Links
Archives
- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
SINCLAIR DECLARES WAR ON FREE SPEECH
Legal Disclaimer: This is an opinion based blog and its original content are commentary. Any references or links to outside sources have been used in the good faith belief that the information contained therein is not knowingly false or malicious. Accordingly, using Sinclair’s line of reasoning, I am free to say anything I damn-well please.
The right to free speech represents an integral part of the foundation upon which the United States of America was built. The chief complaint of the organizations which have targeted Sinclair is the nightly presentation of an editorial called "The Point." This section of the news is clearly labeled as opinion and represents nothing more than the legal exercise by Sinclair of its First Amendment right to broadcast commentary both within and outside its newscasts. Contrary to the impression being provided by those complaining about Sinclair's programming, in no way does Sinclair attempt to disguise opinion as news.
How about Sinclair’s attempt to disguise questionable facts, propaganda and promotion of the a radical right-wing agenda as opinion?
Intimidation
Moreover, the continued misrepresentation of the facts surrounding any company's advertising practices regarding Sinclair stations constitutes "trade defamation" which would entitle Sinclair to seek damages in a court of law. Sinclair will aggressively pursue any organization or any individual which engages in such defamation, including individuals who lend their names to mass e-mail campaigns spreading such misinformation.
Apparently, irony is lost on Sinclair since they plan to file frivolous lawsuits against organizations and individuals that target Sinclair’s advertisers. I guess there’s some use for “trial lawyers” after all.
I will fight for my right of free speech even if it means defending against an unethical corporation such as Sinclair in a court of law. The airways are public, not private. Their use of our airways is licensed. Don’t assume their will always be a Michael Powell at the FCC to protect your sorry asses. Further, there are legal remedies which a defendant can avail himself in the event a frivolous, malicious, venal lawsuit is commenced.
Blatant Hypocrisy
We express our appreciation to all of our advertisers who have not been swayed by the actions of a few people who want to stifle the legal presentation of different points of views.
It’s okay then to stifle legal presentation of different points of views with the threat of lawsuits for defamation and/or trade libel.
We Will Fight Back!
Any attempts by Sinclair to deny the rights of American citizens to express their own opinions will be met with organized opposition. Any group or individual targeted by Sinclair to be victimized by Sinclair’s dubious claims will be defended to the fullest extent in a court of law, if necessary, and loudly in the court of public opinion, The progressive individuals and groups who still believe in the Constitution will band together to fight this obvious attempt at intimidation more reminiscent of oppressive regimes. Counter claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process are virtually guaranteed as is complete use of discovery tools provided by federal and state laws. Plan on long, drawn-out litigation and negative press the likes of which you can only have nightmares about. You think there’s been a negative backlash against “The Point,” wait till you see what happens when you go after proud, patriotic Americans exercising their Constitutional rights.
More Commentary
Sinclair Broadcasting is a boil on the backside of today’s mainstream mass media which is itself a diseased body infected by greed.
Advertisers should take it upon themselves to determine whether to advertise with an organization that has such little regard for the rights guaranteed in the Constitution in order to protect their own bottom line.
A reputable organization would broadcast opposing viewpoints. Media ownership and consolidation are issues that affect the very fabric of our representative form of democracy.
|
Legal Disclaimer: This is an opinion based blog and its original content are commentary. Any references or links to outside sources have been used in the good faith belief that the information contained therein is not knowingly false or malicious. Accordingly, using Sinclair’s line of reasoning, I am free to say anything I damn-well please.
The right to free speech represents an integral part of the foundation upon which the United States of America was built. The chief complaint of the organizations which have targeted Sinclair is the nightly presentation of an editorial called "The Point." This section of the news is clearly labeled as opinion and represents nothing more than the legal exercise by Sinclair of its First Amendment right to broadcast commentary both within and outside its newscasts. Contrary to the impression being provided by those complaining about Sinclair's programming, in no way does Sinclair attempt to disguise opinion as news.
How about Sinclair’s attempt to disguise questionable facts, propaganda and promotion of the a radical right-wing agenda as opinion?
Intimidation
Sinclair Broadcasting says that it will use intimidation to keep American citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights under the guise of protecting their own. As a public relations move, this is brilliant (not). I wonder how their shareholders will react to the negative press that will be generated by their lawsuits against ordinary citizens expressing a point of view.
I will fight for my right of free speech even if it means defending against an unethical corporation such as Sinclair in a court of law. The airways are public, not private. Their use of our airways is licensed. Don’t assume their will always be a Michael Powell at the FCC to protect your sorry asses. Further, there are legal remedies which a defendant can avail himself in the event a frivolous, malicious, venal lawsuit is commenced.
We express our appreciation to all of our advertisers who have not been swayed by the actions of a few people who want to stifle the legal presentation of different points of views.
We Will Fight Back!
More Commentary
Whether or not one chooses to contact an advertiser regarding Sinclair is their right. A more direct approach is to just boycott the news programs if they are broadcast in your area and let advertisers know that their advertising dollars are being wasted.
Sinclair Broadcasting is a boil on the backside of today’s mainstream mass media which is itself a diseased body infected by greed.
Advertisers should take it upon themselves to determine whether to advertise with an organization that has such little regard for the rights guaranteed in the Constitution in order to protect their own bottom line.
A reputable organization would broadcast opposing viewpoints. Media ownership and consolidation are issues that affect the very fabric of our representative form of democracy.
