There is no liability for “hate speech” in the U.S., although speech can be used as evidence of bias when prosecuting a crime with bias as the motive, also known as a “hate crime,” just as speech can be used as evidence of motive for any other crime (“Ladies and gentleman of the jury, here is a tape of the defendant saying he wanted his father’s money, right before he pushed the victim down the stairs”). Civil liability extends only to defamation, and it is very nearly impossible for a public figure, especially an elected official, to win a defamation lawsuit. That’s part of why most elected officials don’t bother, no matter how ridiculous the claims made about them are.

I think our current First Amendment law is very good, and my only concern is that a conservative Supreme Court will push toward releasing commercial entities from an obligation to tell the truth in their advertising. The desire to give commercial speech the same protection as political, artistic, scientific and educational speech, as a means of avoiding regulation on advertising, has been bubbling up for a long time among Republicans.

Mich. woman: Supporting Obama? No treats for you
GROSSE POINTE FARMS, Mich. – A suburban Detroit woman has decided to scare up the vote among neighborhood children by just offering treats to John McCain supporters.

Shirley Nagel of Grosse Pointe Farms, Mich., handed out candy Friday only to those who shared her support for the Republican presidential candidate and his running mate Sarah Palin. Others were turned away empty-handed.

TV station WJBK says a sign outside Nagel’s house warned: “No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters.”

Nagel calls Democrat Barack Obama “scary.” When asked about children who were turned away empty-handed and crying, she said: “Oh well. Everybody has a choice.”

Yeah, that will win people over to your side. Make their children cry.

I can’t believe I live in a place where a man who runs ads like that keeps getting re-elected in landslides.

Frankly I would rather the GOP make a play for minorities so the Dems have some competition and don’t get complacent, but with the Palin wing of the party likely to control things in the near future, I don’t see it.

I recall whites vote around 55% Republican in Presidential elections, which leaves a solid 45% or so who vote Democrat. And I’m sure those whites who vote Democrat are younger, better educated, have good careers, and have more stable families and fulfilling lives.

White males who vote Republican tend to be old, eccentric, depressed, hateful, racist, and suicidal. They often come from broken families and bitter divorces.

Just as building a party entirely around white men is stupid, so would be building one without us at all. It would be just as stupid as ignoring minorities and almost as stupid as ignoring women.

Hey, why won’t you vote for us? Do you find that insulting in some way?