"), and personally attack him. Awesome. I can't wait to make someone like you the Free Speech czar, to tell us all what we can and can't say. I'm sure you'll be reasonable.

I think there is a very big difference when talking about threats against Obama and Bush.

I want to make sure I don't misrepresent you, jefdongar, so let me ask you: do you think that poll is a true threat if it addresses Obama, but would not have been a true threat in, say, 2006 if it addressed Bush?

Do you believe that certain expressions should be criminal if directed at your favored politician, but legal if directed at other people's favored politician?

But the difference here with Obama’s threats is that it isn’t just about this face book issue.

As a matter of the political meaning of the post, it might not be. But as a matter of law — on the question of whether or not speech can be criminalized — it is just about this context.

Again, unless you can find me authority for the proposition that it is legal to say certain things about one President but not about another President.

Any type of public exposure suggesting killing President Obama should be taken seriously. It has nothing to do about free speech.

"It has nothing to do with free speech" is the classic argument of a censor with no legal leg upon which to stand. It's used by people who want to ban flag burning, anti-war protests, pornography, and "cyber-bullying." It's not an argument that finds any support in American law. Aren't you in favor of the rule of law?

People who allow Limbaugh and others like him to influence their political views have been persecuting progressives (liberals, Democrats) for longer than eight years. They might not be bad people. But if they come into a progressive blog site touting their conservative righteousness they deserve no respect and no compromise for their opinions. And until they renounce these cranks I will consider them fools. Because, these cranks, have truly contributed to screwing up this country and its democracy.

Can you explain what you mean by "persecuting"? Because it sounds kind of like "vigorously disagreeing with." Do you see people with opposing views coming onto a blog as being persecutors? Are you persecuting me?

You might — or might not — be surprised at how often I agree with your evaluation of the quality of arguments from Limbaugh and his ilk. But I have very little patience to "help help I'm being oppressed" complains about speech.

I for one, think Laffy did the right thing.

Okay. Do you think Laffy would report, or write about, similar Facebook posts about Bush?

Like these?

Can you explain a principled basis to conclude those are different?

I could accuse you of being a little jealous but I don’t know you but I will say all our egos need to be checked from time to time.

I find the whole "if you criticize a blogger with higher traffic, you must be jealous" notion to be hilariously junior-high. [Assuming she does have higher traffic. I really have no idea, and don't care.]

John Dean, whom I have great respect for and who was a Republican at one time, said I never changed my values and what I stand for, my party changed. The Republican Party as long ago been taken over by a fringe element that is anti-American. The “Reagan Revolution” opened the door for the fascist element in our society to gain great power through consolidated wealth and placing key figures in politics, business, and religion.

Consider this same element created a campaign to ferment anger and hatred towards JFK, with even putting a full page add in the Dallas Newspaper accusing the President of being a communist sympathizer on the morning of his assassination. Any type of public exposure suggesting killing President Obama should be taken seriously. It has nothing to do about free speech.

People who allow Limbaugh and others like him to influence their political views have been persecuting progressives (liberals, Democrats) for longer than eight years. They might not be bad people. But if they come into a progressive blog site touting their conservative righteousness they deserve no respect and no compromise for their opinions. And until they renounce these cranks I will consider them fools. Because, these cranks, have truly contributed to screwing up this country and its democracy.

I have been a loyal reader of the Political Carnival Blog for a while now. Don’t judge it on one incident that you disagree with. I for one, think Laffy did the right thing. And she did deserve the attention. I could accuse you of being a little jealous but I don’t know you but I will say all our egos need to be checked from time to time. What I do no is the threat of this country becoming a fascist state has and will always be a bigger threat than it becoming a socialist state.

There is simply no meaningful analogy between opinions and false factual claims. "I think Obama should be killed." is in no way analogous to "Run for your lives, the theater is on fire."

Even people who believe the speech in question here should be illegal would not argue that it's because it's like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If they did, arguing that it's a call for imminent action before any chance for reflection, they would simply be wrong.

The same pattern of "delete, warn, ban if repeated" applies to the "Kill Bush" groups or to a "Should Paul Reubens Be Lynched?" group. The problem is, I'm probably only going to see them if a user brings them to my attention.