Telegraph: KingCast v. Ayotte, GOP Free Press hearing set for 27 Oct 9am

by: KingCaster

Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 19:50:20 PM EDT

http://www.wepapers.com/Papers...

The Motion for Recusal/Reconsideration overnighted yesterday prompting the immediate hearing instead of a 17 Nov date.

http://www.wepapers.com/Papers...

The video with Judge Lynn prompting the Motion to Recuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Republican Nashua City Chair Dennis Hogan, who just got reprimanded the same time Judge Lynn was reprimanded this year, actually told the Telegraph that I "left voluntarily."

The pictures from other journalists present prove otherwise:

http://christopher-king.blogsp...

What planet are the GOP inhabiting?

Nashua Republican City Chair Dennis Hogan actually stated:
"He left voluntarily. I know that from his own video," Hogan said.

Here's today's story by Patrick Meighan.

Let's start with Kelly Ayotte media man Jeff Grappone and my response:

This is baseless and we will file a motion to dismiss," said Jeff Grappone, spokesman for the Ayotte campaign.

.....Yeah Jeff, the same way that you said the ALT+CONTROL+ DELETE email production lawsuit was an "election year stunt."

You guys just hate the First Amendment, that much is clear. And of course with Judge Lynn on the bench who thinks my activities are "nonsense" you have a fighting chance of winning, I'm just here to convey all of the relevant facts to the public.

That's what journalists do, whether you like it or not, my friend.

[So Jeff, let's see just how far you and a reprimanded Judge who thinks KingCast is "nonsense" will go to set back the First Amendment, and to show the World just what's it's like to practice journalism in the "Live Free or Die" State..... I'm just here to expose each and every step of our journey to the World Public. See you in Court.]

*************
And I almost always win First Amendment cases and I push it hard against Dems and Repblicans, watch Democratic County Commish Mary Jo Kilroy get an earful from Columbus School Board member Loretta Heard back in 1998, and watch Judge Lynn's nasty attitude toward me in 2006 all in one video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

*********
Now, then, on to the substance, Dennis Hogan, you are crazy. Have you forgotten that I have the audio of our conversation that day?

You say I was not forcibly removed, have you seen the pictures taken by other media with three police officers running me out the door, and on video you can hear them stating that I am going to be arrested both at Arpaio and at VFW. And at VFW the cop clearly says I will be arrested if I try to go in, THAT is what is on the video Man, what planet are you on?
http://i54.tinypic.com/33njh55...

And of course they threatened to call the police

Mexican Standoff video with all 3 violations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Ayotte public Facebook rally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Arpaio public rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Wow Counselor, if that is the best you can do it's no small surprise that you didn't know you can't represent both husband and wife in a divorce proceeding.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com...

You really should have kept your mouth shut like the other GOP mook because a Jury will find you entirely disingenuous, but thanks for the public statements Counselor.

Very Truly Yours,
KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People
posted by Christopher King at 5:47 AM | 0 comments  

NHPR Tomorrow: Blogger Rights

by: Zandra Rice Hawkins

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 18:10:12 PM EST

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 - A New Challenge on the First Amendment
Free speech allows us to say what we want, but it does have its limits.  We can't, for example, yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  The media has a responsibility to print the truth and a part for everyone else to give their opinions.  A new case being heard by the New Hampshire Supreme Court brings the first amendment to 2009.  In question, whether media outlets can protect the identities of anonymous online commenters.  It's a case that with not only bring the first amendment to posting sites, blogs and citizen journalists, but also see where they fit in today's media landscape.  Today we'll look at this case and what it may mean to the future of online posting.

Follow the link for the guest line-up, program begins at 9 a.m. For background on the issue, see this piece by Josh Rogers. Tune in, call-in: 1-800-892-6477.

A Stinging Setback for Press Freedom

by: JimC

Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:43:19 AM EDT

OK, it's not without its humor. The blogger in question called the plaintiff a "skank."

http://www.mediabistro.com/bay...

Cohen had asked Google for the information, so she could sue the author for defamation. Google had refused, citing the company's privacy policy (though it did take down the blog). Cohen's attorney's brought the matter to court. On Monday, a New York Supreme Court justice batted down the anonymous blogger's contention that the bons mot were mere opinion and instead, according to the Guardian (UK), "found Cohen may insist in a suit that the statements are factually inaccurate."

But the legal issue is damn serious.

As Cohen's attorney Steve Wagner told Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America today, the judge "balanced the first amendment rights with the rights of people to be protected from harmful, defamatory speech. It's sending out a message that the Internet is no longer a safe harbor for defamatory language."

Wrong! The First Amendment does NOT create protection from any form of speech. This ruling is completely, ludicrously wrong, and shame on Google for not appealing and fighting to protect Internet posters everywhere.

REPEAT: SHAME ON GOOGLE. I'd be mad too, and any judge can make a mistake, but Google has an army of lawyers at its disposal. Surely someone saw the risks involved here.

Court Ruling Could Prompt Dangerous Change in Libel Law

by: JimC

Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 17:30:04 PM EST

Dan Kennedy in The Guardian.

With malice aforethought
A US court ruling threatens to overturn the American legal principle that truth is an absolute defence against libel

(snip)

Robert Ambrogi, a lawyer who is also executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, is similarly horrified. "It is the most dangerous libel decision in decades," Ambrogi writes on his blog, adding: "If ill will is all that is needed to turn a truthful statement into libel, then everyone is a potential defendant."

My guess is that this will be overturned, but the potential danger is easy to see. Truth has always been the absolute defense, and "malice" was a secondary defense (that is, New York Times v. Sullivan and other cases acknowledged that mistakes were made -- but if they were made without malice, they were OK). In short, an honest, objective news operation would be safe from libel suits.

Now, if this stood, a news organization could find itself having to ensure not only that information is true, but that it does not reflect "ill will."

Take the Blagojevich coverage; nearly all of it is written with the conviction that he is guilty. Is it libelous? This ruling says yes, it is, even if he is guilty.

Temporarily, the First Amendment has been overturned.

A New Service From Hillary Clinton: Reverend Ratings

by: elwood

Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 18:21:47 PM EDT

Are you a New Hampshire Catholic, wondering whether Bishop McCormack's involvement in the Cardinal Law cover-ups should make you re-think your Sunday plans?

Help is on the way.

Hillary Clinton is now providing free religious consultation.

"[Rev. Wright] would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Bush threatens veto over federal shield law: quick explanation

by: elwood

Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 18:07:43 PM EDT

Journalist groups and civil libertarians are glumly supportive - it's a relatively weak bill, even compared to common, unofficial practice today.

President* Bush has suggested he will veto it.

Why? After all, Judith Miller of the New York Times went to prison for want of a shield law, protecting Scooter Libby from prosecution. Shouldn't the President* welcome this law?

Bizarro First Amendment in New Hampshire

by: elwood

Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:12:41 AM EDT

• It is being re-purposed from protecting the citizen's right to know about government into the corporation's right to know about citizens
  
• It is being hemmed in to make it dangerous for papers to report on what the police do
  

In the first case, a federal judge ruled a new state law signed by Governor Lynch unconstitutional. The law prohibited the sale or distribution of doctor's prescription records.

30 Years Ago: Live Free or Die

by: elwood

Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 20:25:18 PM EDT

George Maynard and his wife were Jehovah's Witnesses from Claremont. They found the state "Live Free or Die" motto inconsistent with their religious beliefs, and used electrical tape to cover up the motto on the bottom of their license plate. All of the numbers and letters in the main area of the plate were unobscured, as was the yearly sticker (I think we used them back then).

Maynard was arrested and fined for violating state law. He objected on First Amendment grounds. Governor Meldrim Thomson, whom I consider the founder of the modern New Hampshire GOP, took the case all the way to the Supreme Court.