Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Philly Mayor Wants Mag Punished over Race Relations Story
Source: American Renaissance
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2013
Author: Todd Starnes
Post Date: 2013-03-21 11:20:26 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 3339
Comments: 46

The Philadelphia Human Relations Commission has launched an investigation at the request of the mayor after a well-known magazine published an essay that explored perspectives of white citizens on the issue of race relations.

Mayor Michael Nutter called on the commission to consider rebuking both Philadelphia Magazine and writer Bob Huber noting that “the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right.”

Nutter’s fury was directed at a cover story titled, “Being White in Philly.” The story included conversations with mostly anonymous residents who detailed race relations in the City of Brotherly Love.

And the mayor also had some choice words for the anonymous individuals who were interviewed–some of whom claimed to have been victims of crimes perpetrated by blacks. He said they were “too cowardly” to provide their names.

Tom McGrath, the magazine’s editor, told Fox News he is very concerned that the government is investigating his publication.

“I find it chilling that he now wants to use the government to censor a news outlet,” he said. “As a journalist – as someone who thinks free speech is really important–I find that really, really troubling.”

McGrath said he stands by the story and the author–and acknowledged it set off a firestorm.

McGrath said the mayor “seriously overreacted to the story” and “mischaracterized the piece and what it’s trying to do.”

“White people do not always feel comfortable talking about race,” he said. “There are some white folks who don’t feel their views on certain issues are welcome in the conversation.”

And critics believe–ironically–that the mayor’s reaction to the story validates that point.

Nutter wants the commission to consider whether the magazine’s essay was the “reckless equivalent of shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

“Only by debunking myth with fact, and by holding accountable those who seek to confuse the two, can we insure that the prejudices reflected in the essay are accorded the weight they deserve: none at all,” the mayor wrote.

McGrath did say he welcomed the mayor’s call for a city-wide discussion about race – but noted the announcement was rich with irony.

“I find it pretty bizarre,” he said. “At the same time he wants us rebuked, he’s saying we need to have a conversation about race in Philadelphia – which was our point in the first place.”

“His point seems to be that he’s allowed to talk about some of this stuff but that other people aren’t,” McGrath added.

[Editor's Note: Mayor Nutter's full letter can be found here. Below is the most troubling portion.

While I fully recognize that constitutional protections afforded the press are intended to protect the media from censorship by the government, the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right, and notwithstanding the First Amendment, a publisher has a duty to the public to exercise its role in a responsible way. I ask the Commission to evaluate whether the “speech” employed in this essay is not the reckless equivalent of “shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater,” its prejudiced, fact-challenged generalizations an incitement to extreme reaction.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41.

#1. To: purplerose (#0)

Please explain to me some more about your misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Turtle  posted on  2013-03-21   11:21:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Turtle (#1)

And the mayor also had some choice words for the anonymous individuals who were interviewed–some of whom claimed to have been victims of crimes perpetrated by blacks. He said they were “too cowardly” to provide their names.

Oh I have absolutely NO misunderstanding of the First Amendment. And from the article I have quoted in part, the First Amendment does not protect speech that foments civil unrest. As far as I am concerned that anonymous individual named "Anna" may as well be an agent for the KGB and also working with our CIA to foment civil unrest.

You are aware (at least you should be) that we have Russian soldiers trained on American soil by our own CIA?

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-21   13:46:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: purplerose (#3)

Oh I have absolutely NO misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

You have shown you have no understanding of it at all. If some 85 IQ niggers are offended by the article and riot, then the article is hate speech and must be censored.

Turtle  posted on  2013-03-21   13:59:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Turtle (#6) (Edited)

If some 85 IQ niggers are offended by the article and riot then the article is hate speech and must be censored.

Which is why police departments have Hate Speech notices posted on their walls. Forewarned is forearmed. And should such speech result in riots, and the culprit ("Anna" from Moscow) responsible for making the comment is not dealt with then a class action lawsuit may be brought forward with several issues presented before the SCOTUS justices. Several issues that I would love to present in my brief would be the following:

1. Does hate speech have provided protections under the First Amendment?

2. When does hate speech fall within the category of the Fighting Words Doctrine?

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-21   14:10:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: purplerose (#7)

"Fighting words" falls under assault, not the First Amendment.

You do know that there is a difference between assault and battery, don't you?

Apparently you still never understand the First Amendment.

Turtle  posted on  2013-03-21   14:18:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Turtle (#8)

"Fighting words" falls under assault, not the First Amendment.

If such words foment civil unrest, the constitution can also be suspended. Thanks to some anonymous "Anna" from Moscow paid by the CIA.

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-21   14:35:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: purplerose, All (#10)

If such words foment civil unrest, the constitution can also be suspended.

No, the Constitution can't be suspended for any reason. Congress can suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus but only when "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." [Reference: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9]

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-21   21:12:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: GreyLmist (#16)

No, the Constitution can't be suspended for any reason.

Wrong, GreyLmist. Not only can our Constitution be suspended but during the Rodney King aftermath of rioting, the entire city of Los Angeles was put on lock down and a set curfew was established for at least a week or so. That curfew meant that anybody out after 7 P.M. was going to be pulled over by the U.S. National Guard. In fact, I even had to carry my id with me to work and the only customers around at that time were the National Guard on duty. I remember this so much and when I think about those riots that took place in L.A. it was a dangerous time.

Are you aware that since 1933, we have been under the Emergency War Powers Act and that our Bill of Rights are really a provisional document as of right now? Our Constitution is also a provisional document and not one set in stone. All public servants in Washington D.C. who work in the Legislative Office are well aware of this. All of them are. And I also know this for a fact due to my filing cases in federal courts.

dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-22   0:17:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: purplerose, All (#25)

Just noting here that the Constitution isn't suspended by the National Guard being called upon as part of a State's Militia (or as reinforcements from other States in a joint effort) to counter and patrol during incidents of rioting. I do think, though, that the non-federalized branch of the State's Militia should have been tasked with that duty before any joint task forces were deployed at the Federal level.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-22   0:52:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: GreyLmist (#28)

Think about this statement:

In time of war the laws are silent. --Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 B.C.), Roman orator, philosopher, statesman.

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-22   1:04:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: purplerose (#30)

Think about this statement:

In time of war the laws are silent. --Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 B.C.), Roman orator, philosopher, statesman.

I thought about it and that's not what the Constitution says. Even a temporary suspension of Habeas Corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion when the public safety might require it takes an enactment of Congress to implement.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-22   1:14:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: GreyLmist (#31) (Edited)

Even a temporary suspension of Habeas Corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion when the public safety might require it takes an enactment of Congress to implement.

Habeas Corpus is dead to the letter thanks to the passing of the NDAA Act. This applies to my post on the Emergency War Powers act which my quoted post about the law being silent in times of war.

Click onto this site and scroll down to read the comments by a lady named Kay Sieverding who was detained and held in prison for 124 days without rights to seek counsel. She was never charged with a crime nor has a criminal record. This was recent.

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-o...-threatening-veto-992860#

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa

Whatever they taught you in high school and college and even in law school about Due Process Rights, Right to Assembly and Free Speech is mythical in those federal courts (bankruptcy courts). Somebody once corrected me when I told them we live in a republic. We do! However, since we have lived under the Emergency War Powers Act, the Constitution has more protections than our Bill of Rights. Both are separate issues in that the Constitution is set up as a corporation of the united states of America. The Bill of Rights were separately established to emphasize Rights reserved for the citizens of their respective states and also to exalt the importance of our nation under a Republic. However, since the War Powers Act was implemented on March 9, 1933, we have been under a democracy where we are under mob rule. In a mob rule, those three branches of government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, no longer function separately. An example of this are the Presidential Decision Directives and the Executive Orders coming from the Executive Office. We are seeing this happen right now with the implementation of NDAA. This is the harsh reality. It is really too bad this is not being taught in our schools. The students are being robbed of a true education. You can damn well bet that the children of the nobility class are well aware of all this. They are tutored very well by their private tutors on who runs this country and makes laws.

purplerose  posted on  2013-03-22   14:48:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: purplerose (#33)

Habeas Corpus is dead to the letter thanks to the passing of the NDAA Act. This applies to [sic] my quoted post about the law being silent in times of war.

We aren't officially at war anywhere and subversions of the Constitution by rogue Congressionals, et al., are outlawry, not overwrites.

Click onto this site and scroll down to read the comments by a lady named Kay Sieverding who was detained and held in prison for 124 days without rights to seek counsel. She was never charged with a crime nor has a criminal record. This was recent.

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-o...-threatening-veto-992860#

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa

Since you seem to have financial and career interests at stake in abiding by and advancing the false constructs of scofflaws opposed to the Constitution, I guess I'm wondering what your point is there. Do you object to that overstepping of the Constitution but not to 1st Amendment mangling? -- or do you just see the indefinite detention as making more jobs for the "legal" system and such?

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-03-26   18:58:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 41.

        There are no replies to Comment # 41.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 41.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest