Comments on: CAIR Shuts Down A Blogger

By: The Staunton News Leader

The Staunton News Leader — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:42:43 +0000

CAIR Shuts Down A Blogger

American needs to wake up. The Radical Muslims are trying to take over American, and they are doing a pretty good job at it. Between the ignorant anti-war nuts and the ACLU, Muslims will get special rights, tax breaks, and gain power in the U.S leading…

By: Clay

Clay — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:47:05 +0000

Fair enough. The ACLU has been conspicuously absent once again.
Which has, I believe been Jay’s point.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:45:05 +0000

Clay, I’ve explained my perception of this incident as fully as I possibly can. You seem no closer to understanding my words than you were a couple days ago.

You seem convinced that the blogger’s freedom of speech has been restricted because his service provider pulled the plug pursuant to a contractual agreement. I disagree completely. There’s nothing more that can be said at this point, so I’m bowing out of this conversation.

By: Clay

Clay — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:39:20 +0000

I see, you are more concerned with CAIR’s First Ammendment issues than you are with anyone who might have different ideas.

So, are you, like the ACLU concerned with a select few’s First Ammendent rights as opposed to others?

You do know that satire is satire. Right?

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:34:24 +0000

Sorry, I’m submitting too quickly. Please forgive the grotesque grammar errors in the last few posts.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:33:18 +0000

Again, which side are you on? Exactly?

I’m not on a side. I’m just trying to objectively dissect the issue.

I’m no friend of CAIR. This may very well be every bit as evil as this site purports. That doesn’t make this a first amendment issue.

By: Clay

Clay — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:28:08 +0000

“You can hate CAIR for making the choices they did, but this has nothing to do with constitutional freedoms.”

Again, which side are you on? Exactly?

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:27:17 +0000

It is amazing how you find the distinction between Ã¢â‚¬Å“speechÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“feedom of speechÃ¢â‚¬Â.

Speech: The faculty or act of speaking.
Freedom of speech: The freedom, ability, or permission to do so.

He lost access to a platform that he enjoyed, but he still has the same freedom he always had.

By: Clay

Clay — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:20:43 +0000

“There is no legal action. CAIR filed a complaint with his service provider. The service provider exercised their escape clause. ”

There is no legal action due to the absence of the supposed “watch dog of free
speech” – the ACLU.

It is amazing how you find the distinction between “speech” and “feedom of speech”.

I guess you have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to, say, Fred Phelps and his gang.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:43:39 +0000

I would suggest you skip trying to use words you arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really familiar with

I am and I respectfully disagree with your assertions to the contrary.

CAIRÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s attack on that bloggerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s freedom of speech.

CAIR “attacked” his speech, not his freedom of speech. It is a very important difference.

A month ago, the blogger had the freedom to write and publish virtually anything he wanted to say, subject to only a few legal exceptions and whatever business contracts he might make in the process. He still has the very same freedom, as even he has acknowledged.

The ACLU are a group of lawyers. They could step forward on behalf of the blogger and counter-sue CAIR.

There is no legal action. CAIR filed a complaint with his service provider. The service provider exercised their escape clause.

You can hate CAIR for making the choices they did, but this has nothing to do with constitutional freedoms.