"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque is being funded."
A companion of late Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith can sue an author for defamation but not over gay sex claims because homosexuality is no longer viewed as contemptible, a U.S. judge said on Wednesday.
Stern claimed the book, which was published six months after Smith's death, contained 19 libelous statements, including that he had engaged in oral sex at a Los Angeles party with Larry Birkhead, the father of Smith's child, and that Smith had later called Stern gay.
U.S. District Judge Denny Chin ruled the defamation case could proceed on 11 of the statements.
Chin dismissed Stern's claims that statements implying he was homosexual were defamatory
When protesters from the left — environmentalists, labor unions, the pro-choice lobby, civil rights advocates, health care reform advocates, anti-war activists, you name it — take to the streets, disrupt speeches or public meetings or shout down speakers, it's hailed as political activism and noble expressions of dissent. Most of the time, those protests are cloaked in the most noble of terms: "Speaking truth to power."We have the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives - the Speaker of the House and the Democratic Majority Leader - calling dissent "Un-American" in a guest column in a national newspaper.
But when protesters from the right — TEA party organizers, the pro-life lobby, gun owners, veterans groups, fiscal conservatives, capitalists, free marketers and anti-immigration groups — take to the streets, disrupt speeches, or shout down speakers, they are tarred by the federal government as right-wing extremists and it is suggested that their ideas are subversive in nature.
Moveon.org is billed as "Democracy in action."
But the National Taxpayers Union and similar organizations are part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy."
It's disingenuous in the extreme for the Obama administration to complain about organized opposition to some of his initiatives — not while the administration itself is a well-oiled public relations machine churning out an electronic torrent of e-mails, tweets and other digital information designed to sway the public toward supporting its goals or opposing those who questions them.
"The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it," Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday.What would our Founding Fathers think?
"There's also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can't try to rewrite history by pretending it didn't receive anything," he said.
"If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute."
Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In a major victory for free speech, U.S. District Judge Stephan Mickle today issued an opinion striking down Florida’s “electioneering communications” law—the broadest regulation of political speech in the nation. The ruling frees community groups and educational non-profits across Florida and the nation to speak about candidates and issues on the Florida ballot without registering with the government and navigating bureaucratic red tape.
“This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment right to speak about politics without the government getting in the way,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Bert Gall. “Florida’s law put everyday political speech under the thumb of campaign finance bureaucrats. But with today’s ruling, all Floridians—not just political insiders—can now discuss important political issues without fear of being punished or forced to submit to onerous regulations.”
Just before last November’s election, Judge Mickle issued a preliminary injunction preventing Florida from enforcing the law, noting that “no court has ever upheld such a sweeping regulation of political speech.” Today’s decision permanently halts the law’s enforcement.
In today’s ruling Judge Mickle wrote, “While it is true that the legislature has the power to regulate elections, it does not have the power to regulate purely political discussions about elections.”
Under Florida’s “electioneering communications” law, any group of people that simply mentioned a candidate or a ballot issue in a public newsletter or on a website had to register with the government and report all of its spending and donors, even those who never intended their gift to go towards political speech. Groups that failed to comply faced fines and possible jail time for their speech. Individuals were also subject to burdensome reporting requirements if they spent just $100 of their own money to speak.
Florida’s law was passed after the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2003 McConnell ruling upheld the federal “electioneering communications” ban in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or McCain-Feingold. But Florida regulated far more speech in more forums by more speakers than the federal law, which is again before the High Court this term in the Citizens United case.
“Florida’s political speech ban was a classic example of a bad idea at the federal level morphing into an even worse idea in the states—and of how speech regulation leads to more speech regulation,” said Gall. “Hopefully, this ruling will reverse that trend as more courts take seriously the threat to First Amendment rights posed by campaign finance regulation.”
“These four individuals have demonstrated experience, integrity, fairness and a commitment to the Mississippi values the Republican Party supports,” said Republican Chairman Brad White.
In the Central District, the Republican Party endorsed Chief Justice Jim Smith for reelection. “As Chief Justice, Jim Smith has led the Supreme Court to timely hearings and has cleared judicial backlogs. With a proven record of fair leadership as Chief Justice, we endorse him for reelection.”
The GOP endorsed Chancery Judge Randy “Bubba” Pierce for the Southern District post currently held by Oliver Diaz. White said, “Judge Pierce represented his constituents with honor and integrity as Chairman of the Education Committee in the House of Representatives. The Democrats there started giving him the cold shoulder when he showed his independence and voted with his fellow conservatives for tort reform. And after being appointed by Governor Haley Barbour to the judiciary, Judge Pierce continues to demonstrate fairness, integrity, and a commitment to Mississippi values.”
“When Governor Barbour appointed Ann Lamar to the Supreme Court, he made a wise choice,” White said of the Republican’s endorsement in the Northern District, Place One. He continued, “As a prosecutor, Ann Lamar put criminals in jail. As a circuit judge she demonstrated fairness to all parties. Now she serves with distinction as the only woman on the Mississippi Supreme Court, and with her decisions she demonstrates integrity and a commitment to being fair and unbiased.”
For Post Two in the Northern District, the Mississippi GOP chose Appeals Court Justice David Chandler over the incumbent Chuck Easley. “There is no question, no doubt that David Chandler will make a better Supreme Court Justice than has Chuck Easley. Chandler’s professionalism and competence outshines Easley’s record in every respect,” White said.
In 1998, the Mississippi legislature changed election laws to require judicial candidates to be nonpartisan. In 2002, the federal court ruled in response to a case filed by the Mississippi Republican Party “that a state may not directly suppress core political speech of a political party concerning the merits of judicial candidates by prohibiting the party from endorsing or financially supporting judicial candidates.”
“Ever since the federal courts returned our freedom of political speech, the Mississippi Republican Party has made endorsements of judicial candidates. We will communicate our endorsements to Mississippians and encourage voters who agree with the principals of the Mississippi Republican Party to support and vote for these candidates,” White said.
