If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   "Free speech is not hassle-free"   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 93
    More: Florida, free speeches, Dixie Highway, public engagement, PDAs, city commission, sunshine law, yard sign  
•       •       •

7538 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Mar 2014 at 11:17 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-23 08:49:45 AM
Well, duh.

The second amendment is not different from the any of the first 10. Basically all of those enumerated rights and restrictions on the Federal gov't were split numerically for the sake of convenience of learning. But they're a unified whole. And the reason they're a unified whole is because they all mesh. You can't have free speech without risking attacks upon your person, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

The nail that speaks up gets hammered down, pulled up, and melted by the blacksmith of oppression. That's why have the right to share this info and get all the other nails around and pin that farking blacksmith to the wall by his scrote with political movements.
 
2014-03-23 10:36:24 AM
The key to free speech is that everyone is free.  Meaning, you are free to say whatever you want, and everyone else is free to tell you you're a dumbass for it.
 
2014-03-23 10:44:08 AM
Free speech is actually one of the most expensive commodities in existence
 
2014-03-23 11:01:20 AM
getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.
 
2014-03-23 11:08:09 AM

Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.


Yes but the intent is to create a mindset of fear and intimidation. Speak up and you could be hit with fines, jail time and all kinds of police and corporate harassment. So basically, you are free to speak up but oh dear gods will you pay out the nose for doing do.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-23 11:09:15 AM
It's surprising that they don't think of the PR effect of this sort of thing.  I would oppose the facility just because they are assholes.
 
2014-03-23 11:19:45 AM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.

Yes but the intent is to create a mindset of fear and intimidation. Speak up and you could be hit with fines, jail time and all kinds of police and corporate harassment. So basically, you are free to speak up but oh dear gods will you pay out the nose for doing do.


I agree.  But in this case it ended up in the newspapers, and that's absolutely hilarious.  Hopefully the recipients will now discover they can wipe their asses with the lawyerly correspondence.
 
2014-03-23 11:20:24 AM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.

Yes but the intent is to create a mindset of fear and intimidation. Speak up and you could be hit with fines, jail time and all kinds of police and corporate harassment. So basically, you are free to speak up but oh dear gods will you pay out the nose for doing do.


I'm pretty sure he was making a point about the fifth.
 
2014-03-23 11:22:05 AM
But hey.  Basically the framers wanted to create a society where your rights extended to the point where you can't trample on others' rights.  We've been parsing this for 200 years.
 
2014-03-23 11:24:18 AM
"I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.
 
2014-03-23 11:24:38 AM

doglover: Well, duh.

The second amendment is not different from the any of the first 10. Basically all of those enumerated rights and restrictions on the Federal gov't were split numerically for the sake of convenience of learning. But they're a unified whole. And the reason they're a unified whole is because they all mesh. You can't have free speech without risking attacks upon your person, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

The nail that speaks up gets hammered down, pulled up, and melted by the blacksmith of oppression. That's why have the right to share this info and get all the other nails around and pin that farking blacksmith to the wall by his scrote with political movements.


The "second amendment"?
 
2014-03-23 11:25:48 AM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.

Yes but the intent is to create a mindset of fear and intimidation. Speak up and you could be hit with fines, jail time and all kinds of police and corporate harassment. So basically, you are free to speak up but oh dear gods will you pay out the nose for doing do.


Hopefully someone will file harassment charges against this guy.
 
2014-03-23 11:29:43 AM

Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.


This - these letters carry absolutely no legal weight whatsoever.
 
2014-03-23 11:30:34 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Free speech is actually one of the most expensive commodities in existence


I thought it cost $1.05

/yes, the price of freedom is having to deal with assholes
/fair trade
 
2014-03-23 11:32:03 AM
If you don't throw in your buck-oh-five who will?
 
2014-03-23 11:37:48 AM
This lawyer is calling people venemous liars in the press.  Can't they sue him for slander or something?

What a chode.
 
2014-03-23 11:38:18 AM

jso2897: Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.

This - these letters carry absolutely no legal weight whatsoever.


derp.  they will when litigation comes.
 
2014-03-23 11:38:43 AM
"I'm not threatening to sue these people," Green told me. "I'm just telling them to preserve evidence. ... Citizens have an absolute first amendment right to speak at public hearings. But with rights come responsibilities."

That's for a Judge to order, not a power hungry lawyer working for a corporation bent on intimidating private citizens.

What's great is when people fight back, like this company did when a larger company tried to use intimidation tactics.
 
2014-03-23 11:39:19 AM
This is a completely and utterly hollow threat.  Carry on.
 
2014-03-23 11:40:35 AM

Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.


Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-23 11:40:41 AM
jso2897:

This - these letters carry absolutely no legal weight whatsoever.

Writing intimidating letters that are all bluff is a big part of what lawyers do.
 
2014-03-23 11:41:15 AM
I don't think arsehole lawyers are unique to Florida. This should have been filed under the dumbass tag.
 
2014-03-23 11:41:41 AM
As much as I hate lawyers, I totally despise @sshole residents that rally around NIMBYism and all it stands for.  NIMBY's have ruined many a good project under their heart-tugging BS claims that the world would stop if that particular project was allowed to proceed.  Screw ALL NIMBY's!!!
 
2014-03-23 11:43:24 AM
ITT, people who have never heard of 'discovery'
 
2014-03-23 11:48:58 AM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.

Yes but the intent is to create a mindset of fear and intimidation. Speak up and you could be hit with fines, jail time and all kinds of police and corporate harassment. So basically, you are free to speak up but oh dear gods will you pay out the nose for doing do.


In other words, it's not free speech if it costs you.
 
2014-03-23 11:49:24 AM
send him the same letter back with his name on it telling him that you will be requesting his emails,phone calls,pay receipts,etc to make sure that he isn't conspiring with people he shouldn't be.
 
2014-03-23 11:51:02 AM
Lawyers can and will explore all of your records in the course of discovery.  Why would you think that anything you have ever done is privileged?
 
2014-03-23 11:51:40 AM

Hobodeluxe: send him the same letter back with his name on it telling him that you will be requesting his emails,phone calls,pay receipts,etc to make sure that he isn't conspiring with people he shouldn't be.


Fine.  That's what happens in litigation.
 
2014-03-23 11:52:59 AM

Gary-L: What's great is when people fight back, like this company did when a larger company tried to use intimidation tactics.


That was awesome.
 
2014-03-23 11:53:20 AM

doglover: Well, duh.

The second amendment is not different from the any of the first 10. Basically all of those enumerated rights and restrictions on the Federal gov't were split numerically for the sake of convenience of learning. But they're a unified whole. And the reason they're a unified whole is because they all mesh. You can't have free speech without risking attacks upon your person, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

The nail that speaks up gets hammered down, pulled up, and melted by the blacksmith of oppression. That's why have the right to share this info and get all the other nails around and pin that farking blacksmith to the wall by his scrote with political movements.


Second???  I think you went one page too far...
 
2014-03-23 11:53:33 AM

MNguy: But hey.  Basically the framers wanted to create a society where your rights extended to the point where you can't trample on others' rights.  We've been parsing this for 200 years.


What the framers wanted? We've been told not to care about original intent anymore. The hip new attitude is that the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean.
 
2014-03-23 11:53:49 AM
If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.
 
2014-03-23 11:55:00 AM

Son of Thunder: MNguy: But hey.  Basically the framers wanted to create a society where your rights extended to the point where you can't trample on others' rights.  We've been parsing this for 200 years.

What the framers wanted? We've been told not to care about original intent anymore. The hip new attitude is that the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean.


Not the hip new attitude.  It was crafted by lawyers, for lawyers.  It's an ongoing argument.
 
2014-03-23 11:56:10 AM
"Can you document what was "said" by examining these photos of smoke signals from the trash fire,councilman?"
 
2014-03-23 11:59:33 AM

DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.


If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.
 
2014-03-23 12:02:29 PM

vpb: It's surprising that they don't think of the PR effect of this sort of thing.  I would oppose the facility just because they are assholes.


Yeah, This. The facility now looks like a nefarious Disney movie villain.
 
2014-03-23 12:02:49 PM
The 'people' sending those letters could get a fowl of anti SLAPP laws.
 
2014-03-23 12:03:27 PM

MrBentor: The 'people' sending those letters could get a fowl of anti SLAPP laws.


as long as they're literate
 
2014-03-23 12:03:47 PM

MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.


wouldn't it have to be approved by a judge? and wouldn't they have to show some reason that they would need such information? I mean what does he think he will find? some collusion between those people and their representatives? that they are paying them to vote a certain way?  seems there should be some determination made to justify this. and what about his client? couldn't you request their info too? all their contributions to elected officials,lobbying,communications etc?  how do we know they aren't trying to sway the vote through collusion?
 
2014-03-23 12:04:45 PM
If someone tries to suppress your First Amendment rights, counter them with your Second Amendment rights.
 
2014-03-23 12:07:19 PM

Hobodeluxe: MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.

wouldn't it have to be approved by a judge? and wouldn't they have to show some reason that they would need such information? I mean what does he think he will find? some collusion between those people and their representatives? that they are paying them to vote a certain way?  seems there should be some determination made to justify this. and what about his client? couldn't you request their info too? all their contributions to elected officials,lobbying,communications etc?  how do we know they aren't trying to sway the vote through collusion?


Yes, approved by a judge, but if facts are lacking in the course of litigation, and you have access to those facts...you need to provide them.
 
2014-03-23 12:11:37 PM

MNguy: Hobodeluxe: MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.

wouldn't it have to be approved by a judge? and wouldn't they have to show some reason that they would need such information? I mean what does he think he will find? some collusion between those people and their representatives? that they are paying them to vote a certain way?  seems there should be some determination made to justify this. and what about his client? couldn't you request their info too? all their contributions to elected officials,lobbying,communications etc?  how do we know they aren't trying to sway the vote through collusion?

Yes, approved by a judge, but if facts are lacking in the course of litigation, and you have access to those facts...you need to provide them.


I don't think he has enough to warrant such a discovery. ianal but seems to me this is pure intimidation. these people don't want this built. they should be allowed to voice their concerns both publicly and privately to whomever they choose. and unless he has some evidence that they were conspiring in an illegal fashion then his request should be denied.
 
2014-03-23 12:15:41 PM

MNguy: ITT, people who have never heard of 'discovery'

fishing expeditions
 
2014-03-23 12:16:53 PM

Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.

If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.


When you put yourself on a public forum, I have every right to scrutinize what you say. I'm not saying any laws should be broken, and neither is that lawyer. I do have every right though to investigate (within the limits of the law) and make you eat your words.
 
2014-03-23 12:23:59 PM
Lawyers + Florida = same old shiat
 
2014-03-23 12:27:43 PM

Marcus Aurelius: I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.


Dont - keep every harassing letter - its really helpful in case they actually try to come after you as you will have evidence of improper actions.  Using the profession to browbeat people without a real claim can trigger disciplinary action - and fun internet beat-downs.  See, e.g., the Oatmeal.
 
2014-03-23 12:34:40 PM

doglover: Well, duh.

The second amendment is not different from the any of the first 10. Basically all of those enumerated rights and restrictions on the Federal gov't were split numerically for the sake of convenience of learning. But they're a unified whole. And the reason they're a unified whole is because they all mesh. You can't have free speech without risking attacks upon your person, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

The nail that speaks up gets hammered down, pulled up, and melted by the blacksmith of oppression. That's why have the right to share this info and get all the other nails around and pin that farking blacksmith to the wall by his scrote with political movements.


Or assassinations. Can't forget assassinations.
 
2014-03-23 12:37:52 PM
So, wait, these NIMBYs are okay with drug addicts and alcoholics, they just don't want them to have access to treatment for their problems?
 
2014-03-23 12:46:24 PM
whatta buncha NIMBY/PIMBYs

/p is for Place
//or whatever
 
2014-03-23 12:50:17 PM

Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.



He can explore it all he wants, but no-one is required to cooperate with him in any way.
 
Displayed 50 of 93 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report