You are here: Home / Archives for Freedom of Speech

Arizona to Ban “Annoying” Behavior on the Internet

April 4, 2012 By 36 Comments

by Rachel Alexander
Townhall.com

You and I may not use profanity in our Facebook posts, but what about that crazy relative who puts up the funniest posts that sometimes cross the line? Almost no one approves of swearing, but with the exception of broadcasting during daytime TV and radio, it is not illegal. Now new legislation in Arizona would effectively make swearing on the internet a crime.
Sponsored by Democrats and liberal Republicans, Arizona House Bill 2549 passed both the House and Senate almost unanimously last week, and has gone back to the House for a minor change before being sent to Governer Jan Brewer to sign. The relevant part states:
It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.
It expands Arizona anti-harassment laws beyond telephones and to the internet. The problem with this is that one person specifically telephoning another person is not the same thing as an anonymous comment on the internet. This kind of behavior goes on all the time on the internet. Every day on political blogs and news sites, some commenters get a little out of hand, and most website editors handle the problem by stepping in and deleting the offensive comments or leaving a comment warning people to tame their comments.
Words like “annoy” and “offend” are vague and could be interpreted broadly to prevent someone from simply engaging in political debate. What one person considers profanity another might not. Is the word “sucks” a swear word? What about “b.s.?” Plenty of families find those acceptable, while others do not. Even anonymous commenters could be liable, if an internet provider produces records tracing their IP address.
There is no way this legislation will survive a First Amendment challenge in court. The government cannot flat out ban all swear words, which is effectively what this legislation does in the internet realm. The courts have already carefully decided when and under what circumstances the FCC may prohibit swear words on broadcast TV and radio, and even those restrictions are now being reconsidered. Consider all the swear words on TV and in movies. Then think of what a mammoth task it would be policing the entire internet for swear words that reportedly annoy or offend someone, and to come up with the additional resources necessary to prosecute them. Anyone could get into a political debate with someone on a political website, use one swear word in their comments, and be considered violating the law. My own political website, IntellectualConservative.com, is technically full of violators. This is troubling since political debate is the bedrock of our country, Constitution and the First Amendment.
Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Freedom of Speech, Legislation

CD-8 Candidate Dave Sitton Raises Concern over Arizona HB 2549

April 3, 2012 By 8 Comments

April 3, 2012 (Tucson, AZ) – In response to Arizona HB 2549, a bill that critics believe violates First Amendment speech rights on the Internet, Arizona Congressional Candidate Dave Sitton encouraged the legislative conference committee, where the bill now sits, to either kill the bill, or to more narrowly define the bill to make it Constitutional.

“I understand that the intent of the bill was to protect certain people from being stalked or threatened and there are laws on the books that already do that. It is obvious, however, that the language of the bill goes much further, and could criminalize behavior that the bill was not intended to address. Most people have been annoyed at times by what they have read on the Internet, but there are definite First Amendment protections for this type of speech that this law puts into jeopardy.”

Sitton believes that more narrowly defining the scope of the bill to one-on-one communication such as text messaging or emails sent to a private email account would go a long way to making the bill both constitutional and effective in the manner intended by the legislators.

In reference to State Senator Frank Antenori, who voted for the bill, and is also running for the Republican nomination in the Arizona Eighth Special Election, Sitton encouraged Antenori to show a little more care and diligence before voting, stating “One of the biggest reasons why congress and elected officials remain unpopular is because they tend to rush through bills without understanding the effect that they may have outside of the intent of the drafters.”

For more information visit www.davesitton.com 

# # #

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Freedom of Speech, Legislation, Press Release, State Government Tagged With: ,

Cal Thomas: Rachel Maddow and My Lesson in Civility

March 7, 2012 By 34 Comments

I am reprinting this for the pure purpose of getting everyone’s thoughts.

By Cal Thomas (reposted from TownHall.com)

When one writes about moral convictions, it’s probably a good idea to consistently live up to them. That way people can still disagree with your convictions, but they have a difficult time accusing you of hypocrisy.

Last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, I failed to live up to one of my highest principles. Here’s the background. The story about the Obama administration’s attempt to force Catholic and other faith-based institutions to offer employees free contraception in their health care coverage was still fresh. I was asked to be on a panel before what looked like a crowd of about 1,000 conservatives, hungry for “red meat.”

A clip was played from Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program. It featured her commenting on the subject. I stupidly said before thinking, “I think she’s the best argument in favor of her parents using contraception.” I then added, “and all the rest of the crowd at MSNBC, too, for that matter.”

It didn’t matter that far worse things have been said in print and on TV about me. I am not supposed to behave like that. I co-wrote a book with my liberal Democratic friend, Bob Beckel, called “Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America.” We also write a column together for USA Today. One of the principles in which I believe is not to engage in name-calling; which, to my shame, I did.

The next morning I felt bad about it, so I called Ms. Maddow to apologize. It wasn’t one of those meaningless “if I’ve offended anyone…” apologies; it was heartfelt. I had embarrassed myself and was a bad example to those who read my column and expect better from me.

Maddow could not have been more gracious. She immediately accepted my apology. On her show she said publicly, “I completely believe his apology. I completely accept his apology.” To be forgiven by one you have wronged is a blessing, it’s even cleansing.

Politics has always been a contact sport. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went at each other like the worst of enemies, using some of the most outrageous and slanderous language. I don’t have bona fides equal to their founding of America, so there is nothing of similar magnitude on which I can fall back.

Maddow also accepted my invitation to lunch and we will soon meet in New York. I am looking forward to it. Since the incident, which, of course, garnered a mini-tornado of media and blogosphere coverage, I have watched a couple of her shows. Without engaging in any qualifiers, she is a strong and competent advocate for her position. Why do so many of us only watch programs that reinforce what we already believe? Where is the growth in that? Whatever else she may or may not be, she is my fellow American.

I have many liberal friends acquired over the years. They are impossible to avoid in the media, but I don’t wish to avoid them. They became my friends because I stopped seeing them as labels and began seeing them as persons with innate worth. That is what I failed to do in my first response to Rachel Maddow. One might expect a pro-lifer like me to support the birth of fellow human beings and not suggest they should never have been born.

I expect to like Rachel Maddow because my instinct is to separate the value of a person from his or her political position. For some strange reason (demon possession, perhaps) I failed to do that at CPAC.

So, apology delivered and accepted and lunch will soon be served. I’m trying to decide whose career might be hurt more should someone take a picture of us enjoying a meal and –it is to be hoped, at least by me — each other.

Filed Under: Conservatives, Culture, Freedom of Speech, Guest Opinion, Human Condition

Arizona Public Notices – It’s time to change the law!

February 9, 2012 By 2 Comments

Committee Testimony on HB 2403: Online Public Notices is Thursday morning

Editor’s note: Sonoran Alliance and several other Arizona political news blogs  (ACOM – Arizona Coalition of Online Media) strongly support this bill and will be at the hearing Thursday morning. Help stop the print newspapers’ monopoly over public notices.

by Lynne LaMaster, eNewsAZ

Right now, newspapers have a monopoly on the publication of Public Notices. You know, those ads you see in super-tiny print next to the want ads in the local paper?

Representative David Stevens, however, has a different idea. Let’s allow Public Notices to be published online or in printed newspapers. If his bill passes, competition for Public Notices will go up, prices should go down. Taxpayers will benefit as their governmental agencies won’t have to pay nearly as much in fees (estimated to be over $1.8 million in Arizona alone).

It will also make public notices more available world wide, allow for better, more readable formatting, better access for those with disabilities, and more information to be shared, such as links to maps, bid specifications, agendas and more.

Newspapers aren’t supporting this because they believe they are the watchdog over Public Notices. They also question the ability for online entities to offer verification, and serve those who don’t get the Internet.

See http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_605be59a-4e92-11e1-a963-0019bb2963f4.html

There is a hearing Thursday morning at 9am in front of the committee, and they are going to vote on it. There is also a stakeholder’s meeting Wednesday at 4pm.

Here are the committee members:

  • David Stevens (R) – bill sponsor
  • Sally Ann Gonzales (D)
  • Justin Pierce (R)
  • Carl Seel (R)
  • Bruce Wheeler (D)
  • Terri Proud (R)
  • Jeff Dial (R)

Please email or call them and let them know you support this bill. http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp

Bill info – http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2403&Session_ID=107

Read Lynne’s full analysis of why you should support HB 2403.

Filed Under: Advertising, Arizona Politics, Freedom of Speech, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Legislation, Regulations, Small Business, State Government Tagged With: ,

A Photo Tells A Thousand Words: Obama Confronts Brewer, Gets Earful

January 26, 2012 By 19 Comments

Thank you Governor Brewer for not backing down when confronted by President Obama this afternoon.

This is Our State and even the President needs to show a little respect when he touches down on our turf, especially turf that once sent our men and women off to battle.

Lesson to President Obama: Never mess with a Governor who eats scorpions for breakfast!

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Federal Government, Freedom of Speech, State Government, States Rights Tagged With: , ,

Have Your Voice Heard and Your Vote Count!

January 22, 2012 By Leave a Comment

By A.J. LaFaro

The Republican Presidential Preference Election is just around the corner. On February 28th, registered Republicans throughout Arizona will be going to the polls to vote for the person who may face Barack Hussein Obama for the next President of the United States of America.

The election is a closed primary and only voters who are registered or reregistered Republican on or before January 30th midnight will be allowed to vote in this historic event.

During Obama’s administration, our Country has faced monumental challenges – continued high unemployment, millions losing their homes, a reduced standard of living, a $15 trillion dollar increasing national debt and the first downgrade to America’s credit rating ever.

We’ve become a second rate nation in three short years and a sense of deep pessimism has gripped Americans with little hope for the future and little change in their pockets. Obama’s social and political experiments have failed miserably.

Considering the liberal Democrats, progressive socialists and organized labor, I seriously question if America’s enemies are really overseas.

If you are an Independent voter who wants to have their voice heard and their vote count, then take a few minutes and reregister Republican by January 30th midnight.

It’s convenient and easy to do online at www.azgop.org or www.servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/selectLanguage

I look forward to seeing you at the polls on February 28th!

A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, AZGOP Statewide Voter Registration
Arizona Republican Party

A.J. LaFaro also serves as the Chairman of Legislative District 17 Republicans.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Freedom of Speech, Guest Opinion, State Government, Voter Registration, Voters Guide Tagged With:

Rep Jeff Flake: Why should politicians use taxpayer funds to get their name to pop up in Google searches?

December 22, 2011 By 5 Comments

Reposted from the Wall Street Journal.

By Congressman Jeff Flake

Some would say it’s Grinch-like that members of Congress cannot send any mail pieces from their offices wishing constituents a “Merry Christmas.” But read a little deeper into this issue, and chances are you’ll be siding with the bah-humbug crowd.

Members of Congress can, of course, extend any holiday wishes they desire on a personal basis: Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Blessed Kwanzaa or even, with a nod to George Costanza, Happy Festivus. Members of Congress just can’t use taxpayer dollars to send these season’s greetings if extending such greetings “is the primary purpose of the communication.”

This is a good thing. Do you really need to pay for Congressman X’s awkward family photo featuring a dozen grandchildren and the family dog in matching sweaters with the U.S. Capitol photoshopped into the background?

While we’re on the subject of taxpayer-funded salutations, you may be interested to know that Congress is moving beyond the standard campaign-esque glossy mailers. Elected officials have begun touting their feats of strength on the right-hand column of your Facebook page and Google searches—and you’re paying for it!

Since members seeking to pay for these Internet advertisements with taxpayer-funded office budgets are required to file such advertisements with the House Franking Office, my staff and I examined a few of them. What we found may surprise you—or, given Congress’s 9% approval rating, perhaps not.

“Congressman X is Fighting the Madness,” screams one Facebook ad, “Fighting Plans to End Medicare, Government Shutdown, Giveaways to Big Oil.” “Rep. X is working to lower gas prices by increasing American energy production. Find out more and like my page today!” says another. “Congressman X is Committed to Creating Jobs, Driving Down Spending and Shrinking the Size of the Federal Government.” Well, apparently not all spending.

Each click on these ads costs taxpayers additional money, as each click-through drives up a member’s ad bill.

Members of Congress can also use taxpayer funds to make sure their name pops up when someone does a Google search. As a general example, clicking on the member’s name that was primed to pop up with a Google search for the phrase “raising debt ceiling” would cost taxpayers approximately $4.70 per click. Ouch.

Then there are the political hijinks that members of Congress can play using taxpayer dollars. A member trying to lure conservation voters can use taxpayer funds to buy ads on conservation-themed websites. A member with an eye on a governor’s mansion can use taxpayer money to purchase ads that will pop up when a person in the member’s state searches for “governor” on Google.

So what do all of these ads cost taxpayers every year? The truth is, we don’t yet know. The current practice of the House is to shield the actual cost of these ads from public view. And this practice probably won’t change any time soon: Both parties engage in this ad buying, so both parties tend to look the other way when it comes to policing the practice.

Sitting members of Congress have abundant opportunities for earned media and press secretaries to ensure that our accomplishments, such as they are, are trumpeted far and wide. Social media have become a useful tool to promote ideas and policies, and many such media are free—or at least don’t cost the public anything. Why, then, should members be able to use taxpayer funds to purchase additional name ID for themselves?

Mr. Flake, a Republican, is a congressman from Arizona.

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Federal Budget, Federal Government, Freedom of Speech, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Media Tagged With: ,

Bill Whittle: A Voter’s Guide to Republicans

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Well said Bill Whittle!

YouTube Preview Image

Be sure to subscribe to Bill’s YouTube Channel.

Filed Under: Conspiracy Theories, Culture, Freedom of Speech, Liberals, Media, Personalities, Political Correctness, Political Parties, Political Science, Race Relations Tagged With:

Arizonan Exceptionalism: A Conservative Voice in the Wilderness

November 29, 2011 By 3 Comments

By Kelly Townsend

Arizona continues to be a shining star in the midst of liberal darkness that shrouds our country. As we hear reports of inequality regarding the treatment of the Tea Party vs. the treatment of the Occupy protesters in Richmond and other locations, I wish to give thanks the leaders of our great State for their support and fair treatment of our groups over the last two and a half years.

Kelly Townsend

Not once have we received resistance to our events, been unduly denied permits or access to public areas, nor harassed in any manner. On the contrary, the City of Phoenix has provided police protection for our members and has provided freedom of expression of our first and second amendment rights. We have always felt free to express our message, even when it is alongside the violent opposition.

Indeed, Arizona has been a beacon for those wishing to lift their voices in protest, not only for the Conservative voice, but also for the law-breaking entitlement groups who hate our State and our country. When a group of illegal immigration proponents threw a large American flag on the State Capitol grounds, placed a toilet seat on it and instructed their children to stomp their dirty shoes over it in defiance of our laws, the Arizona Capitol police protected their 1st amendment rights as well.

Yes, here in Arizona you can wave your Mexican flag on the porch of the Capitol and declare that it is truly Mexico, not the United States, and get away with it. As abhorrent as that seems, it is the nature of Arizona to uphold the law and the rights of her people, even when it hurts. We applaud our great State, and offer her example to those officials in other parts of our great country who have forgotten what it means to respect the protection of the Constitution.

Kelly Townsend is Co-Founder of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party.

 

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Conservatives, Culture, Freedom of Speech, Government, Guest Opinion, Political Correctness, Political Parties, Political Science, Protests, States Rights Tagged With:

Seminar on Sharia Law: What We Need To Know, presented by Al Fadi

November 29, 2011 By 18 Comments

INVITES YOU TO ATTEND

Sharia Law:  What We Need To Know

PRESENTED BY AL FADI

Date: Saturday, December 3, 2011
Time: 10:00 am – 12:00 noon
Location: The Scottsdale Bible Church  Room E-210
Address: 7601 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ

Al Fadi is a former Wahabbi Muslim from Saudi Arabia.  He is the researcher, editor, writer, and translator for numerous ministries, including “Answering Islam” and runs an outreach center called; the Center for Islamic Research & Awareness. The center focus is to bring awareness regarding Islam, to build bridges with Muslims, and to provide expert input on issues related to Sharia Law and Democracy.

Al is the editor, co-author and contributor of “The Qur’an Dilemma” (both English & Arabic versions) – a critical analysis book of the Qur’an. He is also the director of TheQuran.com Group (www.theQuran.com) which desires to assist both Muslims and non-Muslims who seek to learn more about the main source of Islamic teachings, the Qur’an, to research it, to critically analyze it, and to better comprehend its contents without the traditional religious and cultural barriers designed to indoctrinate and encapsulate the minds of many truth seekers.

Al has a Masters in Engineering and is currently working on completing his M.Div. in Biblical Communications. He is an invited teacher/lecturer on Islam and related Islamic study topics. He is an invited guest speaker and trainer at numerous churches and mission agencies on the topic of Islam & Evangelism to Muslims. As a former devout Muslim, he is an expert on the teaching and challenges of Islam. In addition, Al is an invited guest/expert on numerous Arabic evangelical Satellite TV and Radio shows on the topics of Islam and the Middle East.

Refreshments will be served

Cost: $10 per person

Go to www.arizonamainstreamproject.org to make payment by credit card.  If making payment at the door, please RSVP to Susan Leeper at 480-998-5022 or susan@arizonamainstreamproject.org

 

Filed Under: Advertising, Culture, Ethics, Family, Freedom of Speech, History, National Security, Political Correctness, Religion, State Government, States Rights, Terrorism, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Does “transparency” trump the First Amendment

November 29, 2011 By 2 Comments

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

Almost two years ago, in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibited the government from forcing any corporation, union or other association to channel their money through a political action committee in order to make independent expenditures. Arizona responded by thumbing its nose at the decision.

Under the guise of requiring disclosure of independent expenditures, the state enacted a law that effectively forces any corporation, union or limited liability company that exists “primarily” to influence elections to channel its independent expenditures through a political committee. Now, in the name of transparency, the Arizona Secretary of State is engaged in a headlong effort to enforce compliance with this unconstitutional regulatory regime.

Independent groups are right to resist. Applied to independent expenditures, Arizona’s political committee regulations are essentially the same as those struck down in Citizens United. Both threaten civil or criminal penalties merely for raising and spending money to talk about politics.

To avoid such sanctions, both sets of regulations require forming and registering an elaborate political organization, complete with segregated accounts, appointed officers and responsibility for regular financial reporting, as well as exposure to audits by governmental agencies. This forces groups who want to engage in political speech to develop an expertise in volumes of campaign finance laws, related regulations, and agency interpretations of regulations.

As a result, both sets of regulations minimally impact well-funded, politically-connected groups, but heavily impact the least sophisticated, the least connected, and the most underfunded.

Neither the federal government nor Arizona have the constitutional authority to require such high regulatory hurdles for independent groups engaging in free speech. The First Amendment does not allow “transparency” to become a banner under which the government silences independent voices.

American citizens have a constitutional right to spend money expressing their support or opposition for candidates. That right is not forfeited when they organize a corporation, union or limited liability company to serve as the means of pooling their resources.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: A Case for Limiting Campaign Finance Regulations

A.R.S. § 16-902 (2011): Arizona Political Committee Regulations

A.R.S. § 16-901 (2011): Arizona Statutory Definitions

A.R.S. § 16-919 (2011): Criminal Sanctions for Contributions other than to Independent Expenditure Committee

Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech

In defense of anonymous speech

November 8, 2011 By 25 Comments

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

As often happens during election season, the media has been up in arms about “secret funds” being spent by independent groups on messages meant to support or oppose candidates.

They should get a grip. The First Amendment enshrines freedom of speech, not witch-hunts led by the political establishment under the banner of “transparency.”

Our nation was founded on anonymous free speech by independent groups. Under pseudonyms, the Founders deliberately hid their identities as they engaged in coordinated advocacy of the ratification of the Constitution in 85 pamphlets. The pamphlets were crucial to rebutting the arguments of those who opposed the Constitution.

Without anonymity, the arguments advanced by the Founders could have been evaded with ad hominem attacks. Anonymity forced the opposition to grapple with ideas on their merits. This resulted in a better debate, which the Founders won on the strength of their ideas.

The marketplace of ideas is enhanced, not diminished, by the freedom to engage in anonymous speech. Broadside government attacks on anonymous speech threaten to suppress the marketplace of ideas, which ultimately threatens the media as much as any independent group.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn More:

Arizona Republic: Throw a light on secret funds

Library of Congress: The Federalist Papers

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech

DeeDee Blase is a Liar and Engaging in Libel.

November 7, 2011 By 125 Comments

OK DeeDee Garcia Blase. If you want to play this game on the blogs, let’s play. I’m calling you out!

I have always believed that running Olivia Cortes was a huge mistake if not just plain stupid. Gaming the system in such a manner goes against the American Association of Political Consultants Code of Ethics.

I did not participate in the fiasco of running her as a candidate other than providing a forum for supporters and detractors to discuss her participation in the race.

Ultimately what Tom Ryan did to her was evil by dragging her through the mud and into the court system. If there was anyone YOU should be attacking for disrespecting Latinas, it is Tom Ryan and his minions for humiliating her in the courts. Shame on you DeeDee for not defending her!

Yes, Olivia Cortes was dragged into this stupid, unnecessary recall fiasco as a means to game the system. Those who pulled her into this were wrong for doing so.

DeeDee Garcia Blase, we may agree on several other issues but you are DEAD WRONG on my participation in the Cortes fiasco.

You should also go back and read Sonoran Alliance and see that I gave Jerry Lewis supporters the opportunity to post on Sonoran Alliance as guest opinions. I even gave Tyler Montague and Chad Snow space and time to get their opinions out:

Deep Thoughts from Team Pearce: A new interpretation of, “We report, you decide.” by Tyler Montague

Citizens for a Better Arizona Official Statement – “Why a Recall – Why Now?” by Chad Snow

You need to do your research before you start hysterically lashing out at what you don’t know.

This blog is well read across the State of Arizona and in Washington, D.C. Anyone who is a frequent reader and visitor will see that I have given each side the opportunity to voice their opinions.

If you want to continue to pursue this and tell lies about my position, I will be more than willing to dedicate space on Sonoran Alliance to make sure that you received negative ink on a daily basis. This is your opportunity to retract your posts that are outright lies and likely libelous. In exchange, I will remove this post. The choice is yours DeeDee Blase.

Finally, go back and read Sonoran Alliance in 2010 and you will see that John McCain had his supporters also posting on the blog. It was NOT one-sided as you alleged on your most recent post.

I am getting sick and tired of people like you who think that I write every post on Sonoran Alliance or don’t allow other viewpoints. There are plenty of people who will back me up that Sonoran Alliance bends over backwards to give equal access to both sides. Hell DeeDee, I would even give you your own login if you asked!

So tell the truth DeeDee Blase and take the opportunity to correct and retract your statements before you wear out my graces.

Filed Under: Blogs, Debates, Ethics, Freedom of Speech Tagged With: ,

New Rules for Discourse on Sonoran Alliance

October 11, 2011 By 14 Comments

Because certain people who comment on this blog cannot seem to hold civil discussions, I am now having to waste my time (for which I do not get paid) monitoring every comment on Sonoran Alliance. I will NOT bow or be bullied by any one individual’s demands on how to run MY blog. Therefore, at this time, all comments will be approved by me once I have the time to review them. If they are civil, they will get approved. If they resort to calling other people names, attack family members or use vulgarity and profanity, I will disapprove them or even ban their respective IP addresses. These are MY guidelines and rules and if you cannot abide by them, then go elsewhere or start your own blog.

Filed Under: Blogs, Freedom of Speech

Charges Against Rachel Alexander Are Bogus & Embarrass Arizona Legal Community

September 26, 2011 By 20 Comments

By David Roney (originally posted on Lighthouse Blog)

Former Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Alexander faces disciplinary action for following orders from her boss, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. Whether or not you agree or disagree with Thomas’ office’s allegations against some of the county supervisors is irrelevant. The issue here is what appears to be nothing short of a political assassination of a dedicated employee and public servant in Alexander. Others who also worked on the racketeering suit have had no such allegations made against them, interestingly.

According the the Arizona Republic, “Alexander is charged with seven ethical violations stemming from her work on the racketeering suit. Charges include using means to burden or embarrass, filing and asserting a frivolous proceeding, and disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.”

Most of the above ethics charges stem from Alexander following orders from her boss. As a Maricopa County Attorney’s Office employee, anyone would and should feel comfortable that their boss, the duly elected County Attorney, was following the law, and that what he was directing his employee to do was legal. He was the county’s highest ranking lawyer, after all. So of course, if one is asked to file paperwork and pursue a case, an employee would do so, even if she objected. It was her job.

Alexander is being charged, despite a long, unblemished record at MCAO, solely for her role working on the RICO case. What was her role? She worked under her supervisor Pete Spaw’s direction. Shaw was an experienced RICO attorney who, according to my sources, started the drafts of the pleadings, finalized the drafts of the pleadings with Andrew Thomas, and developed the key theories in them. He exclusively dealt with opposing counsel, and filed all of the pleadings electronically. Alexander’s role consisted of mostly research for the pleadings, and taking direction from Spaw, nothing further. Yet Spaw was not charged by the Bar, only Alexander.

The “filing, asserting, & disobeying an obligation” charges are mostly just there for the purpose of piling on. The real issue here is the allegation that Alexander sought to burden and embarrass county supervisors. The allegation is nothing short of hilarious on its face, if anyone has ever heard or read a statement from Mary Rose Wilcox, or followed the Brock sex-scandal case, or followed the new court house boondoggle. The supervisors, with a few exceptions, have done a pretty good job of bringing poor press and embarrassment upon themselves. And they did so all without the help of Alexander.

But digging deeper, the charges against Alexander reek of fulfilling a vendetta for running a political blog, and a conservative one at that. Most of their unfettered discontent comes from blog posts they attribute to Alexander, that she in fact did not write. The Arizona State Bar is anything but a right-leaning organization, and it appears to seek to censor a person with whom they disagree, while leaving others untouched.

As Alexander’s attorney, Scott Zwillinger, says, “She was simply one lawyer of several assigned to a controversial matter, but unfortunately for her, she is the one now fighting for her career.”

Alexander will hopefully prevail in this matter, but the tragedy will remain that the Arizona State Bar used it’s power to try to silence a grass-roots activist with whom they have political disagreements. Arizona is not being served well in this, and its legal community is being embarrassed. And, of course, political blogging isn’t going anywhere…

And in case you’re wondering, here is Interrogatory that specifically targets Rachel Alexander for blogging.

Filed Under: County Government, Crime and Punishment, Freedom of Speech, Guest Opinion, Judicial Tagged With: ,

Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup: The Public May No Longer Criticize City Officials

September 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Mayor Walkup, in sum and substance: “The Public May No Longer Criticize City Officials at Council Meetings.”

By Roy Warden

On September 07, 2011 the Tucson City Council fired City Manager Mike Letcher, whom Councilwoman Karen Uhlich called a “man of integrity” who was “hired to bring more transparency and openness to city government,” ushering in a new era in Tucson City Politics.

Regarding “transparency and openness to city government,” it only took a week for this new era’s true character to reveal itself.

In a breathtaking usurpation of power, Mayor Walkup, using terms such as “civility in public discourse,” effectively announced on September 13, 2011 that city policy now bans the public from offering any future criticism of Tucson City Officials at city council meetings, effectively suspending the First Amendment.

And 20 minutes later the Tucson Police Department enforced the new policy when, upon Mayor Walkup’s direct command, they stopped the public address of Tucson Activist Roy Warden, arrested him, and removed him from the council chamber.

“It is shocking, stunning,” said Warden afterwards in an interview with KGUN News.

“In one fell swoop, Mayor Walkup overturned 235 years of law, the First Amendment and the fruits of the American Revolution.”

On September 13, Warden began his address by reminding the council of the lawful relationship between government and the people, as set forth in the Arizona Constitution, with the purpose of government being to protect the individual rights of the people.

Warden then turned to the issue of City Manager Richard Miranda, City Attorney Mike Rankin, and the theft of more than half a million dollars of public funds to pay the punitive damages awarded by a federal jury against three Tucson City Officials, including Richard Miranda, in 2006.

It was at this point that Mayor Walkup cut him off.

When Warden tried to read the punitive damage standards set forth in Arizona case law, Mayor Walkup had the police arrest and remove him from the city council chambers.

Outside, TPD Officer Couch aggressively confronted Warden and told him: “Get out of here! You’re just a troublemaker!”

Warden says whether or not the Mayor and City Council has the authority to prohibit public speech they deem to be “uncivil” will be resolved via a Special Action he intends to file in Pima County Superior Court.

Then Warden plans to file a action against Mayor Walkup and Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin in US District Court on the issue of civil rights violations, and damages.

“It’s remarkable,” Warden says.

“The Mayor had me arrested to prevent me from bringing to public view the theft of half a million dollars of public money,” Warden says.

“Now, by his own arrogance and outrageous conduct, he’s given me the power to make a federal case out of it.”

And now the video:

YouTube Preview Image
Filed Under: City Government, Freedom of Speech, Guest Opinion Tagged With: ,

Tea Party Zombies Must Die! – More Leftist Hypocrisy

September 6, 2011 By 31 Comments

Speaking of blood-dripping violence, the shoot-the-zombie-in-the-head, Tea Party-hater type, there’s a new video game out marketed under the name of “Tea Party Zombies Must Die.”

The game is described as:

DON’T GET TEA-BAGGED! The Tea Party zombies are walking the streets of America. Grab your weapons and bash their rotten brains to bits! Destroy zombie Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, the Koch Brothers, and many more!

Keep in mind that the creator of the game, Jason Oda, disclaims his latest creation as “just a personal project.” We’re wondering when he’ll release the Obama Zombies Must Die version or maybe the Democratic Congressman Zombies Must Die version.

Zombies or not, the reality of the situation is that liberal Democrats don’t play by the same rules for society. Imagine if a conservative gaming company created a game that allowed the killing of the President of the United States. Image the outrage.

There is no reasoning with folks that live in an alter-universe where killing high profile conservative leaders is a game or joke. Yes, it is free expression protected under the Constitution and conservatives should defend it with every ounce of energy. But Wow! Is it ever in bad taste and dripping with hypocrisy.

(h/t to Tom Jenney, Stephen Gutowski and MRCTV.)

Filed Under: Culture, Freedom of Speech, Liberals, Political Correctness
« Older Posts