Comments on: Criminalizing Speech http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/06/28/criminalizing-speech/ Politics, Sports and Pop Culture Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:24:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: upstater http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/06/28/criminalizing-speech/#comment-1968 upstater Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:13:01 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=1372#comment-1968 Will? Your words about all this were pretty strong....I'm just trying to get a little more background to flesh this whole issue out. Any help? SCRG was asked to provide a donor list or somesuch, right? Does that have anything to do with the Supreme Court ruling? Will?

Your words about all this were pretty strong….I’m just trying to get a little more background to flesh this whole issue out. Any help? SCRG was asked to provide a donor list or somesuch, right? Does that have anything to do with the Supreme Court ruling?

]]> By: upstater http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/06/28/criminalizing-speech/#comment-1967 upstater Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:11:30 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=1372#comment-1967 Will? Any help with this? Does the Supreme Court ruling speak to the SCRG situation or not? Was Bill Cotty or the SC Ethics Commission in violation of the Constitution? Will? Any help with this?

Does the Supreme Court ruling speak to the SCRG situation or not? Was Bill Cotty or the SC Ethics Commission in violation of the Constitution?

]]> By: upstater http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/06/28/criminalizing-speech/#comment-1965 upstater Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:20:36 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=1372#comment-1965 I want to make sure I understand the significance of this ruling. Maybe I'm off-base, and if so then I'd like to know, but I thought the SC Ethics Commission stance regarding SCRG was that they had to reveal the names of donors to come under the proper rules for political ads or campaign mail. Does the Supreme Court ruling actually deal with such rules? Or are we talking about two different things? Again, I may not have all the facts squared away on this one, but I'm not entirely sure either that this ruling has much to do with the SCRG business. I want to make sure I understand the significance of this ruling. Maybe I’m off-base, and if so then I’d like to know, but I thought the SC Ethics Commission stance regarding SCRG was that they had to reveal the names of donors to come under the proper rules for political ads or campaign mail. Does the Supreme Court ruling actually deal with such rules? Or are we talking about two different things?

Again, I may not have all the facts squared away on this one, but I’m not entirely sure either that this ruling has much to do with the SCRG business.

]]> By: Newspaper Hack http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/06/28/criminalizing-speech/#comment-1964 Newspaper Hack Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:57:36 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=1372#comment-1964 Touche, sir. Touche, sir.

]]> By: FITSNews http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/06/28/criminalizing-speech/#comment-1966 FITSNews Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:44:33 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=1372#comment-1966 NH- Although we found our clarity awhile back, far be it from us to deny bong hits to anybody - Jesus included. We thought the court's ruling was wrong on that case, but let's keep our eyes on the prize. Losing that was like giving up a field goal when you're up by ten touchdowns. -FITSNews NH-

Although we found our clarity awhile back, far be it from us to deny bong hits to anybody – Jesus included. We thought the court’s ruling was wrong on that case, but let’s keep our eyes on the prize. Losing that was like giving up a field goal when you’re up by ten touchdowns.

-FITSNews

]]> By: Newspaper Hack http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/06/28/criminalizing-speech/#comment-1962 Newspaper Hack Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:52:09 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=1372#comment-1962 Seriously – <i>The State</i> isn't even close to being liberal, much less socialist. But, given the internecine junior high behavior of S.C. conservatives (eg. "You're not a Republican!" "No, you're not a Republican!" "Doody head!"), I shouldn't be surprised by this classification. And while you're fellating the Court on this ruling, don't forget they ruled with the censors on "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Because, if satire is allowed in the public schools, the terrorists win. Seriously – The State isn’t even close to being liberal, much less socialist. But, given the internecine junior high behavior of S.C. conservatives (eg. “You’re not a Republican!” “No, you’re not a Republican!” “Doody head!”), I shouldn’t be surprised by this classification.

And while you’re fellating the Court on this ruling, don’t forget they ruled with the censors on “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Because, if satire is allowed in the public schools, the terrorists win.

]]> By: b/e/l/i/e/v/e/i/t/n/o/t/n/e/w/s http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/06/28/criminalizing-speech/#comment-1963 b/e/l/i/e/v/e/i/t/n/o/t/n/e/w/s Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:55:16 +0000 http://69.89.31.161/~fitsnews/?p=1372#comment-1963 Crackspots who have been in big trouble: Rush L.- drugs and fired by pro football for racist remarks Bill O. - sexual harassment - he paid her off for the tapes Will Folks - DUI, CDV and fired by the governor - what next? Will, do you have a TRav problem? Just wondering because reliable sources have told us the authorities may not be through looking into things. After all, you are "good friends" and he is a "former client" - well sort of by proxy. And you do lose your temper so easily. Crackspots who have been in big trouble:
Rush L.- drugs and fired by pro football for racist remarks
Bill O. – sexual harassment – he paid her off for the tapes
Will Folks – DUI, CDV and fired by the governor – what next?

Will, do you have a TRav problem? Just wondering because reliable sources have told us the authorities may not be through looking into things. After all, you are “good friends” and he is a “former client” – well sort of by proxy. And you do lose your temper so easily.

]]>