Whiners have their say on their editorial pages

On cue, the whiners at the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post are having their pity party on their editorial pages. Neither of the people who penned the following op-ed pieces were even at the trial. However, that doesn't stop them from holding forth on an issue they know very little or nothing about. As we say in regards to Columbus Day supporters-Some people are proud of their ignorace.

The Rocky Mountain News makes an obligatory gesture by observing that the city is trying to save face by attempting to convict children, college students and elders. Having done that, the editorial veers back onto the ideological path that the RMN is more comfortable travelling on.

Intimidation law sadly misused

What about first amendment?

January 22, 2005

Given a jury's acquittal this week of eight leaders of a protest that blocked Denver's Columbus Day parade, we're surprised at the city's decision to proceed with trials of more than 200 others arrested in last year's event. Juries might convict some of them, but it hardly seems fair for protest leaders to get off scot-free while others are treated more harshly.

If officials are serious about protecting the rights of future parade participants - as they clearly are - they should be asking City Council to pass an ordinance making it an offense to "knowingly interfere with a permitted parade." There is no such offense on the books, meaning the city attorney's office had to prove protest leaders heard police orders that they refused to obey. But the defendants insisted they couldn't hear the orders above the din.

If jurors believed them, that would be a genuine basis for acquittal. Unfortunately, it appears jurors were also swayed by less creditable arguments - arguments that if universally applied would effectively repeal the First Amendment.full op-ed

This next editorial is a hysterical rant by some right wing, white guy who thinks an army of American Indian Nazi/thought police/goons are coming to get him in the dead of night(ever notice how these right wingers try to paint themselves as persecuted victims by claiming solidarity with Jewish Holocaust victims and African Americans in the south-when reality, the Bob Ewegens of the world would have zealously implemented the policies of the Nazis and the southern racists).

Victory for political correctness

By Bob Ewegen

Political correctness won a victory in Denver Thursday, but your rights under the First Amendment were defiled.

That travesty occurred when a Denver jury, in a blatant act of jury nullification, decided that the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to anyone whose views offend Glenn Morris.

Morris was a leader of the protesters who illegally blocked the 2004 Columbus Day parade, thereby depriving parade participants in particular and Italian-Americans generally of the rights of free speech and freedom of assembly.

In all, 239 protesters were arrested for disobeying police orders to stop blocking the parade. Morris and seven of his fellow Thought Police responded by arguing in court that they had a right to block the Italian-Americans because a celebration of Columbus was "hate speech." In a staggering display of chutzpah, this PC goon squad described themselves as "human rights activists" while labeling their victims, the Italian-Americans, as practitioners of "ethnic intimidation."full op-ed

The subtitle of the following RMN editorial is What about first amendment? In the trial, the jury heard that the first amendment isn't the only amendment. There is also the 9th and 14th amendment to consider. Also, there is no such thing as absolute free speech in the United States. Hate speech is not allowed. You cannot put up a sign that says White Only in your store. You cannot make threats against the president of the United States nor can you make sexual comments to people in the workplace. It's pure speech but this society has decided those types of speech are not allowed. There are all manner of speech that is restricted in the U.S but the closet racists try and hide behind the first amendment.

Would these so-called first amendment absolutist feel the same way if a group were to get a permit and hold a parade in honor of Osama bin Laden? Say, on September 11, 2005, a group of people were to hold a parade, through downtown Denver, celebrating the actions of Osama bin Laden-would these same "freedom of speech champions"advocate on their behalf? Could their ideology have something to do with the brands of speech they champion?