Maybe I shouldn't be surprised by Ms. Sweeney's "take" on all thing's Wareham (she had just been talking to Brenduh after all)..

But, seriously.. To blame the significant ongoing problems Wareham's had to face..and still has to face, on citizens voicing their opinions on websites is "reaching" just a little bit (dontcha think?)

Bill..what did you do with that $919,000??

Dan.. How come you screwed up and we've had to pay settlements to former employees like Lt. Don Bliss, Biz Zaleski, David Simmons, etc..

Guyincognito.. Well, I think your responsible for just about everything that goes wrong in town.. Have you ever checked your scalp for the "number of the beast"??

Last edited by DDPTRO (2011-09-10 16:42:14)

stewie wrote:

It is imperative in my mind, that action be taken to protect the first amendment rights of BillW and each & every one of us. Or, do you want BoBo & the Bowel Movement dictating to you all just what your rights are, in their opinion?

This is BoBo trying to be the Comeback Kid. And the Bowel Movement crew also. It needs to be nipped in the bud. Now.

I will be happy to contribute both time & money to stop this insidious assault. What do you think?

I don't know where to start.

Slagger and Sauvageau have proven time and again they absolutely nothing to lose and practically speaking, that means all bets are off. The courts, at least in this state, are still siding with the angels.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2011/vi … ing-public

For those of you not familiar with Simon Glik's case, Glik was arrested on October 1, 2007, after openly using his cell phone to record three police officers arresting a suspect on Boston Common. [...] Glik was charged with criminal violation of the Massachusetts wiretap act, aiding the escape of a prisoner and disturbing the peace.

The court ruled...

"Glik was exercising clearly-established First Amendment rights in filiming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause."

[...]* "Glik filmed the defendant police officers in the Boston Common, the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum.  In such traditional public spaces, the rights of the state to limit the exercise of First Amendment activity are 'sharply circumscribed.'"

Well, it is possible for the government to shut down a news media corporation...just look at Bobo Corp when he missed his state filing fees for three years.

But absent being a news corporation lax in your fees, there's not much the government can do to shut down the free speech of citizens.

Funny, Bobo and the Tin Hats claim they haven't been reading this site for months...so why attempt to shut it down?  Hell, if they haven't been reading it then for all they know we could have turned over a new leaf and just started an online support group where we all share our feelings and sing kumbaya.

Perhaps we can start a petition to ask any town official who has ever supported a clown who pretends to be Batman while he talks to himself to resign?

The BOS don't have the balls to address the situation. If they had their numb nuts Chairman bring it up, he wold piss his pants within two days when he received the phone calls and heard the rumors that his ass will be recalled.

It's all bullshit.

Bottom line: BoBo is a gnat on an elephant's ass.

how do they know this site still exist when all of they claim including their leader batman dont read it anymore.

If the selectmen were to vote on a petition to denounce Bill's website, that would be a direct attempt by the government to interfere with Bill's constitutional right to free speech.  He would have a "sure thing" lawsuit and I doubt he'd have to pay anything for it because lawyers love to bet on a sure thing.  He would probably have his pick of Boston's most prominent Constitutional lawyers ready to represent him on a contingency basis and the town would end up being sued in Federal court.

I think he would have cases against the Town, the individual selectmen who vote in the affirmative, and every person that signs their name to the petition.

Further, I think anyone who regularly posts on here and who wishes to identify themselves may possibly have a case because it would essentially be the government trying to interfere with their ability to post on a site on which they regularly exercise their freedom of speech.  Dan O'Connell and DDPTRO, for example, could sue if they wanted to.

In the end, anyone with any involvement with such a petition - the selectmen that support it, the town, and any individual signers, they all could be potentially sued into bankruptcy.

That's not even considering the open meeting law violations that are no doubt occurring right now as certain town officials and certain tin hats discuss this behind closed doors.

I have to reiterate here - for a guy who claims to have not read this site for months, Bobo certainly is ranting and raving a lot about it.  If he hasn't read it, how does he know anything about what is being said here?

Batbobo wrote:

By: robertslager on 9/11/11
Truebeliever, I never said the selectmen or the town should shut sown the hate site. They don't have the authority to do that. I called on them to denouce the hate speech on that site (as well as everywhere else in Wareham).
I have a question in return: Do you believe town officials shouldn't be allowed to denounce hate speech in the community? Hate speech isn't protected under The First Amendment. The right to speak out against hate speech is protected under The First Amendment. Should town leaders not speak out against hatred? I would think that would be one of their first duties as town leaders.

First, is this site really all that hateful?  All we do is point out the walking pile of ignorance and stupidity that is Bobo.  We point out how he loves to spend his days munching on bagels and pretending to be Batman - how this unemployed doofus does nothing but pretends to know everything while everyone else but him actually goes to work everyday.  Second, the selectmen can express what they want, but should do it outside of a selectmen's meeting to avoid dragging the town into a lawsuit.

Listen, would it surprise anyone if certain selectmen voted to shut down a website that is critical of certain selectmen?  No, it wouldn't.  But a meaningless gesture that could make way for a humongous legal bill for the town, for those selectmen, and for every individual who signs the petition - that just doesn't seem worth it.

If they do this - I think Bill and other posters on here who use their real names and wish to sue have a home run case for an attempt by the government to interfere with their constitutional rights to free speech.

Plus, as I said before, it is obvious the open meeting law is being violated - after all, the tin hats must be talking to certain town officials to see if they are receptive to this hair brained scheme.

Last edited by GuyIncognito (2011-09-11 15:03:25)

redrobin didn't mean to say that she was a drunken whore, he meant to say she was a drunke* whor*.

We all slip sometimes :)