Re: More on suppression of speech, expressly for foam-at-the-mouth

Starkiller wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:32:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> Larry in AZ wrote:
>>> Waiving the right to remain silent, Rudy Canoza
<pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> Larry in AZ wrote:
>>>>> Waiving the right to remain silent, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> We're talking about lawsuits *brought* by conservatives, to
suppress
>>>>>> speech. 
>>>>> *You're* talking about it.  But you haven't shown it...
>>>> Of course I have, stupid lying ****bag.  I've already mentioned two
of 
>>>> the most infamous ones:  the Texas cattlemen's suit against Oprah 
>>>> Winfrey and Howard Lyman, and the Wa****ngton state apple growers'
suit 
>>>> against CBS and the NRDC.
>>> You've got proof that the cattlemen and apple growers were
Conservatives..?
>> Texas cattlemen?  By definition.
>>
>> Look, ****wit:  the other foam-at-the-mouth knuckle-dragging troglodyte

>> conservative footsoldier already conceded that SLAPP and product 
>> disparagement lawsuits are almost exclusively the province of 
>> conservative-oriented groups.  This is not in serious dispute.
> 
> You want to sit and piss and moan about private entities launching
> lawsuits that they lost.  Seems like beating a dead horse.  All kinds
> of folks file all kinds of injunctions and lawsuits everyday.  
> If you were in business and someone with the money and the power came
> out and told a ****load of bald faced lies for the sole purpose of
> simply killing your business you'd probably file suit as well.
> Borttom line is they lost their suits, no one's free speech was
> affected right or wrong.

No one told any lies at all about Alar or beef.

> 
> On the other hand legislation that has been pushed into law by the
> left such as Federal Elections Campaign Act in 1974 and the Campaign
> Reform Act of 2002.  And they regularly try to get the ball rolling to
> reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.  Whenever the democcrats get a
> large enough majority in congress it will be reinstituted.

I haven't denied that the left wants to restrict or regulate speech.  My 
contention has only been that the right is just as bad.  They are.