http://overlawyered.com/2008/10/in-which-i-get-called-thought-police/

2) Also, note the spelling of my surname, “Olson” with an “o”.

Canada already provides the model for enforcing PC, and it is only used against the right, via a vast network of “Human Rights Commissions”. This is an extra-legal organization staffed by leftist political hack appointees, with the commissars having no judicial background, with no rules of evidence, no presumption of evidence, and no right to face your accuser. They make up the rules as they go along.

All costs of the complainant are paid by the state, and there is no loser pay rule. Since the average defendant can’t afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes to fight it, they settle.

Stephen Boisson, a Christian minister, for the heinous crime of citing the Bible in a letter to the newspaper, mildly criticizing homosexuality, was fined, forced to apologize in writing, and prohibited from ever again criticizing homosexuality in public statements, in writing, in emails, and even from the pulpit – FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.

The complainant wasn’t even gay, just a serial abuser of the legal system, but he was, you see, “offended”, and homosexuals are a recognized victim group in Canada, along with Muslims and other assorted leftists.

ALL the defendants are conservatives, business owners, or Christians.

The commission investigators have been caught planting very nasty “hate” emails on web sites, using hijacked IP addresses to cover their tracks, and then used their own emails as prove that the websites were guilty of hate speech.

If you think that can’t happen here, guess again, it already has. Quite a few states already have “Human Rights Commissions”, staffed exactly like the ones in Canada, and with the same mindset and lack of rules.

Just a couple months ago, one of them (New Mexico, IIRC) just fined a Christian photographer $7,000 for refusing to take the wedding photos of a lesbian couple, even though he recommended other photogs who would be happy to. It didn’t make any difference though, because the lesbians were “offended” by the refusal.

I didn’t see that until after I pushed “Submit”.

Oddly enough, comparing Bush to Hitler was considered just good, raucous political speech.

No matter what side you are arguing from, your post seems to make a direct implication that there really was something said at that Palin/McCain rallies that could be characterized as “inciting to violence”, or “hateful” or something just danged awful. But from what I have seen on news programs showing the so-called “criminal speech”, I’ve seen NOTHING of the sort.

Palin or an opening speaker mentions Obama palling around with Ayers, the crowd boos, one person says something they shouldn’t have, and the left goes absolutely BONKERS. That one supposed “Kill him” remark is claimed by ONE reporter, even he says it was about Ayers, and was in a speech 25 minutes before Palin even got there. Other than that, all I’ve heard about is booing.

The Secret Service investigated and found no one, nada, zip, zilch, zero to back up that claim. They take their jobs very seriously, and yet no one is in custody for threatening anyone.

Within minutes, this one unsupported claim is transformed into a “Kill him” directed at Obama, and chanted in unison by the zombie-like mobs deliberately and malignantly incited by Palin herself.

What bullsh*t.

By not giving a description of these so-called hateful comments, and the actual circumstances that caused the leftist nutroots to explode, and that the mainstream media made the same false statements picked up from Kos, you are doing a disservice to one side only.

If I was a leftist reading this post, I would get the distinct impression that what was said really was deliberately “hateful”, or “inciteful” and directed at Obama. I could go back to Kos and HuffPo and write a whole story on how this site admitted it was trying to defend this hate speech on a mere technicality, only because the 1st Amendment says we have to.

The right does its best to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules, but the ref has been bought, and our opponent comes into the ring with a baseball bat imbedded with nails. The old canard is that we can’t stoop to their level, but under these circumstances, we’d best be prepared to lose.