ACE - San Francisco May Regulate Blogging

Sophie Maxwell, member of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, has decided to take on the Internet and free speech.

Sophie announced yesterday that The Board of Supervisors will soon vote on a city ordinance, which she filed, that would require local bloggers to register with the City Ethics Commission and report all blog-related costs that exceed $1,000 in the aggregate. Blogs that mention candidates for local office that receive more than 500 hits will be forced to pay a registration fee and will be subject to website traffic audits, according to Chad Jacobs, a San Francisco City Attorney. However, these rules will not apply to any other media, just blogs.

The entire Board is set to vote on the measure on April 5th, 2005. The results, no doubt, will be posted on the Board of Supervisor's Blog (link). But, will their own blog have to register?

I don't know what kind of substances Sophie is into, but this blatant violation of First Amendment rights is beyond the pale. Citizens, even of San Francisco, should not have their constitutionally protected rights abrogated by a local politician - and a liberal to boot.

Where is the ACLU? Where is the liberal outrage? Where are the free speech moonbats from Berkeley? Express your opinion with an email to Sophie: sophie.maxwell@sfgov.org.

link: San Francisco May Regulate Blogging

The Virgins can clearly *not* read below the first damned post on the site...

Loose shit. Vinnie Falcone? One week.

SeeDubya's post is perhaps the dumbest hypothetical about "libertarian ethics" that I've ever seen. Burning yourself to death in a public park is not a strict expression of personal freedom. And being a libertarian does not automatically equate an "respect for freedom" with having "no morals."

Surprised you didn't link the Steyn article though.

And PS -

Yeah I'd stop the person from self-immolation, because it would be infringing upon my libertarian right to not watch someone burn to death. Also, my sense of smell.

God, Ace, this is tragic. When did you become so eager to repeat other people that you didn't bother to check facts? Are you really so damn dumb you think Felos was Schiavo's lawyer during the malpractice suit? He wasn't even the lawyer for the first guardian hearing. Jesus.

Cite.

When did you become so eager to repeat other people that you didn't bother to check facts?

Ummm, always?

Great post. "Great" in the sense that it proves the power of the blogosphere -- really, any retard with a keyboard and AOL can put his stupid moronthoughts out there for other cretins to drool over.

Well it always worked for me.

Heh.

Anyway, I believe See-Dubya's argument is called the "False Dilemma" argument, or maybe it's the "Pretend Lifeboat" argument. (Which you squash this way -- when someone comes up to you and starts in with the "say you're on a lifeboat, and the only way to keep the lifeboat from sinking is to throw one of your fellow passengers over board, so which do you choose" crap, you cut them short by saying "I'm not on a lifeboat." Keep saying that, until your would-be opponent is reduced to sputtering incoherent rage. This is much more fun than engaging in high school philosophical bullshit.)

Andrea, I see you've met my husband ...

As for whether it was George Felos respresenting both times the statement of life expectancy was made is kind of irrelevant for me. Fact is, both times, it was the stated position of Michael Schiavo - demonstrating his different agendas each time. Pond scum would refuse to have him lumped with them ...

As for Felos, he gets the "creep" designation on his own merits. Those disgusting press conferences where he kept stating how beautiful and serene Terri was as she died of thirst in a first world country ..

Aaaack, sometimes I think it would be good if there really was a heaven and a hell ... I'd like to see Felos and his skinny ass doing the Sisyphus thing -- maybe with Schiavo continually getting squashed by the boulder ...

Bill Also, my sense of smell.

I hear it smells like barbequed pork.

Bill, I never said libertarians had no morals. "You got no conscious, you got no heart, you got no integrity." But morals, sure.

Look, this isn't a "gotcha". I'm really trying to figure out how far a libertarian deference to individual rights goes. That's why I asked the question. And the fact that I'm getting different answers suggests it might not be as ridiculous as you supposed.

I never thought we would reach a situation where Terri Schiavo would be allowed to die of thirst on such flimsy evidence. It is as utterly inconceivable to me as my hypothetical seems to be to you. So I'd like to figure out if there are any brakes on the slippery slope.

Do you see where I'm coming from with integrity?

Bill, no offense, but that was the dumbest, glibbest response I ever heard.

If your definition of "libertarianism" embraces your putative "right" to have the government protect your sensititivites, then you're no different from the social conservatives you seek to distance yourself from. You just have different sensititivies you want the government to protect.

By your dumb definition, I'm a good libertarian on this issue, too: I just wanted the government to spare my senstitivity to watching a healthy woman be starved and dehydrated to death.

The autopsy will be out in a few weeks and see of it was the Terri the Schindlers declared in court testimony was completely unresponsive and in a PVS state up through early 1991 - or the New Improved Terri they and their religious handlers devised in the middle of 2000. You know, the one that is cognitively aware and regularly talked, laughed, prayed, and regularly interacted with the Schindlers and RTL nurses, lawyers, and doctors....but NO ONE else...including the hospice staff ever observed!!!

Hmmmm, what a mystery!

We all know one side was lying through their teeth, and if the autopsy shows no higher brain matter left, we will know which one.

BTW, the Lezzie also tipped you wrong about Felos and the hospice. Terri Schiavo was in nursing homes from 1991-2001 and Felos helped get her in a hospice right before she became indigent. And It was 1997 when M Schiavo began proceedings to have her feeding machine life support ended, not 1993. 4 years passed between the lawsuit and his 1st petition to terminate her watering. Before that, from 1993-1997, he was fighting the Schindlers to let her die of natural causes, like an infection or if she got aspiration pneumonia..

It also appears that M Schiavo has been represented pro bono since 2003, while examination of Gills and Webber show they have been compensated by Right to Life Foundations despite their disingenous claims " The Schindlers have no money, we are doing this purely for Terri".

If your definition of "libertarianism" embraces your putative "right" to have the government protect your sensititivites, then you're no different from the social conservatives you seek to distance yourself from.

Don't forget liberals too, Ace. See speech codes, zero tolerance, PC in general, etc...

We are all libertarians now.

Hot Lesbians who show up on Ace's site don't have to be fact checked!
Hot Lesbians automatically get +10 on their credibility.

That's what I was thinkin' too.

Lesbians-- is there anything they can't do?

"....but NO ONE else...including the hospice staff ever observed!!!"

Um, Cedarford*, I already emailed you four ( 4 ) signed affivadits from Terri's health care providers that documented her responses to sounds, speech, moving objects, questions, etc.

The affidavits, along with videos posted for anyone to view, document her ability to swallow, her open her eyes in response to a verbal request, and sense pain and move away from the pain source.

So, which is it, Cedarford*? Are you a liar, or are you stupid? It has to be one or the other.

Then again, it could be both.

*a.k.a. dick-for-brains.

"Lesbians-- is there anything they can't do?"

This is a great title for a future post. There needs to be some further investigation into this matter.

Ace--

""Great" in the sense that it proves the power of the blogosphere -- really, any retard with a keyboard and AOL can put his stupid moronthoughts out there for other cretins to drool over."

I beg your pardon! I have never used AOL.

Oh for the love of PETE!! Give me just a small break. I am entitled to ONE slip up, no?

Of course Felos was not MS's attorney for the mal practice trial. That was certainly a boo boo. The little weirdo has of course supported and defended the statements and assertions made during that trial.

Someone also takes issue with Felos being involved with Terri's admittance into Hospice. He most certainly was behind Terri being put in the hospice system (2000).

Megan (the "lezzie)

Dogstar: I vote for "both".

LCM/MTL has more integrity, more conscious, more kick than anyone on this site (accept for our honorable host). She doesn't need Vinny Falcone. She makes a mistake? Fuck the mistake! Her point is well grounded, and slices like a fuckin' hammer.

Do not question this woman's integrity kick. It's a bad, bad thing to do. Fix a boo-boo, of course. But do it with a bandaid, not a fuckin' hammer.

Lesbians can't impregnate each other without the use of turkey basters. That's what they can't do. If you are really asking. And I suspect that they'd prefer to not 'do' men. That would probably be pretty much what 'lesibian' would mean, generally. Maybe it still isn't a matter of "can't do" but rather "would prefer not to do." Still, the point remains.

I think everyone is thinking about bi-sexual women.

As a libertarian-leaning person, I was not happy with Greer's original ruling. In Mack v. Mack (Maryland, circa 1991), which was a nearly identical case, the determination was made that the feeding tube could not be removed without more substantive evidence than the spouse's claim that the patient had indicated that he (in this case) would have wanted it that way.
A very clear precedent, and in no way contrary to Florida law, from my cursory appreciation.
I was not comfortable with the way the federal government went about trying to get a judicial review performed, however, the judicial branch of the government is in no way exempt from the other two branches of government. That's part of the checks and balances.
It failed in this case, in some respects. So there's a kinda sorta libertarian position. Or an anarcho-syndacalist commune one. Whatever.

Well, there are people of all stripes, and although, Eric, your opinion here was brilliant, let's let the women that fall into that category define for themselves (and please, for us, also) what being "them" is or is not.

After all, I want to hear it, details and all. It's the perfect thing for a married man to engage in. Facts that can get you all worked up, and never have the possiblity of enjoying. Safe as a romance novel, but only hotter.

Let's be honest. How many women really want to 'do' a man?

Let's be honest. How many women really want to 'do' a man?

From my personal experience-- maybe two, tops.

And one of them just wanted to because she needed a place to crash for the night and would only let me once I promised her "Baby, believe me, you'll barely feel a thing."

and the other is Allah's sister.

Well, Allah's sister was "the first" for a lot of guys. Guys in uniform, guys in Hess service station outfits, guys in CDC quarrantine...

The chick is f'n' nasty. But, on the other hand, she's also a whore.

Greek naval officers, wild animals, chiapets, Larry King, Jack M., the Eliphant Man, work-release program laborers, and my Chinese friend "Rusty."

KC....thank you so much! Whew. That is the kind of rushing to defend that even a lesbian appreciates so much. It was a mistake, but really, not at all related to my point. That statment was on Felos actually supporting one of the few TRUE statements in this case. Felos of course did not MAKE that true statement but only supported it. The fraud that I feel occured had nothing to do with that comment.

Eric, just as an FYI, we don't use turkey basters. But you are so right that "prefer" is probably the better term.

I feel tempted to suggest that Cal and those of that ilk devote this kind of fervor to fighting the good fights.

Megan

Megan,

careful what you wish for. Though not of cal's "ilk" on Schaivo, my good fights and your good fights are diametrically opposed, I think. Cal and his ilk might be (but probably isn't) on a different side from you in those fights, too.

That's why we must never speak of politcally charged things on Ace's *cough*gay marriage*cough* only things we can agree on. Like the goodness of woman-flesh.

Very good points Hobgoblin. First I will say (on a serious note). The "good fights" don't always have to be the ones I fight. I think some of the best are when responsible voices from both sides sit down, pour a drink and loudly figure it all out. Ahh, if we could only do that more often.

And now, I would be happy to get back to the goodness of woman-flesh.

Megan

Dogstar, your links are crap. 2 were found by the court to be pathological liars. The other two were more of the "Mrs. Schindler type" in religious delusion: "Terri and I talked and prayed every day I saw her in the mid-90s".

Heh...

Old Coot was right.

see-dub

Since you (supposedly) weren't trying to play "gotcha!", let's look a less 'incendiary' situation--

Instead of "Sandy" playing human torch, she lights up a (gasp!) cigarette. Now, I myself am a smoker... and even I would argue that smoking is merely 'suicide on an installment plan'- should you use force in an attempt to intervene to prevent her from this 'suicidal act'?

How about if "pregnant Sandy" smokes (and/or drinks)? Does this change your answer? Should you forcibly intervene to 'save' her unborn child?

But, to slightly modify your situations above...

When you(see-dub the bloviating religious consevative) attempt to intervene, Sandy (the Human Torch) reaches in her purse and pulls out her snubnose .38 and says, "Go for it... I'll be happy to take you out before I do myself!"- Do you still try to intervene?

If you still choose to intervene, are you sure you're making the best use of your "Gift from God"? Also, since I might think you are wasting your "Gift" by Sandy possibly killing you, would I be justified in an attempt to stop you from intervening with her(my thinking being, "She's obviously completely nuts and unrescuable, but you are just a stupid busybody with beliefs based on the 5000 yr old fantasies of enslaved goatherders)?

Or, if when faced with consequences in your little "gotcha" game you 'suddenly' decide not to intervene, does that mean you lack "integrity"?