|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
bluecat1122
F L I N T O I D
|
Just wanted to bring this post to everyone's attention that may not have heard about it. It's alleging that Dayne Walling is removing comments on his own blog that support public safety. The argument is based on the fact that since the blog is linked directly to the city's official website, AND encourages citizens to come to the blog and post their comments, he's violating First Amendment Rights by editing out what he doesn't agree with.
If this is true, it's completely unfair and to the public to hear biased information (that only he wants to read), and it's a clear that he can careless what the public thinks.
http://www.tellwallingno.com/tellwalling/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9 |
|
|
Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:06 pm |
|
|
DELETED
Guest
|
|
|
Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:01 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
From TellWallingNo
Freedom of Speech Blocked By Dayne about Public Saftey
by Bobbyljohnson » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:54 pm
I use Facebook as a Platform to post the truth as others do on Mayor Wallings Facebook Page.. On or around the 10th day of March 2010 I was posting on the facebook site the fact that the Mayor was Violating his oath to Office by not up holding the constitution of the State of Michigan which says the we have equal protection of the Law... I was blocked.. I then pointed out to the Mayor via private Message that the Facebook was attached to the city of Flint web site so there for is not a Private Facebook and he had no right to block any person to censor their Freedom of Speech and now he was violating the the Constitution of the United States.. I also Pointed out that he could not us the budget as why they were blocking people due to Facebook is a Free service..
I soon Found that Others had been blocked also for there support of the Flint Fire and Police and not wanting the Lay offs.
I wrote a Letter to the City Council that Very same day I was Blocked notifying them of the violation of the Freedom of Speech.. I then Printed the city web site page with the Mayor and the link saying Join us on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Mobile and another service.. I will point out to you that the link for Facebook and Myspace was Removed due to you can post documents that we can prove our side of an Issue.. Twitter you can not have the interaction as you can on the other two.. I then went on the Radio 1470 during a Call in and asked the Mayor why they blocked me from the Facebook account.. I was cut off and then I heard the answer was he did not like people posting VICIOUS things on his PRIVATE facebook page.. However by them cutting me off I was not able to Defend My self... and what I was posting.. and I was also not able to point out that the account was hooked to the City site. there for is not a Private facebook acct.. I feel that he has Taken a Form of Media away from the people that was offered to cover his Rear. and has taken mine and others Freedom of speech by defending the Police and Fire employees as they were... I feel this is not right and another way to stop the word and the true of what is really happening due to I was Posting the Paper work. as well others was posting the budget and other documents and websites to show the Facts of what ever we where exercising our Freedom of Speech.. By Blocking us from the Public advertised and linked Site they are in Violation and we need your support telling them so..Bobbyljohnson
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:32 pm
Private message |
|
|
|
Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:08 pm |
|
|
munnbreslin
F L I N T O I D
|
| Pahahahaha you say he is violating the First Amendment!? Ok to do that he would have to be suffocating all free speech, and I'm pretty sure if you want to picket on city hall, you can. If you want to go to open office hours, you can. If you want to write a letter to the editor, you can. Lets think did flint even have a blog a year ago? No. Free speech is quite free, heck look at this forum. A grand example of free speech (no matter how pathetic the logic). To say that he is violating free speech is not only hilarious, but shows a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:30 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| Putting a link to his facebook page in the city's web site implies that it is not a private page, and is endorsed by the city. ALL comments should be allowed, just as they are here, at tellwallingno, and flintspotlight. Walling's actions remind me of the daily kos, huffington post & little green footballs, where commenters are regularly banned. If he only wants suck-up posts, he should clearly state that on his page. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:07 am |
|
|
Furnitureguy
F L I N T O I D
|
| The spoiled little brat did that to me also. I posted a something which was not in support of him getting rid of cops and apparently he did not like it so he erased it. We have a spoiled child in office folks... |
|
|
|
Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:30 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Munnbreslin- once again your stupidity is showing! Council violated certain individuals first amendment rights by not applying the rules uniformly. Certain individuals were allowed extra time when speaking if council agreed with their message. Those who had a message that council did not like were not given extra time. Rules on first amendment requires that all individuals are given the same rights. So if extra time is given for one, then it must be given to all who ask.
The Mayor appears to have created an open forum and in that venue, he cannot discriminate unless the person slanders an individual or gets profane. Even then the rules need to be posted and applied uniformly.
Attorney Tom Pabst has communicated with the administration over a similar issue and has put the council on notice. If they continue to violae individuals rights, they and the taxpayers will pay. |
|
|
|
Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:32 pm |
|
|
DELETED
Guest
|
|
|
Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:29 pm |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
| tom pabst takes
NO
prisoners.... |
_________________
even a small act of goodness may be a tiny raft of salvation across the treacherous gulf of sin, but one who drinks the wine of selfishness, and dances on the little boat of meaness, sinks in the ocean of ignorance.
P.Y. |
|
|
Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:47 pm |
|
|
Pachuco
F L I N T O I D
|
| I know who this guy is... He is basically spamming and harrassing the Mayor's facebook page everyday with the same post/comment/wall to wall about his brother being killed by his wife, who under the law was a justified murder. I would have blocked him a long time ago. |
|
|
|
Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:11 pm |
|
|
munnbreslin
F L I N T O I D
|
| Whoa whoa whoa webs, where did you read the first amendment? The constitution says that the government shall not deny the right, not that all shall be given the right exactly equally. My lord have you ever taken an american government class? (i'm guessing no, its usually with an economics class, something this forum has never heard of.) |
|
|
|
Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:11 pm |
|
|
DELETED
Guest
|
|
|
Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:21 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The Public Forum: Minimum Access, Equal Access, and the First Amendment
Sheila M. Cahill
Stanford Law Review, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Nov., 1975), pp. 117-148
(article consists of 32 pages)
Published by: Stanford Law Review
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1228229 |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:56 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
quote:
munnbreslin schreef:
Whoa whoa whoa webs, where did you read the first amendment? The constitution says that the government shall not deny the right, not that all shall be given the right exactly equally. My lord have you ever taken an american government class? (i'm guessing no, its usually with an economics class, something this forum has never heard of.)
__________________________________________________________________
SPEECH DISCRIMINATION
the First Amendment's aversion to content-based speech discrimination, ...... John E. Fee, The Takings Clause as a Comparative Right, 76 S. CAL. L. REV. ...
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume85n4/Fee.pdf - - Cached - Similar pages |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:27 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
When it comes to public forums, having rules that prohibit speech discrimination is central to the argument of Free Speech. When council creates rules that inhibits the free expression of ideas becauses it descriminates as to the speech content, then it violates the first amendment.
See above, John Fee on the subject.
"The first amendment means that governmrnt has no power to restrict expression because of it's message, its ideas, its subject matters, or its content."
Councils rules that give greater expression of speech to those whose ideas please them discriminates against those who are not accorded the same opportunity of expression.
read the First amendment center materials. I have! They have one piece of literature that specifically states that public forum time limits should be uniform and not discriminatory.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:40 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
