| TheTip.org |
| Polls | Members | Refer | Forums | Write for TheTip! | Home | Impeach Bush |
Impeach George Bush
What Bill Jones Thinks about Voting
Bill Jones doesn't like people to know who and what they're voting for. He doesn't like websites, and most of all, he doesn't want anyone to get informed about the issues. His tactic of suing websites that enable voter organization says enough.
Source: ACLU, 2000-11-27
Candidate: Bill Jones
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed an amended complaint in Porter v. Jones today in federal court. The ACLU/SC initially sought a temporary restraining order against California Secretary of State Bill Jones for threatening criminal prosecution against a web-site similar to Porter's "votexchange2000.com," which helped like-minded voters connect on-line and discuss voting strategies. The court denied the request for a temporary restraining order, and Porter did not re-open his web-site. The ACLU now seeks a permanent injunction against Jones and damages for Porter and other plaintiffs, alleging that their Constitutional rights were violated and will likely be violated again in future elections if Jones's threats are allowed to stand.
The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego, the National Voting Rights Institute, Jamin Raskin and Alan Dershowitz join as co-counsel in the case.
"Even the world's totalitarian governments are recognizing that they cannot control speech and association on the Internet," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, "but California, cradle of the web, apparently still needs to learn the lesson. The concept of matching like-minded voters in cyberspace for the purpose of creating a common voting strategy is both revolutionary and completely in line with the freedoms set forth in our Constitution. Voter-matching is here to stay, and Luddites who think they can stop this exercise of our fundamental freedoms of association and speech will discover that efforts to censor internet speech and disband cyber-communities will not be tolerated and will not succeed."
"The razor's edge margins in this election," said Eliasberg, "make crystal clear that every vote counts. A few hundred votes here or a thousand there could have changed the course of this election. Voter-matching sites give individuals the tools to help ensure that their voices are truly heard and their interests are fully represented. That's what democracy is all about. And that's why the ACLU and American voters will not allow Secretary Jones to squash this constitutionally protected activity."
"Mr. Porter has already registered the domain name 'votexchange2004.com,'" said Eliasberg. "This issue is alive and needs to be settled. The regular nature of elections and of third party candidates means that the threat to Porter's and others' civil rights will likely recur. Porter and voters alike need to hear that their rights to free speech and free association don't end when they get on-line."
Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!
User Originated Comments:
From: Betrayal of Bill of Rights
2004-03-06 12:57:23
please edit this and use it as you like to..-my or
in your name. yes, the lawmakers are accountable
to the voters, to the extent of impeachment of the
federal justices... help! need editing. freedom of
speech, press, religion is at stake!
betrayal of first amendment....
restriction on congress, or many states?
wording in the first amendment clearly puts the
restriction on one congress (federal), not on many
states..
supreme court surely knew that
using the word "congress" in the first amendment,
the founding fathers meant the federal congress,
because there was only one congress composed of
the senate and the house.
but there were 13 states,
and if the founding fathers did mean that the
states shall make no law ...., they surely would
have worded the negative as they did in the 14th
amendment, where they clearly meant the states:
no state shall
make or endorse any law..." in the constitution
the word "no state" is used often; article 1,
section 10:
"no state shall without consent
of congress.." (note many states, one congress),
also:
"no state shall enter into any
treaty..."
according to the
constitution's first amendment, the federal
un-elected or other officials do not have the
right to dictate to the states about items in the
first amendment, and/or the rest of the bill of
rights. isn't that why it is called "the bill of
rights?"
to interpret the first amendment
correctly would have given every one of the
"several states" the choice of religion. i believe
that the supreme court seen a total chaos, in
commerce, and in many areas, that would follow
having many states with different
religions.
so in a first suitable case they,
for the good of the country, purposely
misinterpreted the first amendment? that then
brought on multitudes of frivolous lawsuits.
and more importantly is taking our god from
the nation.
solution--- ? there are
many churches, therefore separation of church and
state is a must. but there is only one god, our
creator, if we want to keep what he has given us,
we must recognize him..it is up to the supreme
court to interpret the bill of rights correctly,
and the federal and the state congresses oversee
that our nation will adhere to the constitution as
written by our honorable founding fathers.
if you agree or ? with the points made
above, please click on link below, to view the
website:
also the supreme court case plessy
v. ferguson-
http://www.eino1916.com/
now let
us all propagate the truth in this matter.
sincerely, eino salminen
From: Linda
2004-02-01 00:00:00
1984 was 20 years late, that's all.
big brother is watching and he's not
going away.
From: And he wants to run against boxer.
2004-01-09 00:00:00
remember - boxer, the one who actually did what
the voters of california wanted! we should get
rid of feinstein.
Related News
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
owned by TheTIP.
[ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ]
NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH