Congressman tries to censor his critics,judge agrees #tcot #twisters

RRD:Ex-Congressman Driehaus apparently believes that he has the right to his seat,and those pesky critics cannot be permitted to “slander” the Government.I thought we settled this with the repeal of the Alien and Sedition act.I do wish people who talk about how they cannot suppot candidate X because of some relatively minor flaw,(“he’s too religious”,or “he doesn’t believe in evolution”,or “he’s insensitive to illegal immigrants”,”she’s opposed to gay marriage” or whatnot) would understand that not all issues are of equal importance in a given election.We have a considerable portion of the Democratic Party who do not believe in free elections,or freedom of speech.

Judge oks ex-congressman’s suit over lost job | Campaign 2012

….”When 15 House pro-life Democrats joined Republicans earlier this month to pass the Protect Life Act amending the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act by explicitly prohibiting federal funding of abortion (or abortion coverage) because the Obamacare law does not, somebody should have told former Rep. Steve Driehaus and Ohio U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Black. Driehuas was the sore loser who sued the Alexandria-based Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life PAC, claiming that the group’s accusations that he voted to fund abortions when he voted for Obamacare resulted in his “loss of livelihood” –i.e., his defeat in the 2010 election. The day after losing the election, Driehaus dropped his criminal complaint charging that the PAC had violated a precedent-shattering Ohio state law that makes it a crime to tell “malicious lies” about a public official. Of course, one person’s “malicious lies” are another’s political speech. Fines and even prison sentences allowed under Ohio’s False Statement Law are tantamount to muzzling any speech that someone disagrees with, which is basically all political speech. The SBA List is currently requesting permission to file an appeal challenging the law’s constitutionality on First Amendment grounds before the 6thCircuit Court of Appeals. Voters in Ohio’s 1stDistrict retired Driehaus because he broke a promise not to vote for Obamacare unless it contained an explicit statutory ban on federal funding of abortions. The final law that Driehaus voted for lacks such a statutory exclusion –which has led the newly elected House to pass the Protect Life Act. Driehaus’ defeat at the polls was a result of his own duplicity, not the result of SBA pointing it out. Nevertheless, on August 1 Judge Black ruled that Driehaus’ preposterous lawsuit should proceed to trial.”…..


Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Current events, Free Speech

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s