Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Cool.
On Dec. 2, 2003, the Tucson Citizen published a letter to the editor that harshly criticized America's conduct of the war in Iraq. The following month, a group of local residents, offended by the letter, filed a lawsuit against the paper alleging "intentional infliction of emotional distress." The newspaper asked a local judge, Leslie Miller, to throw out the suit on First Amendment grounds, but she refused. Now, the Associated Press reports, the Arizona Supreme Court is considering whether to overturn Judge Miller's ruling.
Free speech problem, right? Lots of ACLU types up in arms?
Nope. Dead Silence.
( http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/ and then scroll down)
|
Why's it "cool?"
I enjoy chuckling at hypocrisy as much as the next guy, but I don't entirely follow the logic.
- From wsj.com: "The AP reports the letter "suggested American soldiers in Iraq respond to attacks on them by killing Muslims at nearby mosques." The plaintiffs in the suit are "fearful Tucson Muslims" who said they decided "to keep their children home from religious schools" because they were intimidated by the letter. The judge ruled that, in her words, "reasonable minds could differ in determining whether the publication of the letter rose to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.""
Their conclusion: "But how can anyone who believes in free expression stand for anything other than laughing these plaintiffs out of court? It seems the champions of the Dixie Chicks, et al., are interested in defending offensive speech only when it is anti-American."
Uh, the letter was critizing US forces and alleged that they're retaliating by killing Muslims at nearby mosques. Sounds to me like ACLU et al should've actively supported the newspaper, but their reason for declining (whatever it was) doesn't sound like hypocrisy because the speech wasn't "anti-American."
Threaded Mode