Are Hillary supporters trying to squash freedom of speech?

[Hugabear]

Not too long ago, there were some Hillary supporters actually saying that videos such as "Obama Girl" should be banned, because they do not belong in a presidential campaign. There were calls for Obama to actually force YouTube and other websites to remove videos that Hillary fans found "offensive". (Although why they're offended by an attractive young woman professing her support for Obama - and not even attacking Hillary - is beyond me)

But now they've taken it further. Now, they're actually threatening legal action against DU and its members for what they say are "hateful" posts about their candidate and her supporters. Nevermind the fact that they have been making hateful comments about Obama, and that their website is full of anti-Obama, pro-McCain propaganda. I submit to you the following:

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=5383

Democratic Underground is a VILE site that willingly allows the hatred, victimization and abuse of other groups. The site is already facing legal action. Seemingly it wants some more? It may just get it from me.

It may take more LEGAL ACTION against Democratic Underground before the OWNERS take action to stop members participating in the hateful denigration and slander of other people/groups who do not support BARACK OBAMA. Yes, DU participates in the HATRED and ABUSE of people and groups who do not support BARACK OBAMA. So, in this regard, Democratic Undeground is playing a direct role in SUPPORTING HATE based on the basic of political preference.

Exhibit B:

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=978&page=3

Note to Democratic Underground Spies and Stalkers!

LEGAL ACTION can & will be taken against those who stalk this forum and then make defamatory statements about this forum's members and their postings, and who attempt to access the private information of members for display at democratic underground.

You want to take away my freedom of speech because I disagree with you and don't support your candidate? FUCK YOU. I have more fucking respect for Free Republic than I do your website. At least we know where they stand. Freepers and DUers have been quoting each other for years, and I don't recall hearing about them trying to shut down our freedom of speech. You are NOT Democrats. Your posters are openly saying they'll vote for McCain in order to keep Obama out of the White House. Your own admin says that she's support Condaliar Rice over Obama. FUCK YOU. You can say what you want, I will support your right to make an idiot out of yourselves - you obviously don't need any help from us. But the minute you start threatening legal action and trying to stifle our freedom of speech because you consider it "hate speech", then you have fucking crossed the line.

I'm sure I'll be targeted with a lawsuit for this post. :puke:

[msongs]

1. as obama supporters like to say, if you don't worship him you are gestapo. nt

[Hugabear]

3. Bullshit

Show me one post that says that.

And last I checked, there were still quite a few Hillary supporters active on this site. Over there, any whiff of pro-Obama gets you banned. Also, nobody here is threatening Hillary supporters with legal action for "hate speech".

[olkaz]

22. But did the supporters THREATEN LEGAL ACTION?

Way to miss the point completely.

[rodeodance]

34. why don't you go ask the people on the other site?

[Marrah_G]

35. people can say anything on the internet

people say absurd and untrue things on the net everyday. People threaten lawsuits over the net yet never follow through because they have no case.

They do it to get a rise out of others...people like you.

They are being silly. Just ignore them. No one makes you go to their site.

[olkaz]

47. So why would you take time specifically to defend what you call "absurd"?

When you raise the idea of legal action, it's a threat. Is it so illogical that people might be unnerved that our posts might be combed over for possible litigation?

I don't go to the other site. I went over there when somebody posted a link a couple days ago (it referenced some particularly vitriolic and insane comments, I had to see it), but since then I haven't gone back.

The part of this I take exception to is their contention that DU itself or individual posters could be liable for something (what that is, I don't understand). While their charges may be baseless, even defending yourself against ludicrous charges requires money and time that nobody should be forced to give up.

As for doing it just to get a rise out of people, I disagree. It's either a silly threat based in some sort of delusion of power, or it's a serious attempt to stifle certain viewpoints. Either way, it's worthwhile enough to post about.

And as for it getting a rise out of me, honestly, three things have bothered me today, and this is definitely not one of them.

[Hugabear]

51. It is intimidation, pure and simple

They're trying to intimidate Obama supporters into silence. They threaten us with lawsuits because they say that our posts HERE ON DU are "hate speech". They also threaten anyone who "spies" on their website and then talks about what they see over there.

[BornBlue]

79. Or kinda like Bush saying

You are either for us or against us. If you don't side with me, you side with the enemy.

[last1standing]

107. Msongs, you know that's not true.

And the OP has a valid point. What has this race come down to if the partisans are threatening lawsuits against forum sites like DU? It really is a threat against free speech that no Democrat should stand for.

Support Clinton, by all means, just don't forget to support democracy in the process.

[Botany]

2. Let it go ... it would be laughed out of court

[Hugabear]

5. More than likely yes - but it's the idea that makes me mad as hell

If you want to piss off someone who cherishes their freedom, threatening a lawsuit over internet postings is a pretty damned good way to do it.

[Hawkeye-X]

65. HCF and HIS44 are net.kooks of Hillary Clinton supporters

I wouldn't give them a click.

[islandmkl]

4. re: hillbot legal threat: i'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on the internet....

what a crock of shit...sue me you dumbf***...

what grade does this remind you of?

as if we don't realize you have absolutely no grounds to make your claims, and your 'THREATS of LEGAL ACTION' are ludicrous...

i love idiots...

[NJmaverick]

6. From what I have seen, some of her supporters will do and say

ANYTHING, if they think it will get their candidate elected.

[Hepburn]

9. A very sad and sick thing to watch.

To some of the HiLIARy supporters, stealing the nomination is a good thing.

Unreal...

[NJmaverick]

15. There were plenty of bush supporters in 2000 that were

estatic that they could steal the election for their disaster of a candidate.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. Blog Wars in court?

What a colossal waste of time.

[mmonk]

8. Only if you're on the left.

[Eurobabe]

10. In the words of Dick Cheney: HillForum, Go Fuck Yerself.

[NashVegas]

11. Are Rove Wannabees Still Trying to Play the Two Sides Against Each Other?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5445448

[Maddy McCall]

12. Meh, the only person I know threatening legal action against DU is Obama supporter CorpGovActivist.

And his lawsuit will be laughed out of court.

I've never heard of the forum you mentioned in your OP. Do you troll the internet looking for something, ANYTHING, a Hillary supporters says that you can get offended by?

Huge waste of time, in my opinion.

[AllentownJake]

14. Maddy

You seem to be reasonable...the only reason I went there is because of the Pot and Pan banging rally they are planning in NY. I didn't believe that anyone would plan something as crazy as that. Please tell me your one of the smart people on her side who can see how banging pots and pans outside of the Today show is not a good idea for the democratic party.

[SoFlaJet]

27. maddy resonable?

don't make me laugh

[AllentownJake]

29. I like her

Even if she's on the other side...I'd like to think she'd be one of the ones to realize how crazy pot banging is.

[SoFlaJet]

30. different stokes and all Jake

...

[Marrah_G]

32. She is very reasonable.

[whatchamacallit]

33. In the words of Dr. Evil

Riiiight...

[TheWraith]

96. As long as you already agree with everything she says and does.

If not, beware.

[Nine]

18. Oh apparently all us Hillary supporters go there.

I had never heard of it either until some Hillary-hater made a recent post about something they found there and dragged it back here to mock. I've still never visited there but I find it funny that certain Obama supporters find that site so pathetic that they have to post about it here, which seems even more pathetic. Reminds me of the joke about the guy who walks into a bar carrying a pile of manure and saying, "look what I almost stepped in." Don't we have enough to deal with here - is it really necessary to start feuding with other sites? Way to create more work for the mods.

[Hugabear]

20. Just trying to point out the true nature of some Hillary supporters

I heard about the site through someone else on here. Why do I check it out every now and then? Same reason I listen to Rush, Boortz, Hannity, or Savage every once in awhile, just to see what they're up to. Just like you folks scour the airwaves looking for any media mention that's remotely critical of Hillary. Isn't that what the big "pots and pans" protest is about?

And I just wanted to reiterate that many of these Hillary supporters are NOT true Democrats. Not if they're openly advocating voting for McCain in the GE if Hillary doesn't win. Not content with staying home, they're actually encouraging the defeat of a Democratic nominee.

[Marrah_G]

25. And there are whackos supporting obama too....

I am not going to waster my time searching the internet for their forums so I can come back and gnash my teeth over something someones supporters on a DIFFERENT site are saying.

You are truly being absurd now.

[Auntie Bush]

80. They only need to go to DU to see a bunch of hate messages!

They are all right here. What and why do you think Hillary supporters are mad at Obama supporters?........

Answer: Because the O supporters have been posting unfair and unproven filthy trash about Hillary on DU and they're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore...without a FIGHT..just like Hillary! She's the one who will fight for our Democratic issues...Obama says he will compromise with the Rethugs so they won't be mad at him. That's why!

[roguevalley]

101. that site is indefensible. its total rot filled with freeperish drivel. don't

obscure the issue. these people, all 1400 of them are over the edge.

[Auntie Bush]

103. You mean just like the Obama supporters here.

Just take a quick count of the negative posts here about Hillary.
Got your answer?

[Hugabear]

106. Still don't get it, do you?

Take a look at GDP.

You'll notice that there are BOTH pro-Obama and pro-Hillary threads.

Kinda slams the door in the face of the argument that somehow DU doesn't allow Hillary supporters.

We can't help it if there are more of us than there are of you!

[Auntie Bush]

109. "We can't help it if there are more of us than there are of you!"

Well close to half the electorate are Hillary supporters. Many used to be Hillary supporters...why have they gone? Maybe the Hillary supporters got sick and tired of seeing all the vicious anti-Hillary lies, innuendos and Right wing talking points directed at a fellow Democrat. This place has been sickening sometimes. So sicking I have to turn off the crap.

It's nice to have a place to go to in peace...without having a high blood pressure attack.

Yes, there are more anti Obama threads...because we're tired of spending all our time defending Hillary. You deserve a fair share too. NO? Don't you think you deserve it. We didn't chase any Obamites away with our talk...YOU DID! That must tell you something.

[Hugabear]

111. No, it's because they have thin skin

There have been PLENTY of vicious anti-Obama posts from Hillary supporters over the past few months. Remember how you folks kept mocking Obama's speeches about hope and change? And who can forget the nonstop posts about Rev. Wright - even though most of what he's said had been echoed here on DU for years? We have been accused of being sexist simply for not supporting Hillary.

The difference is that we can take it. We absorb your hatred and vile, and then when we fight back, many of your comrades started crying "please don't pick on Hillary so much". It seems that many of you want to dish it out over here, then run back to the relative safety of a site where Obama supporters are prohibited from posting so much as a "boo".

I'm sorry, but this whole "Please don't be mean to my candidate" attitude isn't helping your cause at all. Suppose Hillary DOES win the nomination. How in the HELL are you going to handle the pressure and meanness from the repukes if you can't handle it from fellow Democrats?

[Melinda]

48. *Ahem* -- Doesn't Bev Harris count for *anything* anymore? Sheese!

But seriously... I am so interested in knowing more about CorpGOPActivist's threatened suit... last I saw he had been banned, but I didn't realize he was suing DU. Can ya PM me the info, please? Pretty, pretty please? Thanks Maddy! :hi:

[Marrah_G]

72. OMG you said the B word ! A POX ON YOU AND YOUR HOUSE!

:rofl:

Oh... one other thing...

Now that you invoked her name she's going to show up here and then we are going to be forced to tar and feather you.

[Melinda]

87. (Insert Dean scream | ARGHHHHH!!) Now you tell me!

If I promise not to do it again, may I have lavender and baby pink feathers, please? Pretty, pretty please?!?!

:rofl:

I'll be very good from now on, I swear. ;)

[Marrah_G]

90. I'm out of lavender, how about powder blue?

:bounce:

[Melinda]

93. That'll work too... thanks chuckles!!

But go light on the tar, hmmm'k? And thanks for the :rofl:, you a vewwy funny gill! :hug:

[Marrah_G]

94. I could switch to some low heat candle wax if you prefer....

:evilgrin:

[Melinda]

99. Oh my...

How'd we get from Bev to fetishes?
lmfao... you really are bad, which of course is a very good thing! I must not let my SO see this one!! :rofl: :evilgrin:

Take care, Marrah. :hug:

[Marrah_G]

100. I try!

:hi:

[Araxen]

13. These people need to get a life

or get outside and enjoy the real world instead of hunkering down in their mommie's basement and posting on message boards all day. They take message boards WAY too seriously and frankly it's very scary. Even the Ron Paul supporters took stuff on the Internet with a grain of salt.

[shadowknows69]

16. Hey fuckwits, you have to positively identify someone to slander them

It doesn't count if I say Hillaryfan#1 is an asshat on a webboard.

[H2O Man]

17. There are three things

which come to mind:

{1} That some people who are not democrats have infiltrated various democratic groups and forums (think of the fellow who infiltrated the group of cookie-eating anti-war folks on Michael Moore's movie "F 9/11") who are intent upon stirring shit.

{2} A tiny, insignificant number of actual democrats have Axis II personality disorders, which manifest themselves in rather sad ways.

{3} that now, more than ever, it is time for all people of good will to focus on the Novembers elections -- and winning the White House, increasing gains in Congress, and rebuilding the democratic foundation at the state and local level.

[roguevalley]

102. that is a beautiful picture, H2O Man

[Marrah_G]

19. Why does what someone says on another website bother you so much?

Just don't go to that site.... how difficult is that?

[Hugabear]

21. Apparently they have no problem frequenting this website

Isn't it somewhat hypocritical? They create their own little world over there, trying to keep outsiders away. They accuse DUers of "spying" and "lurking", threatening us with lawsuits.

Yet how do they able to report on all these vile, horrible things that we're saying about them? Their website is chock-full of links back to various threads on DU. Aren't they engaging in the very same behavior that they're complaining about?

[Marrah_G]

23. but who cares what they do?

I don;t care if they come here, read DU, and then talk about us on their own site.

Many people here regularly read FR and sometimes even post some of the absurdity found there.

It is really not that big a deal.

[Hugabear]

28. When they start threatening lawsuits against DUers, it becomes my business

Honestly, if it weren't for that, it wouldn't really bother me too much. Yes, I might have fun at their expense once in awhile. There's always that tit-for-tat. As I pointed out in the OP, DUers and Freepers have been doing this for years.

However, when they start threatening legal action against DU and posters, when they start trying to stifle my freedom of speech, I take that very seriously.

[Marrah_G]

31. It's people typing on the internet

I can type that I am going to sue anyone for anything and that doesn't make it true.

You give these people to much of your time and energy.

[whatchamacallit]

24. Imagine how crazy these freaks are going to go when Obama wins the nomination

:scared: :rofl: :scared: :rofl: ...

[cliffordu]

26. Aw, BULLSHIT.

:hurts:

[anonymous171]

36. HRC who call us a "cult" need to look at that site and tell me that it isn't fucking creepy.

[Marrah_G]

39. I don't see any DUers over there.

There are nutty folks in every camp (especially McCains)

[rodeodance]

37. why whin here--go over there. just making trouble for Hillary sup. here and you know it.

[whatchamacallit]

38. English please

:shrug:

[Nine]

57. "Why whine here? Go over there. You're just making trouble for HRC supporters here and you know it.

Yeah, that was real hard to decipher.

[whatchamacallit]

60. Thanks and

decipher this!

[SeaLyons]

...and your reason

for posting this bullshit here at DU is what???????????????????

[atal]

43. Those comments were by the Administrator of Clinton's

Discussion Forum, if you didn't realize it!

Do you agree with his comments or consider it bullshit?

[Nine]

52. CLINTON'S discussion forum? Hardly.

You finally gave me incentive to visit the site. This is what it says:

"The Hillary Clinton Forum is Funded & Maintained by an Independent Volunteer.
(NB - This forum is 100% independent & does not have any affiliation with Hillary Clinton for President 2008)"

So, why are you calling it Clinton's forum, implying her campaign has something to do with it?

And I still haven't seen an answer to the question of why this was posted as a thread here in the first place.

[Hugabear]

56. It's all about INTIMIDATION

They're trying to stifle THIS website. They're not threatening lawsuits about posts that are posted on their own website. They're threatening over stuff that is posted HERE. They are calling anti-Hillary posts here on DU hate speech, and subject to litigation.

It's a clear case of intimidation. They are trying to clamp down on OUR freedom of speech here on DU.

[Marrah_G]

76. You should strip, go outside, run around in circles while flapping your arms...

And don't forget to squawk a bit also.

:rofl:

Seriously though, get a grip....this is nothing. The sky is not falling.

[Nine]

82. Intimidation? No one here would have known about it if you hadn't brought it here.

Seems like a pretty ineffective intimidation tactic. However, you trolling other websites to look for stuff to bring back here seems like a pretty effective tactic if your goal is to foment hatred toward Hillary supporters here.

[Marrah_G]

73. Stephanie Miller made a song just for you... first two words are "You Are" n/t

[Hugabear]

44. It's an attack on free speech

Nobody over there is even allowed to offer a dissenting opinion. Failure to march in lockstep on their site gets you banned very quickly. I don't see Hillary supporters being purged here on DU.

And you're right. It is bullshit. It's bullshit from Hillary supporters who want to silence any and all criticism of their candidate. When they start trying to INTIMIDATE and THREATEN myself and other DUers, you can bet your ass I'm going to stand up and say something.

[SeaLyons]

46. Your kidding, right?????

You, an Obama supporter, whining about not being allowed to voice a dissenting opinion. What the hell do you think has been happening here on DU to Clinton supporters.

[Hugabear]

50. Last I checked, there were still plenty of you around

Like I said, there is no mass purge going on. Nobody's banning everyone who identifies themselves as a Hillary supporter. As a matter of fact, I just glanced at GDP and saw several anti-Obama threads that are alive and kicking.

You know damned well that if any of us were to register on that site and declare ourselves to be Obama supporters, if we posted a pro-Obama thread, or anything negative about Hillary whatsoever, that we would be banned immediately.

The ADMIN for that site is openly trying to INTIMIDATE Obama supporters, even here on DU, because we say things about Hillary that they don't like. They call it "hate speech" and threaten us with lawsuits. If that isn't trying to intimidate, I don't know what is.

[SeaLyons]

58. You probably are

saying things that could be construed as hate speech. You guys have a difficult time blogging about the issues (Health Care, Economy, War). You like getting personal. Only reason you want to go on that site is to trash Hillary, so stay the hell out of there.

[Hugabear]

61. Sounds like you agree with that site's admin

Do you believe that such "hate speech" (as determined by you, no doubt) should be banned? Should we be subject to lawsuits for posting "defamatory" threads about Hillary?

[SeaLyons]

68. ..

You should be subject to lawsuits for NOT GETTING A LIFE.

:boring:

[Life Long Dem]

40. Why don't they take their own advice and stop their hate toward Obama supporters

[MyNameGoesHere]

41. Sure a few malcontents represent me..

Don't call me a banner of free speech and i won't call you a cultists. Ok? Darn, frigging, @#$#@4 $#@!!@#$32 blanket statements.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JBoy]

49. Don't broad brush like that.

This Obama supporter does not agree with you.

[Life Long Dem]

53. Right.

I'll paint the whole picture of the whole problem any time I want.

[Melinda]

64. When you make a statement with a broad brush you are bound to get paint on yourself.

Mere woman that I am, the least I can do is help you clean up.

[Life Long Dem]

77. Exsqueeze me, I didn't mean a broad brush. I meant the whole picture. Sorry.

It's not ALL, it's the ones in the OP. I hope i cleaned it up, with your help.

[Hugabear]

54. We don't need to go there

I agree with the responder above me, we don't need to use the broad brush. There are plenty of female Obama supporters, and even some female Hillary supporters who haven't gone off the deep end.

That site just represents the worst of the worst, and there are both men and women over there.

[Life Long Dem]

70. No one is using a broad brush. Only the ones involved in your post.

I'm painting the whole picture of the problem. The whole picture tells why it is a problem and why suits are being brought up.

And that is ethics in woman in this election. What else could it be?

When you have a candidate that Lies, is involved with Colombia, is for Nafta, is connected with a union buster for 10 years - Penn, and you and I "know" the list goes on "and" to support someone like this goes right to the heart of the problem of ethics woman have in this race.

[JBoy]

83. Either you're not being clear, or you're still using a broad brush to paint all women unfairly

What you seem to be saying is that women (all women, or women in general) are displaying bad ethics during this campaign.

I do not accept this, and I'm sure Barack Obama would categorically reject it.

If you are trying to say that those on that Hillary website (which include both men and women) are showing bad ethics, you probably have a point.

[Melinda]

45. These folks are deluded; So far, case law holds internet posts to be protected free speech

Re Free Speech issues: The Electronic Frontier Foundation would like the good folks at HillaryClintonForum.net to meet

E. Van Cullens v. John Doe

John Doe is an anonymous poster to two Internet message boards who made two statements critical of a publicly-traded company run by Plaintiff Cullens. In an effort to prevent Doe from further posting his opinions about the company on the Internet, Cullens filed a libel suit against Doe in Illinois and asked a California court to force disclosure of Doe's identity. Doe has sought to quash and strike the subpoena, asking the court to grant Doe protection under California's Anti-SLAPP statute. This would force Cullens to establish a probability of success on each of his claims, and if he cannot, would award attorneys fees and costs to Doe.

At issue: Whether California court processes allow the mere allegation of defamation to trump First Amendment right to anonymous online speech. Whether the Illinois case can proceed at all.

Outcome: Case dismissed and anonymity protected. In response to the motion to quash and motion to strike in California, Van Cullens withdrew his subpoena in California in April, 2003. Cullens persisted in Illinois, but ultimately, the Complaint against Doe was dismissed by the Illinois court in October 2003.

------

Remember Michael Savage?

Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations

In December of 2007, radio talk show host Michael Savage filed suit in federal district court against the Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleging copyright infringement and a violation of federal racketeering laws for using excerpts of Savage's radio program to criticize him and the content of his show. In response, EFF and the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit because CAIR's conduct was clearly protected by the First Amendment and the fair use doctrine.

From SFGate.com, March 8, 2008:

A federal judge said Friday she's inclined to dismiss a lawsuit by conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage against a Muslim rights group that reprinted his attacks against Islam and called for an advertising boycott.

Savage sued the Council on American-Islamic Relations in December after the organization posted excerpts from an Oct. 29 broadcast in which he called the Quran a "hateful little book ... a document of slavery" and said, "I don't want to hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it."

His lawsuit accused the group of violating Savage's copyright by posting more than four minutes of excerpts on its Web site without his permission. He also claimed that the group was engaged in racketeering, saying it poses as a civil rights organization but is actually a "mouthpiece of international terror" that helped to fund the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The broadcaster's syndicated program "Savage Nation" has about 8 million listeners a week on 400 stations, including on KNEW-AM in the Bay Area. He said the Council on American-Islamic Relations was harming him by taking his statements out of context, urging visitors to its Web site to complain to his advertisers and using his material to raise money for illegal activities.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/BA6FVG42T.DTL&tsp=1

And of course unless the material being posted has been actually created and/or produced by any of the folks at that site, there are no DMCA copyright legalities they can pursue.

Democratic Clinton supporters wanting to quash free speech -- it just boggles the mind.

[knight_of_the_star]

55. EPIC FAIL

The hypocrisy here is disgusting considering the active ignore list, the smearing, and the "let it sink" rule.

[Hugabear]

59. You're comparing personal "ignore" lists to threats of lawsuits?

Me putting someone on "ignore" (not that I have anyone on ignore) does NOT affect that person. When the admin of another website threatens to file lawsuits against members of another site for "defamatory posts", that IS intimidation.

Sorry, but you FAIL

[knight_of_the_star]

84. You still FAIL

Because you try to claim such a high horse when your lot also claimed the HRC people were going to try to shut this site down. That's not much better, and from where I sit your actions are no better.

[endarkenment]

88. You Picked Flail.

[cooolandrew]

62. In fairness I think they are being led by higher forces it sounds very organised.

We'll just set up another forum if they do.

[cooolandrew]

63. I hope they see the light but if they get their way go this forum...

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=22883302&posted=1#post22883302

Preferably they remember they are Democrats and we all jsut get along.

[hfojvt]

66. is it entirely a free speech issue?

Certainly liberals ask for restrictions of hate speech and demand consequences for people who, for example, say the n-word, the b-word, the f-word, and other bigoted statements.

Insofar as somebody participates in their forum, they probably signed a user agreement to do so, and would face consequences for violating said user agreement (although I have a hard time seeing how those consequences could be more severe than being banned).

There are laws against things like stalking, harrassment, and libel, and I presume that those would apply on-line.

I know there is a certain amount of abuse in the form of name calling and mocking and probably PM whisper-campaigns that goes on here, but I hope DU doesn't go too far in the direction of hatred or abuse, even of McCain supporters. In any case, people here who feel they are subjected to hatred or abuse do have the easy option of leaving. And people on other sites who feel they are subject to hatred or abuse from here have the option of not making their ridiculous opinions public.

edit: I had to fix that unless somebody mocks me for forgetting a "?" :scared:

[Hawkeye-X]

67. For those who are reading and reporting at HillaryClintonForum.net - here's an archaic law

that'll throw your lawsuit out.

Amendment I

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.

[cooolandrew]

69. I know it is easy to assume it is her supporters but remember...

big money is trying to divide us. STICK TOGETHER.

[cooolandrew]

71. Don't jump on HRC supporters for this we need them. Got to hold together.

Even if it iis SOME HRC supporters it is not all of them. So let's be wise.

[cooolandrew]

74. If DU gets sued let's increase donations, even today. We gotta keep going life and death really...

Our moeny can speak too this is big money, the little guy can fight back.

[Melinda]

75. That site is TWO Months old - domain registered on 2/9/08

Domain Name.......... hillaryclintonforum.net
Creation Date........ 2008-02-09
Registration Date.... 2008-02-09
Expiry Date.......... 2010-02-09
Organisation Name.... *My deletion*
Organisation Address. *My deletion*
Organisation Address. *My deletion*
Organisation Address. *My deletion*
Organisation Address. *My deletion*
Organisation Address. *My deletion*


And the person to whom it is registered has never donated a dime to any candidate, much less HRC.

Check NetworkSolutions for the rest of the domain info, and then opensecrets for donation history.

Doesn't pass the smell test to me. :eyes:

Oh and Murray? Sue me. :evilgrin:

[cooolandrew]

81. Anyway donate to DU all the same. We gotta show appreciation for what is the life force of 3 speech.

[Symarip]

78. HAHAHA

"It may take more LEGAL ACTION against Democratic Underground before the OWNERS take action to stop members participating in the hateful denigration and slander of other people/groups who do not support BARACK OBAMA. Yes, DU participates in the HATRED and ABUSE of people and groups who do not support BARACK OBAMA. So, in this regard, Democratic Undeground is playing a direct role in SUPPORTING HATE based on the basic of political preference."

They're onto us. I hope they don't find out about the Clinton Dungeon we've been building to capture and enslave non-believers.

[paulk]

85. get a life

more obamadrama

[samsingh]

86. that could be the result

[Vinca]

89. When are they issuing the brown shirts? nt

[Beacool]

91. Thanks for the link!!

I had never heard of that site.

[AllentownJake]

92. You'll fit right in

[Beacool]

98. Thanks......... I think.

:rofl:

[backscatter712]

95. They're on an authoritarian high.

They're on a buzz now that Randi Rhodes got fired for daring to speak the truth about their BIG FUCKING WHORE of a candidate, in a private forum, not on the air, and now they think they can go intimidate others.

Make my day, fuckers...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. Well, their candidate of choice is against flag burning.

:shrug:

[Forrest Greene]

104. I'd Like To Comment, But

...I... ...just... don't... ...dare.

[Hugabear]

105. They may take my keyboard, but they'll never take my...

FREEEEEEEEEDOM!

Or, if you prefer...

They can take my keyboard when they pry it from my cold, dead, fingers!

[TexasObserver]

108. More reasons to laugh at them!

Imagine this.

Someone has to convince a lawyer who is licensed to practice law and competent to file lawsuits to file a lawsuit against DU, paying the filing fee, identifying the registered agent for service of process, paying the fee for serving DU's agent for service of process, and seeing to the issuance of process and having it served upon DU's agent for service of process.

The pleading and case would likely be subject to removal by DU to a federal court, where the filing of unworthy pleadings are frowned upon, and where the plaintiff's attorney is unlikely to be licensed to practice law.

The case would almost certainly be subject to an immediate motion to dismiss, and a motion for sanctions against both the attorney who filed the case and the plaintiff who brought it.

Bottom line is a major spanking is in store for any plaintiff and any attorney would bring such an action. The attorney would likely get left holding the bag, and in addition to facing monetary sanctions would likely find himself or herself facing an ethical review by a local bar association.

There is no such cause of action as "they're talking shit about my candidate and making fun of me for being an anonymous, online, message board dork!"

[bobthedrummer]

110. They sure use the neocon playbook at framing the perception/context to their agenda

aka as ignoring REALITY, as well as the use of FEAR and other primitive emotions in their exercises in political mind control.

[Scoobs]

112. No, they want to squash EVERYTHING like the incredible hulk