| Subject: Re: Open letter to YoY, Sing, Lee, and the less-than-sincerely confused, but mostly YoY |
Author:
Higgins
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 00:25:15 10/17/11 Mon
In reply to:
Reader
's message, "Re: Open letter to YoY, Sing, Lee, and the less-than-sincerely confused, but mostly YoY" on 21:16:08 10/16/11 Sun
Yes, yes, it's the totality. I have had others (Sing) who have tried to say that the whole post about Humphrey's love of grilling and fly fishing and 25 year marriage (and blah, blah, blah - no doubt the sort of post you are referring to) was the sort of posting that justified the fear. The only problem is, it was written a full three months after he was charged and incarcerated. If they were fearful prior to his arrest (which I doubt) I submit that it was the product of over active imaginations - Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My! I think it far more likely that they were OFFENDED by his opinions. In America, that is not sufficient to justify criminal prosecutions, particularly when the target of such criticism is a public official. As you will see if you look on the main Blog, this is precisely the purpose of First Amendment protections. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who is expected to preside over the trials of murderers, drug dealers and other REAL criminals, is actually afraid of a BLOGGER? One that presents "threats" so veiled that you can't even provide an example?
I don't know Dan. I don't know anything about his personality. I don't know if he is a good father or a bad one. Evidence would suggest that he has a talent for pissing people off, and in this case, people that could help or hurt him. And they have chosen to hurt him. The problem is that they don't have the right to do that and still be considered to be worthy of their positions of trust. If it is permitted now, if it goes unopposed, there are no limits to who they can do precisely the same thing to the next time. Maybe even you. Whatever Dan may ACT like, this IS a First Amendment issue.
It is my position that anyone who can't recognize this, who insists on trying to bring this back to Dan's failings is either missing the point or so caught up in their own issues (embarrassed public officials or their families, Dan's ex-wife, family or her lawyer, those with their own tragic but unrelated family history of mental illness, or simply petty-minded fishwife gossips incapable of grasping larger issues) that attacking Dan is all they are capable of. So far, not one has made a cogent case that Dan has done anything worthy of criminal prosecution, or taken the time to rebut any of the instances cited that show evidence of official misconduct or malfeasance in the clear pursuit of abridging a citizens First Amendment rights.
ps. Thank you for your compliment. You are entitled to your opinion, but I hope you will take the time to re-evaluate, to separate the issues that pertain to Dan's personal life and troubles from those that affect us all as represented by the wholly inappropriate reaction of our public officials to those same issues.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 