GOP Attacks Free Speech Online in Mt. Olive!

[MrBenchley]

Check out THIS peculiar story...and do I need to tell you Guenther and Scapicchio are Republicans?

"NEWARK (AP) When a pair of local gadflies felt their part-time elected officials in Mount Olive were not entitled to health benefits, they sued to have the money returned to the township.
Now, the current and former town council members being sued want to examine the hard drive of Scott and Charlene Uhrmann's computer to see if the couple posted derogatory statements online about the officials. A court has ordered the drive be turned over.
Two groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and Public Citizen, said Thursday they would defend the couple, claiming the invasion of privacy that would result from letting the officials see the Uhrmanns' personal and financial information is unacceptable.
"We're being asked to turn over all of our private information to the defendant because we decided to take a stand as taxpayers and challenge what we believe to be misuse of public funds,'' Scott Uhrmann said. "The total loss of privacy is a rather harsh consequence for trying to protect our and our fellow taxpayers' rights.''"

http://wcbs880.com/topstories/local_story_181162003.html

That's the sort of thing you'd expect in Red China, not <Morris County, New Jersey. Shame on the GOP!!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Well, sir, I happen to know a few things about Mt. Olive.

They got 'em a rather nice deal over there. Lots of tax dollars and a right purty political machine running it. They make them one hell of a lot of money from traffic stops too. Cops have told me to go out of my way to not drive through Mt. Olive.

There is something more afoot there. Know it.

Oh, and they are doing a lot of municipal building in the township too.

[MrBenchley]

3. Amazing, isn't it?

Republicans and bad government are synonymous...

[The Doctor.]

2. I smell a supreme court nominee...

I'd love to know the Judge's reasoning for this.

If the couple posted derogatory statements online, then just swear them in and ask them. Or get an expert to trace the postings.

And so what if they did? You're allowed to have an opinion about others so long as it is not slanderous or libelous. And I have not yet met a public official that is loved by all... quite the contrary.

[MrBenchley]

4. Exactly!!

This seems outrageous on every level!

[craychek]

5. Hmmmmm...

Actually, this could be entirely legal if they lied in their affidavites and the defense wanted to prove purgery. It wouldn't make the case fall apart, but it would get back at the couple for trying to do this. I know by and large, a judge would not grant a motion like that without some sort of evidence that the two were lying abotu making those statements. Just because the couple is biased in the case does not matter in this case because it has no bearing on the proceedings as long as they tell the truth. However, if, infact they just want to try to prove biased, then this motion is infact an invasion of privacy.

Gee I hope this makes sense I'm not going on a lot of sleep here.

[The Doctor.]

8. Right, but there are other ways to get to the bottom of this than

commandeering their lives.

[JAbuchan08]

9. Legal maybe, but not ethical.

I have my doubts as to whether suspicions of "perjury" are anything more than payback for questioning authority.

[craychek]

10. ethical?

Who ever said that the law was ethical. There have been more than a few murderers, child molesters, rapists, and others that have gotten off scot free because of techinicalities. Then there are innocents that are wrongfully convicted because people lie or the procecution railroads them. I never said that the law was ethical. =P

[JAbuchan08]

6. They're trying to prove "bias"

that way these peoples opinions don't matter.

[Igel]

7. Hardball.

You sue me, I'll find a way to sue you.

One of them, Scapicchio, isn't even councilman any more. I wonder if the Uhrmann's suit also requires that a lot of private information be released, or if the Uhrmann's just weren't perspicacious in their postings?

I presume Scott and Charlene Uhrmann are dems.

[MrBenchley]

11. Even if they weren't perspicacious in their postings

Since when are public officials immune from criticism?

[Igel]

13. They aren't. They're public figures.

But there are still limits; otherwise I have to assume that the judge would have gentle snickered and said, Case dismissed!

[MrBenchley]

14. What limits?

Looked at Freak Republic lately?

[mcscajun]

12. There's nothing so unconstitutional as most small-town governments.

And it isn't until something like this hits the papers that people even Think About It.

[MrBenchley]

15. Exactly...

And this is a good yardstick of what's really percolating in the mindset of the GOP...