Comments on: The phony fliers: can’t Mfume sue?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:06:02 +0000

another Kossack misundstands the entire conversation. how novel.
No, little one, that’s not my point. That’s certainly not Mark’s point–to the contrary. My response was sarcastic. Yours, as is typical for your kind, was idiotic.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:32:51 +0000

“If a Democrat knowingly made an untrue statement, let’s prosecute and throw the rat bastard in jail. Make a proper example of him.”
IOKIYAR in a nutshell.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:34:40 +0000

Well, Mark surely is a friend of free speech, isn’t he? Let me try:
I’d like to see someone look into the statements that every Democrat running for election made, to see if the statements were true. If a Democrat knowingly made an untrue statement, let’s prosecute and throw the rat bastard in jail. Make a proper example of him. Now, admittedly, I’m a little nervous about letting a jury make the determination of what is and isn’t true, so I think we should be very careful to bring these prosecutions only in jurisdictions where we think we can win a conviction.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:51:16 +0000

The final comment (just before this one) was, as Spencer Tracy might have said, “Cherce,” (choice, to those of you too young to remember him).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:45:45 +0000

Hmm. Intent to deceive, and a large group of people who were in fact deceived. In addition to the harassment.
And for the commenter, can I mention the contempt for our entire nation embodied in the smugly entitled “I’d prefer that they’d followed the law”? Because, y’know, whether your national campaign committee obey state and federal laws really just is a matter of preference if you’re a republican.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:51:38 +0000

Yes, Mark, the fact that *some* sleepy, annoyed, voters blamed this one on the Democrats and not the Republicans doesn’t count. It takes more than failing to completely eliminate any possiblity of somebody making a stupid mistake, to constitute fraud. You have to actively deceive people. And these robo-calls failed on two counts:
1. They actually DID identify the source if you listened to the whole thing.
2. They attacked the candidate, and only a moron assumes that a call attacking a candidate was made by that candidate.
Some people jumped to the wrong conclusion? Well, half the population *does* have a below average IQ, you know…

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:57:34 +0000

Brett:
So the established fact that sleepy and annoyed voters actually blamed this on the Democrats and not on the Republicans simply doesn’t count? Of course, the fact that in order to carry out the scam they had to break the law by not identifying themselves up front makes the intent that much clearer.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:07:33 +0000

“(1) would have heard only the opening statement suggesting that the call was from the Democratic candidate ”
Suggesting that, how? Because it had his name in it, and nobody but the Democrats would mention a Democratic candidate’s name in a phone call? Sorry, there’s a difference between “fraud”, and not making absolutely certain that somebody won’t jump to a stupid conclusion. For that matter, there’s a difference between “fraud”, and not following the law.
Yeah, I’d prefer that they’d followed the law, it embodies a good policy, even if I’ve got serious questions about the constitutionality of compelled speech. But “fraud” this ain’t.

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:06:23 +0000

Brett:
Sometimes it’s hard to figure out whether you’re deliberately trolling or whether your partisanship has blinded you to logic.
There’s no implication that the voters fooled by this especially nasty trick were “idiots.” Anyone who hung up right away, which is to say anyone sensible, (1) would have heard only the opening statement suggesting that the call was from the Democratic candidate and (2) would then get many further calls, further enraging him. Note that many of the calls were made late at night or early in the morning, when the recipients were asleep and especially likely to hang up quickly.
We learned about the calls because voters called the Democrats’ campaign headquarters and said things like “I’m not voting for your candidate because I’m annoyed about your harassing calls.” The same thing happened to Democratic pollworkers election day. So it’s not a matter of legal presumptions: all the prosecution would have to do is call some actual voters as witnesses.
That’s for the fraud charge. For the making-phone-calls-to-harass-or-annoy charge, you wouldn’t even need that.
I’m not sure why you want to defend the Republicans in their most scoundrelly moments. Do you actually admire this sort of behavior, as long as it works?

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:43:49 +0000

Also, Brett, for just the reason Bernard suggests, it’s against the law not to “state clearly” the sponsor of an automated call at the beginning.

By: Bernard Yomtov

Bernard Yomtov — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:34:39 +0000

they DID identify the source if you listened all the way to the end. Which is pretty lame for a “fraud”.
Right, Brett. Everyone just listens all the way to the end. Do you?

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:57:15 +0000

I think your contempt for the average voter is showing; The robo-calls may have been annoying, somebody might even have *hoped* that the blame would go the wrong way, but they DID identify the source if you listened all the way to the end. Which is pretty lame for a “fraud”.
Really, you’d have to be quite a moron to assume that if you get an annoying call with trash talk about a candidate, that it must be coming from that candidate.
So, it’s really only a fraud if the average voter is an idiot, *and can legally be presumed to be such*. I don’t have that low an opinion of voters, but evidently you do.

By: Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Prup (aka Jim Benton) — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:19:21 +0000

Hmm. It would be a fascinating case. I wonder if it would be possible to prove actual damages, but it would be easy to award punitive damages. I hope Mfume does go along with it.