Slashdot Mirror


Florida Congressman Wants Blogging Critic Fined, Jailed

vvaduva writes "Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his critics go directly to jail, all over her use of the word 'my' on her blog. In a four-page letter sent to [US Attorney General Eric] Holder, Grayson accuses blogger Angie Langley of lying to federal elections officials and requests that she be fined and imprisoned for five years. Her lie, according to Grayson, is that she claims to be one of his constituents. Langley, Grayson says, is misrepresenting herself by using the term 'my' in the Web site's name."

13 of 549 comments (clear)

  1. Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    I am not a lawyer. From the letter the complaint seems to be divided into two parts (note that "the Committee" refers directly to MyCongressmanIsNuts.com):

    As explained below, Ms. Langley and the Committee falsely represented to the Federal Election Commission that the Committee "supports or opposes more than one candidate." In fact, however, the committee name corresponds to a website that attacks me and only me, while soliciting contributions to be used against only me. Moreover, Ms. Langley has falsely depicted herself as a constituent, in order to further this scheme.

    Although you may claim it's just another stupid technicality that Florida Rep. Alan Grayson clings to in order to shut down a website that is probably too painfully close to the truth for his comfort, there is another complaint other than the use of the word 'my.' Now, if you visit the about us page on the committee in question's site you can find:

    Central Floridians formed My Congressman Is Nuts PAC as a response to the outrage and embarrassment within Central Florida over Alan Grayson's liberal positions and childish approach in Washington, D.C. We could no longer sit by and accept his inappropriate behavior and leftist big government agenda. He does not represent the values of Central Florida.

    Emphasis mine. Now a key part to the argument is that since it is a PAC with pac registration, it receives taxation status benefits from the government making it subject to the law of United States Code Title 18 Section 1001.

    I mean, he might have a case here if that US code applies to PACs. I'm not sure. Were I in his shoes, I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane. Actually, I wouldn't have done anything. As Barbara Streisand might have pointed out that before this news I had never heard of nor visited My Congressman Is Nuts but now I have scanned the entire site out of curiosity.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Childish approach? He's just mimicking the Republican Standard Operating Procedure. Yeah I can see how that's childish.

      I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Democrats are no less or more childish than the Republicans (if you are, I agree with you) but you do know that he's a Democrat with, of course, a history of controversies, right?

      You seem to be confused in thinking it's "Republican Standard Operating Procedure" when in reality it's "Politician Standard Operating Procedure."

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Funny

      Democrat is to Republican as:

      C) Pot is to Kettle

      A clearly inaccurate analogy. Everyone knows there are no black Republicans.

      ...

      Okay, Steele, but I'm not sure he's Republican so much as he is plain nuts. *dives out window to avoid getting served with libel papers*

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    3. Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths

      What, and Democrats haven't done the same thing? Were you around for the debate on social security privatization? If you listened to them back then you'd have thought that the GOP was aiming to put America's seniors into concentration camps.

      As you can see from the 2000 and 2004 elections, the voters respond much better to emotional messages (particularly the emotion known as 'fear' as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney know too well) than they do to something as mundane as logic.

      And the 2008 election was immune? Barack Obama's entire campaign was one of sweeping emotion. Emotion that "change" was on the way, emotion that we'd be able to "rise above" our "petty differences", emotion that he would "transcend" race, etc, etc.

      You really can't claim that the Democrats are any better. Democrats and Republicans use the same playbook. If you think any differently then you must be a partisan for one side or the other.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not true. Democrats have stood idly by for too long while Republicans get up in the House and make hyperbolic speeches about 'death panels' and 'socialism' while the Dems have just tried to be Mr Nice Guy in the hope that the voters will reward them.

      Yep. I mean, something like comparing opposition to a bill to being in favor of slavery. A Democrat would NEVER do something like that.

    5. Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's older than Nixon. Johnson did it. Those before him did it to. There probably hasn't been a President since George Washington (the only guy who didn't want the job) who hasn't used these types of techniques.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice institutional racism.

      http://www.nbra.info
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_Republicans

      Dems are the biggest racists on the planet. Keep people dependent on you forever.

      Teach a man to fish and eats for a lifetime, Give a man a fish every day and you have a voter for life.

    7. Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It by uncqual · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And, perhaps you should explain why she only gets $76/mo from SS?

      My guess would be that she spent most of her career in a government pension fund instead of contributing to SS so had very few SS credits having contributed to it only for a few quarters.

      (Isn't it odd that one of the few groups that gets to opt out of SS are some government workers - while almost every other worker and their employer is forced to stay in SS? Goose, Gander comes to mind for some reason...)

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    8. Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It by Zordak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Part of Obama's appeal was that he tried to take the high road.

      Sorry, I just threw up a little in my mouth. How exactly did Obama take the "high road"? His whole campaign was straight out of Reagan's (very successful) 1984 playbook. "Change we can believe in" == "It's morning in America." He gave people warm fuzzies, so when they saw his big, charismatic grin, they remembered the warm fuzzies. Rhetoric was not just part of Obama's campaign. Rhetoric was his entire campaign. The guy was elected because he is an outstanding orator. It's not because people knew or particularly cared about his policy plans. In fact, now that he's in office with huge Democratic majorities, people seem to be genuinely baffled at the "change" they voted for. They thought "change" meant "a pretty new face."

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  2. Oh, the irony by mariox19 · · Score: 5, Funny

    According to the article, the blogger criticized the congressman for his "childish approach" towards governing.

    Well, he sure showed her!

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  3. Re:The question, really, is this: by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lying in a political context is hard to prosecute, unless it rises to the level of libel, which has a pretty high bar for public officials, and an even higher bar for political speech about public officials.

    Lying on forms filed with the government is illegal, though, under a blanket "don't lie to the government" law. The jail part of the complaint seems to be for allegedly misrepresenting the PAC on the filing documents with the FEC: the filed documents claim the PAC isn't aimed at any particular opponent, but the website clearly is aimed at one opponent.

  4. Re:I call bullshit by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you prefer, this and this predate the Fox story by several days.

  5. Re:While Grayson can be entertaining by NaCh0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BTW, his use of the word 'holocaust' was entirely appropriate. 'Holocaust' is not a word that has been reserved exclusively for the Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis. If people are dying in their hundreds every day at the hands of profit making health insurance extortionists, then to call it a holocaust is putting it fucking mildly.

    Yeah...paying for services and free emergency room service for everyone who can't is a true holocaust. Way to put it "fucking mildly."

    Getting sick and dying is natural.

    Gassing 6 million scapegoats is not.

    Get some perspective.