Thoughts on the Blogmore...
In today's paper, there is an article that starts on the front of the Local section. It is written by Bill Harlan, who is one of the moderators of Mt. Blogmore. I couldn't find it on the webpage, so here's my summary. I'm interested to hear what some of you think:
Bob Newland, is a somewhat well-known Libertarian political activist who lives outside of Hermosa. In 2002, Newland was promoting "Amendment A," which would have allowed juries to consider the guilt or innocence of a defendant (which is what's already on the books), but would also allow the jury to consider the validity of the law itself. Now I'm not well-versed on what exactly was his motivation, but as Newland is currently promoting a ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana, that may have factored in (this is my assumption...I don't have support for that argument).
Anyway, the Secretary of State (as required) published pro and con explanations of the measure, and Newland wrote the "pro" essay. An attorney from East River wrote the con essay, and in his essay, the attorney wrote that Amendment A would allow juries to let murderers go free with a small fine. Newland thought that statement was false.
Legal background - there is a statute in South Dakota, SDCL Section 12-13-16, which makes it a Class 2 misdemeanor to publish "false or erroneous information" on a constitutional amendment or submitted question. Newland applied that statute, whose own constiutionality is in doubt, and complained to the DCI.
Fast forward to last week, when a DCI agent showed up at Newland's home. Newland thought the agent was there to finish the investigation that Newland's complaint had started. Wrong.
On March 3, Bill Harlan posted the now famous (infamous) remarks made by Bill Napoli in reference to 1215. Newland zeroed in on the following statement made by Bill Napoli:
"When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up to a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again."
In response to that statement, Newland posted the following comment on Mt. Blogmore:
"When Napoli's father was growing up here in the wild west, his cafe was burned to the ground. A sign was left nearby, 'Italian nigger go home.' I happen to believe that can happen again. Ah, the good old days."
Napoli took this statement as a "veiled threat" and asked the DCI to investigate.
Harlan maintains that he and his colleagues did not see the comment as a threat, and that he (Harlan) had contacted Newland to verify the same before allowing the post to go up.
So there's this weird thing happening, as Harlan points out. Two men, both extreme in their beliefs and method of conveying the same, are complaining about others for abusing the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. (Sidenote: a threat isn't usually protected under the First Amendment, so the issue with Napoli's complaint is whether or not Newland was threatening him). This conundrum is amplified because both Napoli and Newland arguably got to where they are today by constantly applying their first amendment rights to their extreme topics of speech.
Which leads me to my questions...
Is Newland's comment a veiled threat? Was he using the method of extremism to get people thinking? Do you think SDCL 12-13-16 is sound? Where do we draw the line on censoring opinions? Do they have to have certain facts to support them? Does this then hinder looking foward when formulating opinions?
Anyway, it was a solid article and it got me thinking. So what are your thoughts? Are you still reading this?
Bob Newland, is a somewhat well-known Libertarian political activist who lives outside of Hermosa. In 2002, Newland was promoting "Amendment A," which would have allowed juries to consider the guilt or innocence of a defendant (which is what's already on the books), but would also allow the jury to consider the validity of the law itself. Now I'm not well-versed on what exactly was his motivation, but as Newland is currently promoting a ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana, that may have factored in (this is my assumption...I don't have support for that argument).
Anyway, the Secretary of State (as required) published pro and con explanations of the measure, and Newland wrote the "pro" essay. An attorney from East River wrote the con essay, and in his essay, the attorney wrote that Amendment A would allow juries to let murderers go free with a small fine. Newland thought that statement was false.
Legal background - there is a statute in South Dakota, SDCL Section 12-13-16, which makes it a Class 2 misdemeanor to publish "false or erroneous information" on a constitutional amendment or submitted question. Newland applied that statute, whose own constiutionality is in doubt, and complained to the DCI.
Fast forward to last week, when a DCI agent showed up at Newland's home. Newland thought the agent was there to finish the investigation that Newland's complaint had started. Wrong.
On March 3, Bill Harlan posted the now famous (infamous) remarks made by Bill Napoli in reference to 1215. Newland zeroed in on the following statement made by Bill Napoli:
"When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up to a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again."
In response to that statement, Newland posted the following comment on Mt. Blogmore:
"When Napoli's father was growing up here in the wild west, his cafe was burned to the ground. A sign was left nearby, 'Italian nigger go home.' I happen to believe that can happen again. Ah, the good old days."
Napoli took this statement as a "veiled threat" and asked the DCI to investigate.
Harlan maintains that he and his colleagues did not see the comment as a threat, and that he (Harlan) had contacted Newland to verify the same before allowing the post to go up.
So there's this weird thing happening, as Harlan points out. Two men, both extreme in their beliefs and method of conveying the same, are complaining about others for abusing the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. (Sidenote: a threat isn't usually protected under the First Amendment, so the issue with Napoli's complaint is whether or not Newland was threatening him). This conundrum is amplified because both Napoli and Newland arguably got to where they are today by constantly applying their first amendment rights to their extreme topics of speech.
Which leads me to my questions...
Is Newland's comment a veiled threat? Was he using the method of extremism to get people thinking? Do you think SDCL 12-13-16 is sound? Where do we draw the line on censoring opinions? Do they have to have certain facts to support them? Does this then hinder looking foward when formulating opinions?
Anyway, it was a solid article and it got me thinking. So what are your thoughts? Are you still reading this?
posted by Sarah at 9:50 AM
7 Comments:
I read the whole thing. Its my opinion, that Newland was just drasticly contrasting the views of the 50's. Things weren't right back then and we have evolved (or at least I'd like to think we have)
just because it was right back then, doesnt mean its right today.
thats my spin... Nepoli took it to the extream.
After understanding his intent in writing that statement, I do agree with you, Spin.
However, I can also see how it was taken the wrong way.
Irregardless, Napoli has lost major points in my book. I hate how he's trying to force his antiquated lifestyle choices on modern society. I wouldn't live in his neighborhood.
He's from the Vally. I hear we have till April 1st to find an opponent to run against him. If no one steps up he'll keep his job.
Anyone know anyone in the Vally who would want to take is place?
I nominate "Anyone else".
How about Robby or Al Murchison?
Owl, I was gonna call you about that. I totaly think Robby could do it! Do you think she would want to?
Ask her. Beg her. She just might. At a minimum she'll know of some neighbors who might.
Post a Comment
<< Home