The Obligatory Readings of the Day

Yeah, quoting people's own words back at them is 'hate speech'. At least, it is to the left.

So how much of an authoritarian are you? Do you believe what Bill Donohue said is 'illegal', as your third link claims it is? And how do you reconcile that with that whole First Amendment thang?

Threats of violence are illegal.

Using a non-profit organization as a platform to interfere with a campaign is illegal.

If you have read Amanda's posts (she re-linked to them once Pandagon wnet up again), there is no hate speech there. But there is plenty in what Donohue says, and even more in what she got in her e-mails (which you can also read on Pandagon).

Threats of violence are illegal.

If they're specific and realistic, yes. Do feel free to quote same.

Using a non-profit organization as a platform to interfere with a campaign is illegal.

Hmmm. Got a statute in mind?

If you have read Amanda's posts (she re-linked to them once Pandagon wnet up again), there is no hate speech there.

I really don't care if there is, or not. That's the difference between us. I will fight for Amanda Marcotte's right to write silly obscene abuse directed at myself.

The specific laws and statutes are cited and explained in various links I posted here over the past week. Inks are integral parts of posts and need to be checked out before commenting.

I didn't think so.

That's right Gerald. You didn't think. If you did you would flog yourself and beg forgiveness for all your sins from coturnix.

Yawn. You act like these kinds of treats are unusual coming either from the left or right. When I was writing for a conservative/libertarian campus paper and involved in related activism in a very liberal college town, we used to get a couple a semester. A couple were even fairly specific and credible - one guy treated to to kick my head in while screaming in my face. I asked him it he considered his treat specific and credible, which shut him up good - my favorite strategy for dealing with treats, since the person either has to acknowledge they're full of shit or admit that they've just done something illegal.

If you comment in a way that courts controversy and you're not getting death threats, that means you're not being read.

I'm no fan of Donohue or the Catholic league because they engage in the same kind of victimology that the left likes to do. However, in this partiular case, I have yet to see anything he wrote that would qualify as "reckless rhetoric." All he did was quote some nasty statements made by these two foul-mouthed broads. Since when is quoting someone illegal or reckless?

Matt - I like treats. I don't like threats, though. And I don't care where they come from. I got my share of those from the so-called Left when I attacked Animal Rights movement before. But these are massive and really violent. Check my previous post(s) for more links.

Adam - if you go to my previous posts about the issue, you will find links to nasty stuff Donohue keeps saying - on TV no less. Quoting Amanda is not 'reckless rhetoric', but stuff that Donohue says on a regular basis is.

"Adam - if you go to my previous posts about the issue, you will find links to nasty stuff Donohue keeps saying - on TV no less."

Would you care to give me an example? I couldn't find anything in your archives that strikes me as hateful or bigoted. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place.

I did not copy his slime here. This is a nice blog.

You can find the rest of the posts (and links within them) by searching my blog for "Amanda".

Here are some links to begin with (and as a teacher I hate it when students don't do their homework and insist on being spoon-fed every little thing - you are not getting an A in my blog-reading class right now, but still have room to improve. I will grade on a curve):

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=donohue

Coturnix,

As a professor, I'm going to give you an F in expository writing. When you make an assertion, the onus is on you to show the reader your evidence. You will never persuade anyone of anything if you expect them do your research for you. But then again, like most bloggers, you probably aren't trying to persuade anyone and are just preaching to the converted. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that if you find it amusing. Carry on.

As to your links, I looked at some of them, though I hardly have the time to go through all of them. At best, they show Donohue saying nasty things about other people in other contexts. Fine. I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that Donohue is an SOB. I'm certainly no fan of his, as I indicated in my earlier post.

However, I did not see in your links a single instance of Donohue saying anything hateful about the two former Edwards campaign bloggers in question. In case you don't remember, that is the accusation being made in the links you labeled as "obligatory reading" in your blog entry. For the record, neither you nor any other blogger has provided any evidence to support that accusation.

Best,
Adam

That's not the point. Nobody said that he said anything hateful about the two of them. What he did is, as a representative of a non-profit, got time in the media to attack them as anti-Catholic (although he hardly speaks for Catholics), derailed a campaign for a few days (that is illegal), cost them their jobs, and NOBODY in the media called him on for his hypocricy!

And, yes. Like every blog on the planet, I write for MY audience. The hit-and-run conservatives who come here are not here with good intentions and will not be allowed to waste my time. If I give homework to read my older posts and to dig through the links, that is the homework. I will not let you derail my day by forcing me to repeat myself over and over again on something I have already written and documented ONCE.

Coturnix wrote:

"Nobody said that he said anything hateful about the two of them."

Oh really? Then what is this:

"Bill Donohue must immediately rescind his hateful comments against these two young women"

That's taken verbatum from the Lane Hudson link you labeled as "Obligatory Reading."

As to the legality of what Donohue did, let me get this straight. Are you seriously claiming that it is illegal for the representative of a non-profit to quote in the media the statements of members of a campaign staff? So much for freedom of the press.

Oh, and one other thing.

The reason the media didn't mention Donohue's hateful past statements is beacuse they're not news. Donohue's a nobody. No one except us political junkies gives a shit about what he said or didn't say. He's not on any campaign staff, and his influence over public opinion is marginal. The only reason they mentioned him at all is because it was he who brought the story to their attention. He wasn't a source, just a tip whose allegations could be easily verified in 5 minutes by visiting the offending blogs.

In contrast, your heroines' gratuitously vulgar and childish statements about Catholicism are newsworthy only because a serious condending Democratic presidential campaign hired them. Most moderate and even liberal Catholics are going to take offense at what they wrote, and no Democratic candidate stands a snowball's chance in Hell in a general election without winning the Catholic vote. Hence the hiring of these two foul-mouthed broads is of, pardon the pun, broad interest.