Obama, The First Amendment, and Mormonism

[_antishock8]

http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/ ... l=newsitem

http://www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/k ... 9.html?npc

In his first real example of what his Leftist candidacy will give us, Senator Obama has attempted to shut down the 1st Amdendment. There's no debating this. This is fact. And it's stunning.

That being said, and what I'm actually curious about, has the Mormon church ever used government to try and quell dissent? I grew up with a healthy appreciation for the 1st Amendment, and I like to think that the Mormon church aided that idealism. So. Two questions:

1) Has the Mormon church ever attempted to use government agencies to shut down people's right to speech?

2) How can post-Mormons who support Senator Obama not be enraged at this assault on a fundamental constitutional right to the point of not supporting his campaign?

[_The Nehor]

This is usual politicking. Obama formed a truth squad designed to respond to spurious ads from the opposition by presenting countering information. Somehow this move has been spun to mean that he is planning to censor ads and control what people think. McCain has a similar group in effect with the same mandate. Every recent presidential candidate from both parties has had such a group in place.

This outrage is the result of ignorance.

[Guest]

Whoa. How is the outrage "ignorance"? It's clear he's trying to use government agencies to punish people for speaking what they think is the truth. That's incredibly sobering.

That aside, would you mind giving the questions a shot?

[_The Nehor]

This comes down to public prosecutors who support his campaign spending some time rebutting attack ads against Obama. This is not a 'scare tactic' or any form of bullying. The second article you cited makes that clear. This is not police targeting people. This is not prosecutors prosecuting dissidents. It's people taking time to support their favored candidate by rebutting attack ads.

Read the second article you cited and you'll see it speaks against what you are saying.

[_The Nehor]

Your first question depends on how you define free speech. As it is defined in the time period in question or how it is defined now. The Expositor incident wouldn't happen today. In the twentieth century I've never seen it unless you count excommunicating someone a violation of free speech (I don't).

I think the second question is unanswerable as Obama has not done anything wrong.

[_skippy the dead]

This comes down to public prosecutors who support his campaign spending some time rebutting attack ads against Obama. This is not a 'scare tactic' or any form of bullying. The second article you cited makes that clear. This is not police targeting people. This is not prosecutors prosecuting dissidents. It's people taking time to support their favored candidate by rebutting attack ads.

Read the second article you cited and you'll see it speaks against what you are saying.

I find myself agreeing with Nehor (rare, but it happens!).

Plus, the press release issued by the Republican governor of a hotly contested state containing such inflammatory language is really just more dirty politics to me.

[_The Nehor]

I find myself agreeing with Nehor (rare, but it happens!).

Haven't seen flying pigs yet but it's bound to happen.

[_antishock8]

How does a Prosecutor and a Sherriff respond to a perceived lie? Why make it a point to let the public know your "truth squad" has Prosecutors and Sherriffs? This is very chilling stuff. The implied threat is that Prosecutors and Sheriffs across Missouri will enforce "Missouri ethics laws", and conduct criminal investigations of "anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad" against Barack Obama.

[_The Nehor]

How does a Prosecutor and a Sherriff respond to a perceived lie? Why make it a point to let the public know your "truth squad" has Prosecutors and Sherriffs? This is very chilling stuff. The implied threat is that Prosecutors and Sheriffs across Missouri will enforce "Missouri ethics laws", and conduct criminal investigations of "anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad" against Barack Obama.

Oh, c'mon.

From the article you linked to:

Members of law enforcement never said anyone would be prosecuted, indicted or punished for saying anything, only that they were prepared to tell the public the truth.

The actual purpose of the group:

Last Tuesday without any fanfare, the Barack Obama campaign announced Jennifer Joyce and Bob McCulloch, the top prosecutors in St. Louis city and St. Louis County, were joining something called an Obama truth squad.

They plan to respond immediately to any misleading advertisements and statements that might violate Missouri ethics laws.

"We want to keep this campaign focused on issues," Joyce told me. "Missourians don't want to be distracted by these divisive character attacks."

The truth squad's plan is to indentify false attacks and respond immediately with truthful information, Joyce and McCulloch say.

Truthful information like: Obama is a Christian who plans to cut taxes for anyone making under $250,000 a year.

The Obama campaign says prosecutors from the Kansas City area and some rural areas are also joining the truth squad, and Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer was also expected to be part of the team.

"Whether it is directly attributable to the campaign or one of the soft money operations," McCulloch told me, "if they're not going to tell the truth, then somebody's got to step up and say 'wait a minute, that's not true, this is the truth.'"

For reasons that are still not fully clear, prosecutors promising to tell the public the truth have sparked outrage among supporters of John McCain.

No stormtrooper tactics. No mention of prosecution. It's a group of government officials who have joined a small political organization to counter false statements. I don't see any harm.

I intend to vote for McCain but I am disgusted by this ploy and am ashamed that I will be voting on the same side as those who promote this ridiculous fantasy and I hope the Republican governor who brought this to our attention loses the next election. If I were in his state I would vote against him as a matter of principle.

[_bcspace]

Of much greater concern are Obama's ties to local terrorist groups and his support for and wanting to model his proposed civilian force (with a budget ostensibly as great as the military's) after the organization Public Allies.