Columbia residents exercise First Amendment rights

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'
Friday, July 3, 2009 | 12:01 a.m. CDT; updated 3:08 p.m. CDT, Saturday, July 4, 2009
Mike Martin sits in front of a computer screen displaying his blog, The Columbia Heart Beat, in his home in Columbia on Monday. Martin has maintained the blog for four years, developing strong contacts with local officials and an intimate familiarity with the Boone County political scene. Martin's commitment to the community evolved after he purchased and renovated several rental properties in the area and got to know his tenants. "I've learned a lot about Columbia from them and how it's changed over the years," he said.

Joanne Schrader is a social services worker. An earlier version of this story gave an incorrect location for her work.

COLUMBIA — As Americans celebrate the birth of the nation, it's important to remember the 45-word sentence that begins the Bill of Rights and outlines the five basic civil liberties that are the keystones of American democracy.

The freedoms of speech, petition, press, religious expression and assembly are the blueprints for our society.


Related Media

Related Articles

“The First Amendment was written because at America's inception, citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms,” according to the First Amendment Center’s Web site.

Exercising First Amendment rights is a personal prerogative, as symbolized by these Columbia residents who are exercising the five freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights. That's something to celebrate, too.


From noon to 3 p.m. every Thursday, Joanne Schrader uses her right to freely assemble by standing on the sidewalk outside Planned Parenthood on Providence Road to protest abortion and hand out information about alternatives.

Schrader, a *social services worker, has held her weekly vigil since February, along with a group of several friends who assemble from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursdays when women go into the clinic.

“We began standing out here because we all feel that human life deserves respect and protection starting from an early stage," Schrader said. "We feel it goes from conception all the way to old age. We want to reach people who are unsure of the issues surrounding abortion.”

Schrader and her friends are able to assemble because of Supreme Court cases such as the one in 1939 — Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization — that ruled it was unconstitutional to bar citizens from peaceably assembling on public property.

Christina Wells, an MU law professor, said courts may impose distance restrictions on groups with a history of disruptive behavior but that a court will never bar a group from being able to speak or freely express itself.

"The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly," according to the First Amendment Center. "However, there must be a 'clear and present danger' or an 'imminent incitement of lawlessness' before government officials may restrict free-assembly rights."

— John Springli


Almost five years ago, National Press Club member and Columbia resident Mike Martin created an electronic newsletter called The Columbia Heart Beat for the north-central part of the city, where he owns rental property. He drew on his background as a science journalist — he collects the articles he publishes on from a variety of national and international publications — and writing experience as a member of the National Association of Science Writers.

As the popularity of The Columbia Heart Beat grew, Martin expanded the newsletter's content to reflect a citywide audience. His offerings include serious topics —an  independent investigation into criminal activity at a rental property and questions about possible excessive spending — and items such as poems about Earth Day and Mother's Day memories.

Martin's newsletter hasn't been free of controversy. Mayor Darwin Hindman, for example, denied one report in the Heart Beat that he had participated in a discussion of strategies for removing "activist" members of the City Council.

As Charles Davis, an MU journalism professor, told him: When a powerful public official complains, you are doing your job, Martin said.

The press itself has historically been a target of criticism. The second U.S. president, John Adams, created the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were meant to quell criticism from the press and opponents. These four bills were an attempt by Adams to keep the U.S. from entering the French Revolution as well as to impede any attempt by Thomas Jefferson for the presidency. Jefferson repealed the acts as soon as he was elected president.

The Espionage Act of 1917 was created to keep the press from publishing articles that hurt national security in times of declared war. After the New York Times and Washington Post published the Pentagon Papers in 1971 with details about the war in Vietnam, the federal government sued the newspapers. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that government efforts to block publication infringed on a free press.

— John Springli


After five years of work, the residents of Alexander Avenue have a solution for the speeding problem on their residential street. Cherith Moore took the initiative to present a petition that prompted the city government to provide a remedy to help keep children safe around passing cars.

First Ward Councilman Paul Sturtz, who was aware of the issue before he was elected to the council, helped get the petition drive going. Moore's background helped as well. She has master's degrees in social work and public administration and is working on her doctorate in sustainable community design.

With Sturtz's guidance, Moore and about 10 other residents were able to write their formal request to the council for traffic control measures such as speed humps and a 20 mph limit. Moore was able to have it signed by more than 90 percent of the 43 households on the street.

Although the petition drive was successful, Moore wishes there were better guidelines for citizens to follow when petitioning the city government.

“The process of citizen input should be made more well-known," she said. "No matter what education level, socioeconomic level or sense of entitlement," she said, the public "needs to know how they can be heard.”

Sheela Amin, the city clerk, said there are several different types of petitions for departments within the city. Someone wanting to petition needs to check with specific city departments and see if there is a petition form in place. Otherwise, she said, residents are free to write their own.

Moore and the other residents drafted the first petition five years ago asking the city to install two speed humps. It was signed by 100 percent of the households, she said, and endorsed by the council. Moore said it took 2 ½ years for the humps to be installed before they were scraped down in 2008 to the height of the rest of the street.

After the initial installation of the speed humps, Moore said, residents made call after call to Public Works to have the speed humps fixed because they were too close together. She said they were told the project was “not a priority.”

The issue eventually caught the attention of Sturtz, who suggested another petition that was presented to the council in May.

The council decided to restore the original speed humps, lower the speed limit and install additional speed humps near Alexander Avenue and Worley Street.

— John Springli


The summer of 1979 in Iran was one of uncertainty and apprehension for Negar Resvani Jackson, who found herself in the midst of youth and the middle of a revolution. Her mother was a professor of radiology; her father was an architect. She was an only child and spent much of her time with her grandparents while her parents worked.

In the summer of 1979, however, Negar began learning how being a follower of the Baha’i faith placed her at odds with the extremist agendas in the political climate of the revolution. 

Baha’i has had a tumultuous history since the faith was founded in Iran by the prophet Baha’u’llah in 1863. According to the Baha’i International Community’s Web site, the faith is rooted in the religious matrix of Islam, much like how Christianity came forth from the context of Judaism and, similarly, how Buddhism came from the context of Hinduism.

When Baha’u’llah began preaching his faith in Iran, he was deemed a heretic by Muslim religious leaders who opposed the idea of a monotheistic faith beyond Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Baha’is believe their faith to be a continuation of all world religions and preach the virtues in forming a new world order devoted to peace and reconciliation among all.

During the Iranian revolution in 1979, the situation for Baha’is in Iran was going from bad to worse. Negar’s parents recognized the deteriorating situation and made the decision to leave.  

“My mom said goodbye to her parents, knowing that she’s never going to see them again,” Negar said, recounting how her parents first moved to Austria, where her father worked, before moving to Columbia to be near relatives.  

Her parents were the last of the family to obtain exit visas from the Iranian government. After the summer of 1979, Negar said, many of her relatives had to pay people to smuggle them out of the country.

“I think a lot of times when people think of immigrants, they think they wanted to come to America for a better life,” Negar said. “It’s kind of inaccurate because we had a great life in Iran. We came here because of the revolution, and we came here because of religious persecution.”

The family's most enduring bond, Negar said, is their faith, and they are thankful for the freedom to practice it. As a fifth-generation Baha’i, Negar said she now sees herself more as a follower of her religion than a subject of her Iranian heritage.

“Sometimes I remember that part of my life, and it seems like another life," Negar said. "It doesn’t seem like my life."

— Furqaan Sadiq


Search for the name "Charles Dudley Jr." in the Missourian's online archive, and you'll get 63 pages' worth of hits. Tomorrow, it could be 64. Dudley is relentless about getting his opinions in the public domain.

He prefers the term "really persistent."

"Some people think I spend all day talking on the computer, but it's really only two, three hours total," Dudley said.

From his small apartment in Paquin Tower, Dudley exercises his First Amendment right to free speech, making his voice heard on the Internet on a daily, sometimes hourly, basis. He’s particularly fond of commenting on newspaper stories.

Dudley said it's all about being a citizen advocate, but his comments often advertise the fact that he’s exercising his freedom of speech.

In America, free speech ensures the government can’t censor the public, and it allows citizens to become participants in the democracy. In a famous ruling in 1919, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes referred to the First Amendment’s promotion of the marketplace of ideas, through which the truth emerges from public dialogue that presents a mix of ideas, both good and bad.

Whether one agrees with Dudley's comments is one thing, but he certainly promotes public dialogue. Rarely do his posts on blogs or newspaper Web sites go unanswered. He’s grateful for the opportunity to share his views.

"The freedom of speech is the last thing we haven't lost yet,” he said. “They can't really stop it."

In Dudley’s opinion, you have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. He said that exercising his freedom of speech is essential but that many people refrain from posting comments for fear of suffering public backlash. Dudley, however, said it’s the perfect platform.

Twenty years ago, a truck would drive by at night and toss a rolled-up newspaper on the driveway. The only way a reader could respond to the news was by writing a letter to the editor. It might have taken days or weeks before it was printed. Now, all a person has to do is log in and start typing.

Dudley is also a prolific blogger. He started the Paquin Tower Times, which was originally intended to focus on events within the apartment building but has grown to encompass discussion about the area around the building. Then he created Columbia Citizens for Disability Advocacy, which receives posts from people all over the globe.

Dudley wasn't discouraged when he was banned from commenting on the Columbia Daily Tribune's Web site. Rather, he immediately changed his moniker so he could log in again. And he created his own community forum, Citizens for Change in Columbia.

“When you overmoderate the public discussion, you destroy the flow of the thread, the flow of conversation. … The Internet offers unlimited readership and unlimited potential, and everyone should have their right to speak and be heard.”

He said his commentary gets people out of their shell, that it gets people thinking.

"Opinions and thoughts are what shaped this country into what it is today, and (they) always will."

When Dudley logs onto his computer to tap into the community conversation, the first thing he usually does is cringe at all the messages in his e-mail inbox. But, he said, "this way people are informed, and it gets them talking to their friends about current issues …

“… and it keeps them from becoming 'sheeple.'"

Dudley thinks others should do post in online forums. He said it’s a good way to influence government.

"You know that City Council looks at these posts, too, because we are the very citizens that live here, that voted them into office, that pay taxes and drive on the streets," he said.

Dudley said he’s proud to live in a country where citizens have inalienable rights and need not fear government retribution for voicing their opinions.

"I don't have an agenda,” he said. “It's about speaking up and being heard, and that motivates other citizens with similar or differing opinions to do the same."

— Jim Holt

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Ray Shapiro July 3, 2009 | 12:10 a.m.

Great article as we head into "Independence Day."

(Report Comment)
Kurt Jansen July 3, 2009 | 2:40 p.m.

I find this front page story rather ironic considering a recent exercise in petitioning our government and freedom to speak about it.

A number of constituents from the 9th Congressional District attempted to present a petition to US Rep. Blaine Leutkemeyers staff. The group was intercepted by an employee of the office building, they were not allowed to enter the Representatives office. She did receive the petition and pass it on.

When one of the members wrote a letter to the editor at this publication. It was originally posted. Only to be pulled down becuase Rep. Leutkemeyer's office stated there was no official "appointment" even though the group was assured that the office would be open and a staff member would be able to receive them. The letter writer was informed he would have to change wording to be of his letter. Once he changed the worlding the Missourian posted the letter with their own additional clarification.

See for yourself at

(Report Comment)
tom hawk July 3, 2009 | 5:09 p.m.

We may be better served at this point with the admonition of the first five words of the First Amendment: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance July 4, 2009 | 10:22 a.m.

We have freedom of speech at the Missourian as long as you don't differ from a congressman press secretary's point of view. Then the Missourians calls you back and ask to amend your "freedom of speech" because they have no backbone to tell a congressman to write a letter in retort.

(Report Comment)
Spencer Engel July 5, 2009 | 11:40 p.m.

This article is pretty thorough and I'm sure it took a lot of time and effort to write, but I can't believe Charles Dudley Jr. was included as a source. This yahoo has no life other than posting on The Missourian's Web site all day and night. Did you even try look for alternate sources?

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 6, 2009 | 5:16 a.m.

Spencer Engel with your complaining I will take that as a compliment I am doing something right.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 6, 2009 | 5:31 p.m.

There is a good reason this news outlet and blog/forum style of posting will always be alot better than it's local competitor and that is the fact that all citizens can comment and speak their minds with out the over bearing fears of having their account deleted for not being politically correct.

The other paper in this city will do just that if you are not totally politically correct in everything you say according to their own version of politically correct.

Let's all hope this media outlet keeps up their great tolerance for all who wish to comment here and that they continually provide the community a place to vent their concerns and opinions.

That is what Freedom Of Speech is all about and this media outlet at least still respects that unlike "That one".

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 6, 2009 | 5:35 p.m.

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to post what you wish on the Tribune's website and keep them from deleting it and/or your new accounts, nor here, nor at Mike's forum.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 6, 2009 | 6:17 p.m.

>>> John Schultz July 6, 2009 | 5:35 p.m.
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to post what you wish on the Tribune's website and keep them from deleting it and/or your new accounts, nor here, nor at Mike's forum. <<<

Well being I am a Moderator just like you on Mike's Forum:

We must pull a lil clout wouldn't you say John even though we have some knock out debates and commentaries back and forth but Mike let's everybody post and so do we as the Moderation Team as a whole.

I am not the only victim over at the Trib by far to lose an account nor to have commentary deleted or censored. So I am not posting here the poor me thing but this is about a online posting community as a whole.

That is one thing about this media outlet(Missourian) I have seen is that they let the people speak and debate as they will not as they dictate over.

Kudos to the Editorial Staff.

Many have had these things happen at the Trib and their comments were totally in line with the thread and it's following commentary as a whole.

The facts are if it is not the Trib's view than it is not "The View" and that leaves for a "One Sided Point of View" which in alot of people's eyes is not part of the Democratic process this country was founded upon and thus the Right to Freedom of Speech.

This is not China nor Iran where they censor their citizens but this is America where we can practice those freedoms guaranteed to us or we can fight back with out fear of repercussion in pushing for change we can all enjoy.

Sometimes the battles are long for that change but in this so called progressive world change for the betterment and more openness for all is what we all strive for and that I thought included you too John Schultz the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Boone County.

Unless Libertarians are against what the Constitution guarantees us all and one of those is Freedom of Speech.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 6, 2009 | 9:05 p.m.

Chuck, if I posted something blatantly outrageous on your forum or one of your blogs, do you have the right to delete it or must you let it stand? Is it "your" property, or something public as deemed by the Constitution? Don't forget that the Missourian has pulled some of our comments in the past as well.

Libertarians are for following the Constitution and not trying to push law beyond our founders' principles. If the Tribune was a government operation, you might have an argument to make for them censoring your point of view. However, since they are a private organization, the First Amendment does not pertain to their allowing or not allowing comments.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

To force the Tribune to accept any comment would be a violation of their private property and a taking under the Fifth Amendment in my non-lawyerly opinion, and very unlibertarian.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 6, 2009 | 9:12 p.m.

>>> If the Tribune was a government operation, you might have an argument to make for them censoring your point of view. However, since they are a private organization, the First Amendment does not pertain to their allowing or not allowing comments. <<<

What is ironic is that the Trib claims to be an all inclusive media outlet for the community but yet they ban people's accounts and delete politically correct postings.

Does that sound like inclusive of a media outlet that claims to be the voice of the community or does that sound totally hypocritical to you?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 6, 2009 | 9:33 p.m.

I don't believe the Tribune has ever claimed to be such an outlet, maybe the paper of record or some such similar marketing verbiage. No matter what they might say, you have no rights to post a comment to their stories or demand a letter to the editor be published. If you don't like it, you're free to start another paper or work to improve an existing one.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 7, 2009 | 4:52 a.m.

John Schultz you are showing your Libertarians support big corporations side instead of we support the citizens side once again.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 7, 2009 | 1:24 p.m.

No Chuck, I am supporting private property whereas you are apparently arguing for communism and public ownership of private property. Misconstrue my stance and I'll make yours look silly as well - I can play the game as well (or badly) as you do. Now, shall we have a real discussion on the issues or do you want to go off on a non-informed tangent about my political philosophy?

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 7, 2009 | 8:05 p.m.

John Schultz why does your post remind me of some young child who just had his cookies and milk taken away after they had their nap time.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 7, 2009 | 8:14 p.m.

Chuck, the point remains. The Trib is paying for it's web site, they are allowing people to comment on their stories, so they are ultimately in control of what they allow.

Would you like it if someone used a computer you had given them to criticize you online? It's the same basic idea.


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 7, 2009 | 8:38 p.m.

Mark Foecking the point still remains if they cannot handle the heat of the truth they should not be in the business of public news/media now should they?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 8, 2009 | 10:30 a.m.

Yep, seems like Chuck doesn't want to have a grown-up discussion with the rest of the commenters here, it's all about HIM HIM HIM and the Tribune taking away his writing pad.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 9, 2009 | 1:50 p.m.

John Schultz Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Boone County no it is about everybody which is being inclusive not exclusive.

That is where you as a Libertarian miss the entire scope of the picture.

(Report Comment)
King Diamond July 9, 2009 | 2:38 p.m.

They own the site, they can pretty much do as they see fit. I'm not sure why there is anymore discussion on this.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 9, 2009 | 3:04 p.m.

Because Chuck Dudley Jr. is a hard-headed Don Quixote wannabe who always has to have the last word, especially when he's wrong.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 9, 2009 | 5:27 p.m.

John Schultz Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Boone County has anybody besides myself as of late told you what a real dipstick you are?

>>> who always has to have the last word, especially when he's wrong. <<<

It is not about being wrong or right it is though about common citizens being able to practice freely their Constitutional Rights guaranteed to them by said United States Constitution.

Where would anybody be today if they did not have these basic Constitutional Rights backing them up?

The answer is nowhere. Think about it as one by one those basic Constitutional Rights disappear.

What is it that people say about public entities which not only include the rich and famous but we can group in news media outlets as well?

Oh yes when you are a public entity you have no more right to a freedom of any privacy because now you are the focus of the ongoing discussions.

Such as it is with the Columbia Tribune deleting commentary in droves and banning member accounts to keep them from their freedom of speech.

Thank goodness this news media outlet is not run like that or at least not with the Nazi tactics practiced by the Tribune Web Producers.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 9, 2009 | 10:28 p.m.

Nope Chuck, I can't say I've been called a dipstick lately. Maybe not since my brother used that epithet while the Dukes of Hazzard were still enjoying their original run on TV.

Oh how soon you forget the Missourian deleted some of our comments in the past. You *might* be able to argue your First Amendment rights were somehow violated then since the Journalism School is government-run, although the Missourian is supposedly held privately. You can continue to gripe and complain about the Tribune violating your First Amendment rights. Your continuance in such a manner will lead more people to know that you don't understand what rights the Constitution does protect. I find it somewhat ironic that you requested a permit from the city to protest its cut of the Paquin funding in front of city hall instead of using your First Amendment rights to petition and assmble (us crazy Libertarians didn't ask for such a permit when we rallied before one of the smoking ban meetings).

So sorry that Hank Waters has decided you are outta luck at the Trib, but you brought most of that mess upon yourself and should deal with it like an adult. I know Rick is urging you to take on some legal action, but they are probably just as justified in placing an injunction on you if they wish. Their website is their property, not public property as you seem to think.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 10, 2009 | 4:45 a.m.

John Schultz Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Boone County now you are sounding like the suppressionist in Iran and China.

By all of your words you are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt you are only for Big Companies and not for the common citizen.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 10, 2009 | 7:00 a.m.

Chuck, you have your own forum, your blogs, you can post here, and at the Beat Board, FreeTalk, and whereever else. So what if one newspaper feels that they don't want you to contribute to their commentary? Methinks you doth protest too much.


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 10, 2009 | 9:01 a.m.

Mark Foecking I think you do not give a dam about the rights of others around you.

People like you are what is dragging this country down.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 10, 2009 | 9:41 a.m.

Keep playing the victim Chuck instead of realizing how lucky you have it. If you think Mark and I are so "bad" when it comes to citizens' rights, you've fooled yourself pretty well. Go talk to the local ACLU and have them set you straight on just what rights you have under the First Amendment.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley July 10, 2009 | 12:05 p.m.

This is getting funny...

First, let me say "Dipstick" is my term, I popularized it, and I mentioned it first, Uncle Jesse and Boss Hogg have nothing on me! I should have a copyright on it! Oh, and "sheeple" is mine too, but I am glad you are learning from me Chuck. LOL. Just being humorous guys..

Second of all, it is important to remember that these rights we speak of were designed to protect us from government, NOT private entities. So, we can't assert our right to free speech against a private entity like the Columbia Daily Tribune.

Third of all; while I DO understand that we can not assert the rights we are discussing here against a private entity. I have to say that I fall solidly on Chuck's side on this issue. I have voiced my reasons why before, and I am going to try to briefly summarize them here. I think it is completely unfair, discriminatory, and even a bit malicious for the Columbia Tribune to block all of Chuck's posts and ban his screen names "across the board". I also think that it is a bit ironic that a Newspaper that would scream and throw fits like a little 12 year old if the government infringed on it's right to a free press and to free speech; would infringe on those very rights of it's consumers. One would think that a Newspaper would embody these principles of free speech, free press, and free expression, rather than stifle them in the same fashion that they would not tolerate from our government. So in essence, it would be nice to see Chuck create as much "grief" for this Newspaper as he possibly can.

Fourth of all, I am not encouraging Chuck to take legal action. I did suggest once that he should consult an attorney (and I even gave him the name of one), and I did suggest once that perhaps he should read through the American's With Disabilities Act to see if he could use that as a means of showing that he is being discriminated against. So, I think it is fair to say that in the past I have encouraged him, but I am not sure that it is fair to say that my encouragement for Chuck to take legal action on this issue has been ongoing.

Lastly, this should be a lesson for everyone that likes to "gripe" about how the moderator's should step in and delete people's posts; EVEN if these posts are somewhat inflammatory. Once you encourage this from moderators, YOU'RE NEXT!


(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield July 10, 2009 | 1:44 p.m.

Chuck still posts on the Tribune site under names such as Citizenz Voice even though he constantly whines here and elsewhere about people who don't post under their real name.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 10, 2009 | 7:40 p.m.

Thank you Rick.

Michael Savage coined the word "Sheeple".

John you are still a dip[stick in my book and always will be one.

Jimmy Bearfield that nick was banned by the Nazi Moderators over there long ago so do show us the last time it posted anything before you shoot your mouth off and make yourself look stupid.

Do I still post there? Yes I do under this nick here but I can only post in the Reader Blog Section. Do I post there under another name perhaps? You figure it out.

As far as legal action sure I can make a stink that would ring out across this nation and might even move changes in how online news medias deal with the online communities they service and how their readerships look at their online news medias they view daily.

Will I though? Well that is being studied to see how profitable it might actually be for others in the same situation.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley July 10, 2009 | 7:57 p.m.

Actually the word "Sheeple" was found in print as early as 1950 in the Emory University Quarterly, v.6-7 1950-1951, page 64.

Michael Savage CLAIMS he "coined the term", but Shortwave radio host Milton William Cooper used it commonly during his "Hour of the Time" radio show during the late 80s and early 90s. And Hour Of The Time was on a little earlier than Savage Nation.

Wiki Wiki Wiki!

But, Michael Savage was probably just trying to emulate me! LOL. Just being funny...


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 10, 2009 | 8:43 p.m.

No Rick I doubt highly anybody would try to emasculate you my friend.

Sorry Rick I could not resist. :)

Peace out.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley July 10, 2009 | 8:57 p.m.



(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield July 10, 2009 | 9:15 p.m.

Chuck I cannot link to your posts under false names on the Tribune site because as you know they get deleted quickly whenever another poster outs you. The most recent one to get deleted was for the story about Paquin not being a cooling center.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 10, 2009 | 10:07 p.m.

Chuck, if you think that you are in any position to make money off the Tribune banning your accounts, then you are as loony as Michael Savage.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley July 10, 2009 | 10:51 p.m.

I would not quite say that, John. If someone can make millions off of Hardee's making their coffee too hot...........

I've seen stranger things....


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 11, 2009 | 4:34 a.m.

>>> John Schultz July 10, 2009 | 10:07 p.m.
Chuck, if you think that you are in any position to make money off the Tribune banning your accounts. <<<

Who in the hell ever said or posted anything about making money off of the Tribune? I know I absolutely have never thought that so once again you prove you are interjecting worthless and mindless conjectures where they are not needed. Typical of you John very very typical.

It would not be about money with them,that would be up to the lawyer but it would be about alot of other things and that one is Freedom of Speech and public awareness of just how the Tribune treats it's posting membership.

You are not thinking with your Dip Stick..........Johny.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 11, 2009 | 2:14 p.m.

A lawyer would only be able to collect their costs and a percentage of any damages claimed by the plaintiff. Maybe you should expand on your statement of "Will I though? Well that is being studied to see how profitable it might actually be for others in the same situation."

You also claim "It would not be about money with them,that would be up to the lawyer but it would be about alot of other things and that one is Freedom of Speech and public awareness of just how the Tribune treats it's posting membership" You have no right to sue about freedom of speech and your want of awareness seems to be covered by this story and your whining about your bans here and elsewhere.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 11, 2009 | 3:26 p.m.

Why should I expand on it John. Look at the statement and read what it says. It stands for itself and upon itself.

There are other things often more profitable than money.

Now you are not thinking with your Dip Stick........Johny.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley July 11, 2009 | 4:12 p.m.

Chuck, you really only antagonize John with the way you post to him. I wish you would consider this a little. John is really a good person, and I don't think he deserves to be communicated with like this. But that is your choice, Chuck. I just don't think it is very mature or decent.

Having said that, John is right. You can't sue under a Freedom Of Speech issue. But what you CAN research is whether or not you might have a discrimination issue that you can bring a cause of action over.


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 11, 2009 | 5:07 p.m.

>>> what you CAN research is whether or not you might have a discrimination issue that you can bring a cause of action over.

Rick. <<<

Ya Rick that is what you and I talked about before.

Rick John asks for the snarkieness he receives here and elsewhere from myself due the way he comes across not only on this thread but most every thread in the past. I am sure he is a nice guy but why should anybody back down from his back handed commentary.

Do ya ever think Rick it goes both ways my friend.

Maybe I can give him the same treatment back when he starts to lose his freedom of the 2nd Amendment huh? Oh but then the shoe is on the other foot isn't it of sorts. Something for John to think about in the bigger picture if he lost that right and oh dare we say "That Freedom". How loud would he cry here over that?

If one freedom falls they all begin to fall just as those poor souls in Soviet Georgia found out the hard way.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 11, 2009 | 7:37 p.m.

Rick, you might try giving Chuckles the old honey and vinegar talk next time you see him. Doesn't seem to get through when I do it, but no skin off my back if Chuck doesn't want to be educated (or listened to). I don't think he realizes he gets back the snark he hands out. Oh well!

Chuck, the Tribune would have no way to take away my Second Amendment (or other amendment) rights, so I'm not sure why you brought up that particular amendment. Once you figure that out, you'll understand how your First Amendment claims against the Tribune are not going anywhere.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 11, 2009 | 7:41 p.m.

One more thing Rick, Chuck isn't antagonizing me (he probably thinks he is), I just have this thing about pointing out bad arguments, missing facts, and such. He can keep it going as long as he likes, I'll still be out here fact-checking him.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 12, 2009 | 4:27 a.m.

John Schultz Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Boone County you are so oblivious to how slowly we are losing our Constitutional Rights it is stupidly funny for somebody who claims they uphold the Constitution. No wonder the Libertarians are a third rate part, if even that with people like you as Chairman of their groups.

Maybe you should go Fact Check how they lost their guns over in Soviet Georgia and then they lost their rights to speak up next.

Maybe you should study how Iran and China control those who they do not want to speak up about what they see going wrong.

Where did I ever say the Trib could take away those rights? I did not but once again in your infinite stupidity and being so stuck on yourself you interject things where they are not. Very very typical of you John.

The facts are first they take your guns then they take your freedom of speech and the two go hand in hand and can be reversed just as easily. That is a fact John you neglect to realize.

You are the caliber of citizen I refer to commonly as "Educated Idiots" because you have all of that higher educational value but no real grass roots form of diplomacy in using that education.

That is what is destroying our freedoms is citizens like yourself practicing and promoting complacency openly in our society today.

Go look on the Trib at all of the racially motivated commentary posted daily and do you see those members banned there? No you do not. Look at Hank's last article and the open personal comments by Tracy on it. Do you see her banned? No you do not. Both of the above are against their own policies. Hypocritical by them to ban one or a few and not others. Yes it is.

A good grounds for a discrimination lawsuit based on A.D.A. guidelines? Could very well be. It would not be about the money but it would be about the hypocritical nature Hank runs his newspaper.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 12, 2009 | 12:45 p.m.

Chuck, quit running your mouth and sue the Tribune if you think you have a case. Otherwise, man up and acknowledge they don't want you on THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY. Personally, I'm happy it's one less venue that I have to read your poorly-constructed arguments at, but the Tribune commenter pool is pretty poor to begin with (getting better the past few weeks though since the switch from the old forum). You brought it all upon yourself, now deal with it like an adult.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 12, 2009 | 2:47 p.m.

John Schultz Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Boone County you poor soul it sounds like somebody needs to call you the "Waaambulance".

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 12, 2009 | 3:47 p.m.

Chuck, sounds like you don't have any logic left to argue, so I'll gladly accept your surrender on this topic.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 12, 2009 | 6:57 p.m.

John it is too bad in all of your snobbishness you do not see the logic but then again I have not seen a Libertarian not that way.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 12, 2009 | 7:22 p.m.

Not snobbishness Chuck, I just don't tolerate fools very happily. And I really doubt you have had much interaction with other Libertarians at all, even though you claim to be the inclusive grassroots type.

(Report Comment)
KEN GERINGER July 12, 2009 | 10:08 p.m.

Would you guys show some self-restraint. Never respond to Charles' postings.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr July 13, 2009 | 4:37 a.m.

>>> I just don't tolerate fools very happily. <<<

That is the same way I feel about you John. I have been around my share John and after reviewing and being around you I now know that I would never ever want to be a Libertarian ever.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 13, 2009 | 9:20 a.m.

Some people just can't handle greater freedom and personal responsibilty.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro August 28, 2009 | 4:46 p.m.

("A recently proposed but little-noticed Senate bill would allow the federal government to shut down the Internet in times of declared emergency, and enables unprecedented federal oversight of private network administration.")
source and more:
Mark Lloyd, Obama/Soros hitman at the FCC...

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.