January 20, 2007

Dem Notions Of Dialogue

This is apparently what passes for "free speech" and "political dialogue" when you are a Democrat.

Invoking Thomas Jefferson and Mr. Hankey from the television series "South Park," the lawyer for an ex-professor accused of leaving dog feces at a congresswoman's office said her client's actions qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment.

Kathleen Ensz faces a misdemeanor charge of "use of a noxious substance." She is accused of taking dog feces from her backyard, wrapping it in a political mailer from Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, and leaving it at the Republican's office, according to court documents.

Ensz, a Democrat, was angered by repeatedly receiving mailings from Musgrave, the documents said.

That's odd -- I simply trash the mailers I get from Democrat candidates and supporters of al-Qaeda.

And as a supposedly educated woman, I would have thought she might have found some more mature, creative way of expressing her political beliefs. Oh, that's right -- expecting maturity out of a Democrat activist is usually wasted effort (although I'm blessed with a wonderful one who serves as my alternate election judge -- she is the second best Democrat I know). And lest you think she is just some run of the mill registered Dem or occasional volunteer, please realize that she is (or was) the vice chair of the Democrat organization for Colorado Senate District 13 -- an elected position voted upon by her fellow Democrats.

And then there is this inane argument from her lawyer.

"What she did was probably crude and boorish," Patricia Bangert, one of Ensz's attorneys, argued during a hearing Tuesday, when she likened the conduct to a form of political protest such as Jefferson's criticism of the King of England.

Bangert held up Mr. Hankey, an animated, talking piece of human excrement from "South Park," as evidence of how commonplace feces is for expressing disdain.

"Etiquette and propriety aside, it is commonplace in today's society to equate a distasteful or disliked person, situation or thing, to feces," Bangert said.

Yeah, the comparison is one that is often used, but the analogy breaks down there. If I say you are full of sh!t or that you are a piece of sh!t, that is one thing. If I throw sh!t at you, that crosses a line that takes my actions out of the realm of free speech and into the realm of assault. Similarly, Enz committed a violation of the law when she shoved sh!t in the congresswoman's mail box. Jefferson, whose name is taken in vain by the shyster in question, would quickly acknowledge the difference.

On the other hand, if Enz really believes that she was just giving the congresswoman a piece of her mind, perhaps that is evidence that the professor has sh!t for brains.

H/T Gateway Pundit

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, Pursuing Holiness, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:51 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 7 kb.

1

I have commented on previous occasions where folks have claimed the use of constitutional rights, more specifically freedom of expression when in fact those expressions were either profanity or pornography.  The Author of our rights is God and the constitution recognized those rights and sought to protect them from government.  It is not rational to expect or perceive that God would have included profanity or pornography to be used by his children as His commandments are in opposition to such.   Those who make a mockery of our most basic rights do so intentionally to destroy the foundations of a righteous society; to believe otherwise would be foolish.


Posted by: T F Stern at Sun Jan 21 04:44:15 2007 (z1IoH)

Posted by: ellaelax-qp at Tue May 19 22:36:33 2009 (of6sv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
11kb generated in CPU 0.0042, elapsed 0.011 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0076 seconds, 31 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]