An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Laura Ingraham in Trouble?
Crooks and Liars reports that Laura Ingraham might be in serious trouble:
Now this would be just a little justice. via email: Pat Leahy at a hearing on voter fraud all but demanded that the Justice Department investigate and even prosecute Laura Ingraham for her election-day call to her listeners to jam the phone lines Democrats set up for reporting voter machine problems and the like.
It’s a dirty trick, obviously, but prosecute her for it? That might be exaggerating it just a little bit, no?
65 Responses to “Laura Ingraham in Trouble?”
Eric,
Here’s a simple question. If someone repeatedly calls me (or an organization of any kind) with no intention other than to annoy me or tie up my phone line, whether they hang up or say something to me it is considered phone harassment and is a criminal offense. That is a simple fact. I assume you read the transcript of what Ingraham was saying to her listeners. She was directly encouraging them to commit this criminal act. How is that not incitement to commit a criminal act?
interested,
I find it interesting that the claims you make about my poor pathetic lack of abilities seem to apply so well to your initial post. I, however, will not make an apology for not appreciating your self-righteous snarkiness.
In all seriousness I have looked back on this thread and would like to apologize to anyone whom I offended by over the top comments. I felt that something that I considered important in the history of creating a pattern of political dirty tricks was being trivialized and reacted in an inappropriate manner in some posts. Once again, my apologies.
Most people assume the fights are going to be the left versus the right, but it always is the reasonable versus the jerks.
The point of quotations is that one can use another’s words to be insulting.
Jim S- Maybe some of your posts were a little over the top, but I agree that a talk show host did incite her listeners to break the law by jamming the Democrat’s hotline. The hotline is used to direct voters to the appropriate polling place-so it was not a trivial incident, but a dirty trick aimed at voter suppression. Its a shame some of the commenters here are so partisan, that unless it affects their side, it seems unimportant to them.
Muwhahaha. Ahhh irony at its finest.
Well still waiting…………………….
MvdG- What are you talking about? A lot of commenters here are concerned about the fairness of our election process, and think if you trivialize these kinds of incidents, they will be repeated en masse in 2008. I’d like to think that I’d also be appalled if a lefty talk show host encouraged listeners to jam a GOP help-line. It is beyond partisanship- it is unamerican, undemocratic, and a stunt worthy of a banana republic.
In our area (DC suburbs) there were complaints of threats against registered voters that they’d be arrested if they showed up at their polling place. Fake voter guides with fake endorsements were handed out near polling places in black counties by busloads of homeless men. Where do you draw the line?
MvdG–
Kim Ritter is right.
I think there whould be consequences for Laura Ingraham’s behavior. Do you want to defend what she did? Does anyone?
Jim S.–
Interested’s comment applied to everyone who doesn’t think this is trivial, me included. I didn’t like it either. I think he is wrong, this isn’t trivial. I also think he baited the people like us who feel that way. Where’s interested’s apology?
Eric–
I’ve already indicated why I think Brandenburg vs. Ohio doesn’t apply. Did you miss that part? The commenter who brought it up has chosen not to defend it, in case you also missed that part, too.
Why don’t you provide some case law that supports your opinion? I’m going to be waiting for that.
It’s okay to have strong opinions. But to be taken seriously, you need to provide evidence, or at least go to the trouble of constructing an argument. Call things you disagree with bs and declare yourself the winner, if you like. But these are public threads. Do you think people who read them don’t notice your behavior?
Instead of assigning homework, Eric, why don’t you do some.
If you want to be taken seriously.
Eric,
Legal precedent isn’t everything. There is always a case that sets precedent. Phone harassment is a crime, isn’t it? Can you show me where it isn’t? Ingraham encouraged her listeners to commit this crime. Do you deny it after reading the transcript? Please answer those questions instead of demanding an answer to a question that doesn’t really mean anything.
BYG I’m not calling for anyone to go to jail. I think that’s the person who should have some idea for what and if it is accurate action.
Phone harassment is a crime but you have shown me nothing to make me think this rises to that level. You haven’t listed the statute that was violated, now you indicate that you don’t care about precedent because you can always set precedent. First amendment right are pretty inclusive and she never directly asked that anyone commit a crime. While you find it obvious that is hardly a legal finding.
“A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute.” Terminiello, 337 U.S. at 4. Free speech
may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view.
Id. (citations deleted) (emphasis added).
DATED this 2nd day of July, 1998
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON
Nail her to the wall. The right went on a massive, co-ordinated spree of voter fraud and they need to get slapped down hard for it.
Eric–
I have an opinion. You have an opinion. They’re different. I think we all get that already. An I’m pretty sure everyone already understands that my opinion is not a “legal finding”.
mordancy–
What an excellent quote! I completely agree with it! In fact, I’m going to quote part of your quote, but with somewhat different emphasis:
Hotlines like the one Laura Ingraham was asking her listeners to impede–they exist for a reason. The history of voting rights in America is not pleasant. And there have been plenty of problems in recent elections.
The right to vote is fundamental to our Democracy. And that remains true whether or not your side is going to win the next election.
So thanks for putting that quote up. .
To Anyone Else Who Cares–
Laura Ingraham is a knucklehead. But the legitimacy of our elections is crucial.
It’s possible she broke no law, though I find that hard to imagine. She used the public airwave to encourage phone harassment for political ends and some of her listeners did what she asked them to do.
It’s possible an investigation would just give her the opportunity to go all wet-eyed and Ollie-Northesque about her roll as a First Amendment martyr. I can’t say it better than famous Republican Abe Lincoln: you can, in fact, fool some of the people all of the time.
If only it could be possible to shame her for her ends-justify-the-means ethics. But I don’t see it happening. And not just because knuckleheads like her are shameless.
It’s because there are always otherwise sensible people who will excuse-but-not-defend this type of behavior.
Because really: who wants to actually defend her?
BYG- Good post. I notice that no one has defended her, just trivialized what she did. I remember another thread on this site where we were discussing complaints of voting irregularities from the last several elections. The prevailing attitude seemed to be among several commenters that at every election some people make themselves into victims of the process. Why not have the attitude that we should vigorously guard against those who willfully create impediments to the process?
Look at Sarasota, where 18,000 votes for the congressional candidate were missing on the ballots. Some who knew they had voted for one candidate, saw the other party’s candidate come up numerous times, and finally had to get an election judge to help them fix the mistake.