Ashcroft's war on porn: like with Stern, "swing", ahem, voters at stake.

[nightperson]

I haven't seen much coverage of this stuff http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/porno030828.html and http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=2199 , and the Stern controversy has some of the same vibe (not to mention potential in terms of voters who maybe haven't been, ahem, reached out to sufficiently by the Democrats), so I thought the case deserved its own thread. Maybe I missed some 500 post flame war that already "beat' this to death long ago ;) :P :evilgrin: . I don't know too much about the case, but it seems like a good cause :P and pretty simple. And another way for the Republicans to alienate their beloved straight white males. Word to the wise. I really think the Religious Right is an unexploited Achilles Heel. Even pro-choice Scaife doesn't dig those folks. They're "out there' in the eyes of most Americans, and embarrassing to be associated with. Our President is a "born again" who you can't have a beer and talk normally with, right? Why not point that out once in a freakin' while?

[boobooday]

1. Howard Stern could make a difference

I've been following this one.

The Stern issue could be the one that wakes up the usual "non-voters." It is becoming a big first amendment brouhaha. I hope Howard doesn't let up!

If anybody can make the 18-24 white males see that Bush is a disaster for us ALL, it is him.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[zbdent]

2. The Repukes changed the rules yet again

The complaint filed against Howard was from June 2001. (BEFORE 9/11!).

Complainer had no transcript nor tape of the incident. Just the person's word.

Up until the other day, YOU HAD TO HAVE EVIDENCE. Now, they fined him, with no evidence, no tape, no transcript.

What's that about retroactively changing the rules to fit your needs? What? Election 2000? Ah, that was the Dems, and they were trying to get the votes to be counted, so it was unethical.