FREE SPEECH

© 2012 jbjd

By posting DE-CODER RING (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RING (2 of 2), I had hoped to forever dispel for the benefit of my readers the notion that the image of a birth certificate which appears on the web site, Fight the Smears, copyright 2007; was anything other than the focal point of a paid political ad. (Note, here I use the word “notion” as an homage to President Obama, whose use of that word I have revealed in the past, triggers in my mind the anticipation of a straw dog argument, followed immediately by a perfectly scripted response.)

As you can see, the copyright of the ad is to Barack Obama in 2007; the description of the copyrighted ad materials is “Barack Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign: Fight the Smears”; and the title of the ad campaign is “Fight the Smears: The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate.”

And I tried to instill the proposition that, being a political ad; all speech appearing in FTS, whether true, is protected under the 1st Amendment. https://jbjd.org/2011/01/12/de-coder-rings-2-of-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3548

But for some reason, the Washington Post appears determined to perpetuate the myth that, with respect to the nature of Mr. Obama’s FTS political ad campaign, I am wrong.

The Post keeps a political ads database, where they list more than 100 titles of campaign ads connected to Barack Obama appearing on t.v., radio, and the web, in years 2007 and 2008. Guess which one is missing?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Freedom costs.

Advertisements

6 Responses to FREE SPEECH

  1. So, are you saying that because the “0”s ‘campaign committee” fails to list the “BC Campaign Ad” as being a “Campaign Ad’ it is or may be construed as being an “illegal campaign ad” under the regulatory scheme of Campaign Finance Laws under the auspices of the F.E.C….? …..(Of course, with all the watchdogs having been neutered or otherwise distracted it becomes problematic to devise any strategy to derail the high-speed socialist train that “Ad” supports)

    • jbjd says:

      Stephen Lee Craig: More straw dogs? I repeat, a newspaper entitled The Washington Post keeps a campaign ad database which failed to list the campaign ad Fight the Smears, copyrighted in 2007 to Barack Obama. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Whats with the straw dog C**p, I asked an honest question.

        You suggest that the BC is in appearance and perhaps an actual Campaign Ad. I ask if it is indeed an Ad would it not be regulated Campaign Speech …?

        The fact that the paper does not include it in its reporting does not conclusively prove that it is not ‘reported’ as an Ad to the appropriate Agency.

        You appear to be quite knowledgeable and post on a number of issues that would lead a person to believe you are in opposition to the “0” , his actions, policies, etc. but then you choose not to engage in conversations on the subjects you post.

        • jbjd says:

          Steven Lee Craig: The previous two articles I link here – DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2) explain what is a campaign ad (expenditure), under the U.S. Code. The WaPo is a private (read, non-public) publisher which purports to have compiled a database containing campaign ads. The WaPo has no privity to the average citizen, that is, it has no cognizable obligation to provide particular information relating to candidate campaign expenditures. Conversely, the average citizen has no cognizable legal expectation with regard to such information. I merely found interesting that they omitted Obama’s 2007 FTS ad.

          I try very hard not to let my personal feelings about any candidate supplant reason when it comes to discussing issues related to how our electoral system works. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Ok, thank you and I re-read Decoder 1 & 2…so allow me to drill down a bit…..I believe you would agree that the Criminal Code may be useful in support of a Civil complaint but there is little prospect that any controlling legal authority would investigate or file criminal charges over the use of a ‘facsimile’ of a document covered under the criminal codes given that the Justice Dept is in the bag of the regime.

    So, how can being aware that the posting is a Campaign Advertisement become a basis for a civil complaint seeking public disclosure of that fact and a retraction of the ‘facsimiles’ authenticity…?

    ….or are you saying that the small pt type at the footers covers the ‘legal disclosures’ that are required…?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: