GOP leader sues anonymous commenter - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

GOP leader sues anonymous commenter

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Related Documents

Related Links

Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:40 pm

An anonymous commenter on a local blog is the target of a lawsuit filed Monday by Tina Jacobson, chair of the Kootenai County Republican Party.

The suit claims a commenter using the pseudonym "almostinnocentbystander" posted libelous, defamatory statements about Jacobson in February on the Spokesman-Review's Huckleberries blog. It also alleges that several other bloggers made similar statements.

The suit names John or Jane Doe as the defendant. While neither the Spokesman-Review nor Huckleberries blogger Dave Oliveria are named in the suit, the document alleges the identity of "almostinnocentbystander" is known to "Cowles Publishing Company d/b/a Spokesman-Review."

The suit alleges the commenter wrote that "there was $10,000 missing from the Republican Central Committee funds and that the missing funds were hidden on the person of Mrs. Jacobson."

The statement is false, the suit alleges, and damaging to Jacobson's reputation.

The legal document claims Oliveria acknowledged that the comments were libelous and removed them from the blog.

Jacobson's requests for the names of the bloggers were turned down by the newspaper, the suit alleges.

It seeks damages from the anonymous commenter, and a court injunction barring the individual from committing future acts of libel against Jacobson.

Jacobson's attorney will likely seek to unmask the identity of the commenter as the suit progresses.

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

39 comments:

  • cable456 posted at 8:02 pm on Fri, Jul 27, 2012.

    cable456 Posts: 6

    This sounds like a milestone for free speech. Maybe a millstone, I'm not sure.
    Kinda bothered by the tone, but your report is accurate none the less.
    storage boxes with lids

     
  • william20 posted at 12:33 am on Mon, May 28, 2012.

    william20 Posts: 5

    I used to be more than happy to seek out this internet-site.I wanted to thanks in your time for this glorious read!!Land Rover Range Rover I positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.

     
  • nike posted at 1:50 am on Fri, May 4, 2012.

    nike Posts: 30

    I used to be more than happy to seek out this internet-site.I wanted to Volvo XC90 thanks in your time for this glorious read!! I positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked bmw for sale to check out new stuff you weblog post

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 9:55 am on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "It's not "slugging it out" when you hide behind an anonymous name and smear others with lies"

    Is spudman1 your real name?

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:26 am on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Ah, but the truth, in the end always prevails.
    IF someone had been stealing or there was ANY misappropriation of funds, it would become known y the entity involved; action would be taken.

     
  • spudman1 posted at 5:32 am on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.

    spudman1 Posts: 495

    It's not "slugging it out" when you hide behind an anonymous name and smear others with lies.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 7:05 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Rationale, I give you the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court's 1964 interpretation of same:

    In 1964, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of The New York Times v. Sullivan, and the law of defamation changed drastically. For the first time, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment, which protects an individual's freedom of speech and expression, protects even speech and expression that is defamatory. In Sullivan, the plaintiff was a public official who sued The New York Times for libel after the newspaper published certain unfavorable allegations about him. The Supreme Court discussed the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states in part that "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press." The First Amendment exists, according to the Court, to help protect and foster the free flow and exchange of ideas, particularly on public or political issues. The Founding Fathers of the United States valued open debates regarding political issues or governments, determining that citizens in a democracy need a free marketplace of ideas in order to become informed and make good decisions. Open debates often become caustic and emotional, with opponents sharply attacking one another in the effort to persuade others. Sanctioning defamatory speech or expression would put an end to such attacks, but sanctions would also jeopardize the free marketplace of ideas by effectively censoring free and open debate.

    The premise that a public official has someone say something bad about him or her that hurts their reputation, and then they sue....nope. Now; IF it's a publication, print or media, that's different, as the media has the power to broadcast.

    Hi My Name is JoeIdaho & I've never been a Liberal.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 7:01 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    “We will be stealing peoples reputations, killing their peace, and destroying our selves before GOD”

    I don’t believe in God so I’m going to have to pass on that one. How ’bout I destroy my self in front of Bigfoot instead? It’ll be fun, like one of those Jack Links beef jerky commercials.

    Picture This: Bigfoot is a Right Wing Republican big shot and I’m a very popular anonymous poster typing away about how Bigfoot has done certain political things that don’t seem reasonable to me. Bigfoot is reading my post seconds later and has obviously been offended by something that I wrote. Next thing you know, Bigfoot takes me to court…. No that doesn’t work, scratch that. Next thing you know Bigfoot is standing next to my desk and he is super mad. First Bigfoot smashes my computer and then he throws me though my office wall, wrecking a perfectly good “I can see Russia from my house” poster while tearing my favorite “John Galt Was an Atheist” T-shirt.

    Boy did I learn my lesson!

    Fade out to me and my new pal Bigfoot drinking beer and getting "destroyed" together…


    Back-Off Right Wing Strom Trooper Disclaimer: The above content is purely fictional and is solely intended for the purposes of satire, parody, and lampoonery. Any resemblance to actual Right Wing Republican Bigfeet is accidental, coincidental and unintentional. Those who believe otherwise should seek immediate medical attention. The GM reserves the right to black out without notice at anytime and at his sole discretion. Etc, etc, etc… All rights reserved

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 3:38 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Ah gee JW, likewise I'm sure! FYI... I appreciated each and every one of your attacks on my character and viewpoints. I can't think of better way to acquire the feedback needed to improve myself (rarely) or to get confirmation that I'm already on the right track (mostly).

    America is so wonderful partly because guys like us have the "you know whats" to slug it out...

    Those who reference our Founding Fathers to support current events rarely mention the violent disagreements between them during the early years of the Republic. Imagine where we would be today if they took their disputes to court instead of battling out to create this incredible system of freedom and balances?

    I really enjoy the freedom of anonymous postings, not because I'm afraid to stand behind what I say. I use a screen name to shield my local business associates from being associated with my personal "too advanced to comprehend sometimes" opinions - many of which could be considered bad for business in a town chock full of Right Wing Immortality Obsessed Zombies.

    Post on dude! I look forward to your next picking.

    By the way, RC ain't all bad. We bought each other a couple cyber beverages after arguing the life out some senseless topic a while back.

     
  • speaker posted at 3:22 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    speaker Posts: 7

    If we state or repeat slander or lies. we are then liars also. We will be stealing peoples reputations, killing their peace, and destroying our selves before GOD. Only evil people will not stop or learn to respect their fellow man. Tina has the right to address harm done to her, and so do you. It's called JUSTICE. Most of us don't seek justice. We most likely turn the other cheek to them, and some get slapped again and again.

     
  • speaker posted at 3:07 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    speaker Posts: 7

    If we state or repeat slander or lies.We are then liars also. We will be stealing peoples reputations, killing there peace, and destroying our selves before GOD. Only evil people will not stop or learn to respect their fellow man. Tina has the right to address harm done to her, and so do you. It's called Justice. Most of us , don't seek justice. We most likely , turn the other cheek to them,and some get slapped again and again.

     
  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 1:40 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    GM,

    The fun factor is why I picked on you instead of some of the others on here that actually take this Serious, instead of entertainment. If I would have tossed that bone to many others, they wouldn't have taken it in the light you did.
    I think you could easily pick a few screen names and insert them, and have great laughs at their expected outrage. (You remember that Soda, RC :) )

    By the way I am almost always entertained by your spins. But that is all they are worth without someone to stand behind them.

     
  • Rationale posted at 1:27 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    Rationale Posts: 1976

    Joe,

    Neither Libel nor slander are protected under your right to free speech. Accusing someone of a crime is, by definition, libel or slander (depending on whether verbal or written), unless you have some proof.

    None of our rights are limitless. Your rights (and mine) end when we infringe on the rights of others, and libel definitely does so.

    For clarification, how is it harassment for your neighbor to keep making these claims? If it was true, it could not be harassment. If it weren't, it would be libel, which is what this guy in the paper was guilty of.

    Absolutely no difference.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 12:22 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Wow, thanks Joe.. Where else would two guys like us be able to fight like rabid elephants and donkeys until we agree? Again, thank you CDA Press for this forum, something very American just happened!

    It would be an honor Joe if you were my 2800th post. Being that this is an election year and the Right Wing dominated Republicans keep inventing new ways to be silly, I got a feeling that number 2800 will be here in no time.

    Hi my name is GM, and I am a recovering Republican

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:58 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    GM, quit exaggerating the facts, you've posted 2676 times, not 2800, I might sue....

    Outstanding post, GM, couldn't have said it better.
    Chris

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 10:46 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "If I were to say GM is a Thief, no harm done"

    Maybe to my ego... Not!

    In fear of possible repercussions (not!)... when did we become such a thin skinned country? We used to be tough. We used let our actions speak for us, not anonymous opinions. Please don't go thinking that I'm saying that it is OK to lie about somebody, I'm not - that's a separate issue. I'm saying that it is very unproductive to get all worked up about anonymous opinions. Instead, why not have fun with them, I've posted nearly 2800 examples of how enjoyable it can be to play that game.

    Thank you CDA Press for creating this forum where we can exchange ideas anonymously

    Where else can we explore such sensitive issues as politics, religion and abortion so openly? Where else can we be so politically incorrect? Where else can our speech be this free?

    Once again, look for the Republican Party's attempt to distance themselves from this issue.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:06 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Rationale, I see your popints as well. I'll respond:
    "Actually, no one has the right to free speech when they do not have the proof to back it up"
    Disagree.
    The premise that if you don't have "facts to back you up" means that you lose the ideal of free speech is pretty....wrong. So; if my "facts" are inaccurate, I get sued, right?
    Disagree.

    "For example, your Obama claim about him being a "criminal" based on your criteria about the Constitution"
    My opnion is that America is not founded on the basis of socialism or communism, and I think he espouses both. Should I be sued for my opinion, more than that, should I lose my ability to express it is I am inaccurate?

    "Do you have proof"?
    Didn't know I needed "proof" to spaek out loud. I am NOT law enforcement, and I speak only for ME, not the public, as in a Prosecutor.

    "If so, it is not opinion, and not just your viewpoint"
    Regardless if it is an opinion or a viewpoint, the Constitution reserves me the RIGHT to free speech.

    "But you do not have the right to accuse someone of a crime that damages their reputation"
    Oh YES I DO.
    I have EVERY RIGHT to challenge anyone I want to, make accusations, scream ouot loud, cuss, all of it. IF I am REPRESENTATIVE of an organization or company, government agency or political party, I must be more careful, as my actions represent other people. As for myself, I have every right to say whatever I want to, anytime I want to.
    unless, of course, you have proof.

    "How would you like it if your neighbor accused you of being a pedophile, and kept blogging about it, and putting signs in his yard accusing you of such"?
    This is called HARASSMENT. It's not free speech, it is intentional inflictment of damage. Not the same thing as someone on a blog. If you're going to go after people on blogs, just shut down the courts & make them all use the courts for nothing EXCEPT blogs, becuase there are BILLIONS of posts that are wrong/bad every day.

    "And then they plastered the accusations in the newspaper"
    Newspapers have been wrong many times before, sometimes they get sued, but even then, a retraction & apology does the trick, but they are NOT the same as a person who blogs.

    "Free speech does have limits. Always has"
    What are the limits? Define them please.

    "That being said, her lawsuit, in light of the fact there was a retraction, is a little over-the-top and unnecessar"
    I agree, with you, Rationale, excepting that I don't think a retraction was necessary.

     
  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 9:00 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Being Anonymous give you allot of rope, but if you break the law, that rope can and should snap tight and hang you.
    Personally I am happy to see more and more people coming out using their real names, the discourse is still heated debate, but much more civil, than 2, 3 and 4 years ago.
    I Suspect after years you discourse with Randy Meyers, he commonly needs minder to help him continue breathing, but I respect his comments for being his beliefs. Unlike Frauds like The Golden Means (who ever that is) that stands in the shadows with shouts and spins, what he calls facts with impunity, or so it thinks. How anyone can respect anonymous cowards, that love to Spew but never willing to stand behind their words and are the first to call foul, I don't know.

    Free Speech is guaranteed, but with it comes responsibilities. Go get that Coward, Tina. Maybe these irresponsible blogs administrators and cowardly Bloggers will finally see they aren't bullet proof.

    If a blog is unmonitored, like some I have seen, then little to no responsibility is to the administrator. But if they set any rules, and allow illegal activity or try to protect it they should hang as high as the one that instituted it. IMO

    If I were to say GM is a Thief, no harm done. I don't know it and have no expectation anyone else does. It's like saying Superman or Garfield is a thief.
    If I were to say the same about Randy Meyers, Justin Cottrell, Mary Souza or Barak Obama I better have proof to back up my opinion. Just like Fire in a crowded theater; If no fire, your in trouble;
    If there is a fire, it's your duty. Nothing forbids you shouting fire, but you are responsible for your speech and those that give the platform are responsible not to protect or encourage them.

     
  • My2sence posted at 8:43 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    My2sence Posts: 317

    Can someone tell me how this is different from the "burglary" that happened a few months ago to a buisness in Hayden that had alarms on every window except for one, and supposedly there was 10 thousand dollars that was sitting in a office over the weekend, missing...remember there were alot of accusations from alot of bloggers indicating/accusing the lady of stealing, which probably ruined her reputation too, no one got sued over that.....yet.
    Or everyone accusing those cops of "murder"? thats a pretty hefty reputation destroying accusation wouldn't you agree.
    I'm thinkin this is a threat with no teeth.

     
  • Betrayer of Hope posted at 8:30 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    Betrayer of Hope Posts: 135

    Free speech is a natural right, with no limits. There are, however, consequences for some things. But this is just sad. Politicians should know what they are getting into.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 8:25 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    One thing to consider is that this seems to be a civil matter, not a criminal one. That means that damages must be shown (which is hard) or potential for future damages (which is even harder).

    *Lawyer Translation*
    Hard = Expensive to Prove
    Harder = Really, Really Expensive to Prove

    And to be "right" in this case equals a cash settlement for the plaintiff, that's it. Nobody's going to go to jail.

    Last I checked it was very much legal to have an opinion and to even speculate without a basis. Imagine sitting around having a few beers with friends and somebody in the bar didn't like what you said and took you to court over it. This situation is very similar.

    It seems anti-American to suggest that we cannot talk to each other as we please

    Ironically, it is the Republican Party's reputation that has the most to lose is this case.I wouldn't be surprised if you see them release a statement to distance themselves from the actions and/or future actions of the plaintiff.

     
  • Sheeken Hunter posted at 8:24 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    Sheeken Hunter Posts: 183

    Dufus=Oliveria? I am double checking the equation and running the calculation as I keyboard. Yep. Correct.

     
  • Rationale posted at 8:22 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    Rationale Posts: 1976

    Joe,

    We often see eye-to-eye, but not here.

    Actually, no one has the right to free speech when they do not have the proof to back it up.

    For example, your Obama claim about him being a "criminal" based on your criteria about the Constitution. Do you have proof? If so, it is not opinion, and not just your viewpoint.

    But you do not have the right to accuse someone of a crime that damages their reputation, unless, of course, you have proof.

    How would you like it if your neighbor accused you of being a pedophile, and kept blogging about it, and putting signs in his yard accusing you of such? And then they plastered the accusations in the newspaper.

    Free speech does have limits. Always has.

    That being said, her lawsuit, in light of the fact there was a retraction, is a little over-the-top and unnecessary.

     
  • Betrayer of Hope posted at 8:16 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    Betrayer of Hope Posts: 135

    Yeah this is just ridiculous. If you can sue and win for something a private citizen says then there really is no freedom of speech. Though honestly, there hasn't been for a while. Does anybody remember when the area around Bush's Crawford ranch was declared a non-free speech zone? Now they can potentially do that around any federal building or in the presence of any federal worker. Hopefully, something like this coming in local matter will hit close to home for people and something will finally be done about it.

    If I remember correctly, which I do, the 1st Amendment was intended specifically for OFFENSIVE and political oriented speech. Oh how far we have fallen.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 7:46 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    OK guys, let's get it right; freedom of speech, the law, etc.
    Let's say that I say that blobama is a communist who has nothing but bad intent for America, which would be criminal given his oath to our Constitution. So; by saying this, I have "libeled" him, right?
    But I BELIEVE that to be true.
    So; this being the case, should I be sued for libel?
    I mean, obviously, I AM affecting his ability to be reelected (hopefully) and therefore, taking money out of his family's mouth, right? So, by my belief, I could be sued, so I BETTER be quiet, under FEAR that my FREE SPEECH might get me sued.
    Have I lost my ability to say what I feel?
    Politicians have FOREVER slammed each other with obvious wrongness in terms of political agenda. They have libeled each other, and so have people. Bush was called so many names it was unreal; but he never sought to sue anyone over it. Cheney (according to the commies) used haliburton to steal trillions of dollars form the people, but NO LAWSUIT came from him against anyone who said any such stupidness.

    Rexaroni, you said that:
    "there is a huge difference between calling somebody names and alleging that they are party to a crime such as embezzlement or grand theft"
    Ah, but no one went in & made a police report alleging ANY wrongdoing.

    LTRLTR said:
    "Accused of stealing $10,000 is serious and should not be ignored"
    and-
    "I can't believe that any citizen would stand by while someone accuses them of a crime"

    I personally think there is a large connection between the local government & Hagadone, in terms of McKuen Park, and that there is probably conspiracy. There; I said it, like MANY before me.
    Shoudl I now fear that I may be sued?

    Get over it, people. The Kootenai Republican Party looks like a group of morons over this, and like I said earlier, they lost some fnding from me & my family over it. They're NOT "victims", they did NOT lose any money over it, no charges have been brought, and it IS an attempt to control Freedom of Speech by the same people that tell us that they're "for" the Constitution.

     
  • NoName posted at 6:44 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    NoName Posts: 253

    JoeIdaho, I see your point about having some fun with a name.... especially if that person is an actual "public figure." Ok, I can see that point..... In my case it was different because I'm not a public figure and was still crushed in the media by falsehoods. So, I think we are both right.... statements made against a private party should be held to a higher degree of accountability since the private party didn't seek an audience with the public by choice.

     
  • LTRLTR posted at 6:43 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    LTRLTR Posts: 1171

    Accused of stealing $10,000 is serious and should not be ignored.

    The Spokesman-Review's Huckleberries blog, at times, can provide some good information and other times the blog is designed to draw comments with its maliciousness towards individuals.

    I can't believe that any citizen would stand by while someone accuses them of a crime.

     
  • rexaroni posted at 4:49 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.

    rexaroni Posts: 190

    @JoeIdaho: It seems to me that there is a huge difference between calling somebody names and alleging that they are party to a crime such as embezzlement or grand theft.

    Having said that, it seems like this issue is best dropped, given that the original poster ended up apologizing and retracting their statement. I agree that the suit probably damages Tina's reputation more. Prior to that, maybe twenty or so people actually knew of the blog posting. Now, many more know of it.

     
  • COG777 posted at 11:50 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    COG777 Posts: 340

    There was apology and a retraction from the person published on another blog thread. I agree that Mary has more libel and slander than Tina does.

    I think this suit is far more damaging to Tina's reputation than the comment.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:42 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    NoName, I'm sorry, but if we, as a people, have to make sure that everything we say is factually true as individuals, we have a serious freedom of speech issue. I don;t believe for a second that ANY public official or celebrity or anyone else should have the right to sue for libel unless it's a public newspaper or news reporting agency that performs the libel. Individuals shoudl be able to say whatever they want; any time.

    I agree with GM on this, totally.

    I say "bobama", so I get sued, right? Cuz I hurt his feelings, and he's what, not a bobama?
    IF there was malfeasance in the Kootenai County Republican group, they shoudl take care of it themselves; if nothing is wrong there's nothign to talk about. People are chickens, they cluck & say many stupid & worng/inaccurate things, all the time, every day. Saying that we need to take people to court over their speech is wrong as can be, makes me PURELY understand just how close republicans are to democrats.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 10:19 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Freedom of speech just got a kick in the teeth - By a political party!?!

    It's a dark day in America when citizens are marched into court for their comments by a member of political party, a party that has had its share of questionable opinions. This opens the door for both sides to be thrashed, much to the profitable enjoyment of their attorneys.

    This is gonna get messy. The litigation process will reveal other unmentionables which often surface during the discovery process. Subpoenas will fly back and forth and the depositions... Oh the questions that they ask - your lawyer can object but you'll still have to answer! Then there's the impending counter suit for damages and legal fees...

    Both sides will endure six figure legal bill BEFORE this issue has its day in court. Please tell me Republican Party Leadership, where's the fiscal responsibility in imposing frivolous legal expense? The goal was to reduce debt, not create it - Right?

    This is gonna cost a lot more than $10K!

     
  • straight up posted at 8:28 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    straight up Posts: 965

    Oliveria is such an agitator that it is no wonder that his uber-liberal pals would sink to such depths. He is whipping the half-dozen or so steady followers he has into a frenzy over the re-call effort.

     
  • RadRev2D posted at 8:26 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    RadRev2D Posts: 372

    what can you expect when you confront the followers of a Dufus?

     
  • Justin Cottrell posted at 8:04 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    Justin Cottrell Posts: 157

    Curious to see how this turns out.

     
  • Mary Souza posted at 8:00 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    Mary Souza Posts: 813

    I've been called every name in the book over on the Spokesman blog, most of them unrepeatable in polite company, including the name that got Rush in trouble. Recently they called me "Richard Butler". Can I sue too?

    Nevermind, it's a waste to give time and attention to such drivel.

     
  • CaiusCosades posted at 7:56 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    CaiusCosades Posts: 380

    I mean couldn't any negative comment about a specific person potentially be perceived as a libelous statement?

     
  • NoName posted at 7:31 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    NoName Posts: 253

    JoeIdaho, 99% of the time I agree with your posts. However..... I was once the target of both CDA Press and SR bloggers making false statements about me for several weeks ALL FALSE. This resulted in damage not only to me but also innocent family members including small children. Again, all the information was wrong / false but after several days of bashing by anonymous bloggers there was nothing I could do. Several local reporters also got in on it and a few years later were very remorseful for throwing me under the bus when the truth came out. Anyway, that's my two cents....... I don't think baseless public forum bashing is acceptable under an avatar when the statements made are false and libelous.

     
  • will-- posted at 7:31 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    will-- Posts: 1206

    Anonymous screen name or not, libelous statements should not be tolerated.

    JI,

    Sounds like the Republican Party may be better off without you.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:49 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    THIS is why I am not a Republican any more. I will vote for Romney over bobama, but this is absolute proof of politicians wishing to curtail free speech.

    Mrs Jacobson, you just lost the Republican Party a PILE of money that would have donated. Hopefully others follow suit. The "blogger" had the RIGHT to retain their anonimity and you are forcing the blogger to identify themselves out of something that YOU consider to be defamatory. IF there were funds stolen or misused, it woudl come to light, and steps would be addressed to repair/mediate the situation.
    instead, you use the platform you have to stop people from SPEAKING and furthermore, extort people into not speaking their minds over fear of insulting you.

    I am ASHAMED of the Republican Party in Kootenai County.

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks