Bush loses fight on web site satire

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

The Dallas Morning News

George W. Bush's presidential campaign,which made a federal case overa web site that poked fun at his White House bid,has been rebuffed by regulators.The Federal Election Commission has dismissed a request by the Bush campaign that it regulate the site,saying it has more pressing issues on its agenda.

"There is no evidence of serious intent to violate" federal law, the FEC said in a brief written statement."And this matter is less significant relative to other matters pending before the commission."

The site's creator,Zach Exley of Somerville Mass.,expressed erlief that the case had been thrown out.But he said earlier this week he would have preferred that the agency resolve the free-speech issues his case raised.

Bush first called attention to the Web site at a May 21 news conference,branding its creator"a garbage man" and questioning whther the site should be permitted on the Web.

"There ought to be limits to freedom," he said.

The Bush campaign initially sent a cease-and-desist letter last year,contending the site (gwbush.com) was illegally imitating the campaign's official Web page.

Exley subsequently changed the page so that it was no longer a look-alike site.But he continued to spoof Bush's youth,military history in the Texas Guard and early business career.

In particular,the site made references to drug use by juxtaposing cartoons of Bush with cocaine on his nose with mock letters from inmates serving time for drug-related offenses.

In May,Bush campaign lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg wrote the FEC,contending the site was tantamount to a political-action committee and should list the sources of its funding.

In its order didmissing the case,the FEC did not address how federal campaign laws should apply to online content.

END.

"There ought to be limits to freedom", George W Bush.

And people want this man as president?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 23, 2000

Answers

capnfun,

There should be and are limits to freedom. Your freedom ends where someone else's begins.

For example, the webmaster's freedom of speech ends if he commits libel. It is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. It is not protected speech.

The question thus becomes, is the web site libelous?

As far as your comment about people wanting this man for president, Clinton said the same thing on MTV about gun rights. The difference that I see is that Bush was being attacked personally and said something out of personal frustration. Clinton said what he said because he wants to deny you your right to keep and bear arms.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 23, 2000.

J-

Your argument turns back on itself when you try to justify what Bush said by referring to something Clinton said. It does not help your argument to bring another person into it. CapnFun said nothing about anyone else but Bush.

I do not agree that Bush was justified in saying what he said because he cannot take a joke. I read that whole web site. I see nothing libelous there. Obviously the FEC id not, either. And Bush, because he cannot take a joke and, therefore, probably has some real self- esteem issues(most recovering addicts do, if they do not have therapy), decides to spend money trying to silence someone involved in parody.

While I agree that free speech is not 100% unconditional, in this case here Bush said there should be limits to freedom in reference to a satirist-this is very, VERY, dangerous.

Would you then curtail all political cartoonists who made fun of you? Would you curtail comedians? Should Gerald Ford have had the cast of saturday night live silenced because they made fun of him tripping and falling?

You should have just acknowledged that Bush was wrong; not give examples of someone else's behavior, or justify what he said because he was upset that he felt attacked.

The leader of the free world has to have a stronger backbone. To file an action against a satirist is appalling and telling. I guess Mark Twain should have had actions filed against him. Or maybe Charles Dickins. Where does it end if our presidential candidate deems satire to be something which can be curtailed?

-- FutureShockJ: (gray@matter.think), April 23, 2000.


FutureShock,

I believe that my point was made quite clearly. If the site is libelous, than his freedom to put out those lies is not protected. If the site is not libelous, than Bush is in the wrong.

My last paragraph was an aside to capnfun's personal question/comment. I gave my own comment in defense of Bush, because capnfun was obviously attacking the man. I don't see where this weakens my argument, but you are entitled to your opinion. After all, this is America where certain freedoms are still protected.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 23, 2000.

J-

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. I still think that a man of Bush's stature, and his lawyers, should know better than to tie up the FEC with this matter. They knew damn well there was no libel on this site.

I still say the future president of this country has to have a better sense of humor and show more prudence than to waste time on a satirist.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 24, 2000.


Satire does not equal defamation (or what used to be called libel). Those who side with Mr. Bush should have a look at the text of Falwell vs. Hustler. I think you'll find it most illuminating.

In short, the Supreme Court held in that case that if a satirical item or grouping of items is so outrageous as to be unbelievable to the average viewer or reader, then defamation cannot be considered to have occurred. I haven't seen the website in question, but those who go to check it out may want to keep that legal nugget in the backs of their minds when they do.

Just something for you all to consider.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 24, 2000.



Sal:

I think that you are suggesting that Bush is Qualye in cowboy boots [not my characterization], and that nothing is too far out to be considered an actual quote. Do I read you right?

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 24, 2000.


Gram Negative [get it?]:

Here is the site. GWBush. No one could take this seriously. Elian for VP.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 24, 2000.


Z,

VP my ass! If Elian ain't presidential material Algore ain't either,nor GWB for that matter.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 24, 2000.


Z1, I'm sorry, but your question went right past me. If you'd rephrase it for poor confused me, I'd gladly try to answer it.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 26, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ