City officials seek blogger's identity

GO FRANK, I mean...John Adams. You are my idol, hero, inspiration.

That's my point. No sarcasm was intended.
I'm sure joltin' Jim is on top of it.

Don't think that it does not still go on today.
Technology is far more advanced, and with the invention of the internet (THANK YOU ALGORE!!) it's far easier to track people, gather information, all the while keeping things far more discrete.

Joe DiMaggio might be amused....but Senator Joe would be typing up the secret subpoenas as we post.
(Maybe joltin' Jim Coan is doing just that)

Cuu CuuCa Chuu

And don't forget that clark Kent was "mild-mannered" in addition to wearing glasses.

"Tailgunner Joe"

"Hey, hey, hey"

Joltin' Joe has left and gone away.

Where's Joe McCarthy when we need him?

According to at least one book, Hoover had a lava lamp.

Of course any sharp detective will make the guy THINK that he's out foxing them, when in fact, they know every move the guy is making!
The WWPD is either totally incompetent, or utterly brilliant, in how they have perused this. I really don't know anything about their department, but my guess would be it's the latter.

I bet you almost anything that the police all ready know exactly who the guy is, and are keeping a close eye on him. Obviously they are not going to say that publicly; as it will bring up all sorts of the questions that are being raised here. Tracking an IP is cake people. It takes all of 20 minutes. A little longer if they use encryptions. The government monitors all sorts of these nuts. Like my 1st post said...If you want to see how much the Government monitors some of these guys, Google J. Edgar Hoover, and you can read about all about the surveillance they did on people like MLK, Maryland Monroe, ext.

If the people of Metropolis couldn't tell that Clark Kent was Superman (glasses not a mask), they deserved whatever Lex Luthor could do to them.

Americans love anonymity. Did they EVER succeed in taking the mask off of the old Lone Ranger? How about BATMAN? SPIDERMAN? ZORRO? SUPERMAN? Everyone of these gansters "hid" behind the mask of anonymity. Whatever would have happened if the citizens had only known. Whoa is us? Protect your identity John Adams.

"How can a police force know who is dangerous, and who is not?" Gee alex, with that kind of logic the police should check on every citizen who questions the government. Is that really the kind of place you want to live? If it is then there are still a few countries across the Pacific that you could move to.

and let's consider this for a moment...
How can a police force know who is dangerous, and who is not? If they decided to not try and make a preliminary check on this guy, and he ends up blowing up a day care center, what is the public going to say then. I'll tell you what they will say, they will say why didn't the police do something when they had an idea there was a nut case out there.
Can you say probable cause, class?
The man's rights are not being infringed. The police simply asked a citizen if he was the blogger and if he had something he would like to discuss. The man over reacted because he thought the cheif did not believe him. Yes the cheif took an officer with him, as a witness. At no time did the police cheif tell him to stop blogging. Any report to that nature is a lie. Now, you can believe the police cheif and an officer, or you can believe someone who won't sign their own name, up to you.

Question for curtaincall...
How come the city shouldn't be worried if it isn't true, but yet John Adams can be upset, worried, paranoid etc, when according to him, he is telling the truth?

well, as elementary as it sounds, telling lies is just wrong in the first place. As you said, gazettefan, being criticized for a differing opinion is one thing. bearing false witness is much bigger than that...

It should be noted that even if the person who opened an account is discovered, he or she doesn't have to admit to writing a particular blog or email. And he or she doesn't have to reveal who did, whether that information is known or unknown to the person who openned the account.

You can't believe that. No one wants to be lied about, accused of being corrupt, especially publically.

I don't think they would be so upset, unless it is true. If it was not true they would have nothing to worry about. Ignore him. They know the truth.
Obviously it's not so easy to get someone's isp address or they would have done it by now. They would not be questioning who it is.

The posts here have dealt comprehensivly with this matter.

Here's my bottom line: I have no First Amendment sympathy for people who just feel free to publically lie about others, even if those others work for the government. alex... touched on this.

I feel for the people who are on the wrong end of all this crap, like the people who work for the Whitewater administration and the Janesville administration. It's one thing to be criticized for doing something wrong, it's another thing to be lied about horribly. These employees and elected officials have family and friends who are also harmed by all this.

People who lie like this refuse to deal with their personal frustrations; they lash out at others who seem to be fair game. Then they trot out the First Amendment and have others trot out the First Amendment for them.

They are failures as human beings.

It has been said that Anonymous is Legion.

ms-sassy: Or perhaps they could pawn it off to Madison PD...Oh wait; they have a whole stack of murders that they keep finding a way not to solve.

I doubt people even realize how easy it is to locate a blogger. Trust me, it's very simple stuff, and no IP blocking software is going to disguise you. Unless this guy is using a T1 with NSA style encryption, his location can be found with minimal effort. Now what you do with the information once you locate him..Well, now your getting into the obvious violations of every constitutional right there is. Just finding the guy, however; is as simple as it comes, and really makes the WW public officials look like fools IF (big IF) they really have spent all this time in vein trying to locate and identify this John Adams.

LOL kiowamohican! or perhaps JPD might be able to solve the mystery...

but, oh wait...they are busy arresting women who give lap dances...

ok, everybody, lighten up...I was just trying to contrast a few evident cases of wasting resources, and MY tax dollars.

I really hope for the sake of WW police, and public officials, that these allegations are false. If true; it really makes their public offices completely incompetent in that they can not even identify the the person behind a blog. Is a small towns IT so limited that they can not even decode a simple IP (I assume John Adams is at least masking his IP, if not, then it makes me laugh even more so!)? Christ, they can pay me a couple dimes, and I'll be able to tell you exactly where the guy is in about two hours. Then you can go hunt him down, and do whatever you want with the guy. I don't care. Just really speaks poorly to public officials if they really have wasted all that time, and still don't know who or where the guy is. Maybe we had the same sort of people looking for all those weapons of mass destruction!

"but they want to kill all christians and jews."
Then us god-hating atheists are safe, right?

For those of you wishing to view the DOJ CIB agency agreement for the TIME system here is the link: www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/CIB/forms/cib/T...

As regards the "investigation" by any employees of Whitewater, it may be a waste of taxpayer resources. That does not make it unlwaful. There is no law that says a police officer, chief, detective, etc., can only try to find out about unlawful activity. If a law enforcement officer acts in a way that is prohibited by law, ordinance, rule, policy, or procedure, that is a different story.

What an interesting discussion.

First, use of the TIME system is for law enforcement purposes only. We can not divulge information from that system to non-law enforcement persons. Unless the Public Works employee in Whitewater is a law enforcement officer, disclosing the information about the vehicle owner was a violation of TIME system policy. In fact, even District Attorneys, Corporation Council, and Courts must have a signed agreement on file with the law enforcement agency, promising to not disclose the TIME system information illegally, before that data can be forwarded to the Attorney, Judge, etc..

Now, as regards Mr. Adams' statements, allegations, opinions, whatever, let me say this: As public figures (whether a cop, as I am, or any other public figure), we expect that some will be critical of us. Even though our professional activities are not the whole of who we are, who we are becomes a part of our professional face. When a person criticizes Officer Smith, or Chief Jones, that is an attack on the person who is the professional. So be it. We accept that when we enter public service.

I have not read Mr. Adams' blogs about the public employees of Whitewater. I can only implore folks to be careful with terms such as libel. It has a very specific legal definition. Critical opinions of a public employee's job performance seems to be a far cry from that definition. I will try to review the blogs to get a better handle on what specifically is being viewed as libelous.

Enough is enough...
In spite of the problems, it's still the greatest place on earth.
Take care citizens, it's a jungle out there.

It would be interesting to see how some of you would react if you were his subject. I suspect your view would be quite different.

And you are speculating it was not

I agree with mommyopes. It wouldn't be the first time people have disagreed with my view. Won't be the last, either. But, to clarify: I CAN be trusted! :)

See, Alex, you are speculating it was taken out of context. My point is if there is no suspect, and there is no crime, then there is no legal justification to investigate a person with tax payers money. It also makes a DMV records check invalid and a violation of the law. Want to check with your sources to see if you should recant your statement "figure of speech", "taken out of context", or "spun" with regards to the use of the term "suspect"? At least they were careful enough not to use the word 'target'!

alex_Hamilton08: The way I see it, the City Clerk would have reason to find out who was responsible for the defamation, but not the Police Chief. The Police Chief was not directly involved. But I would assume any inquiry would need to proceed through the direction of the Corporation Counsel (or City Attorney). I believe the Police Chief overstepped his bounds.

I just asked this group of people IF a person knew, did they have the right of free speech to make that knowledge known. I see no reason to get upset. It was a hypothetical inquiry, nothing more.

Exactly

Alex, now you are just becoming goofy. Here, take your sorry info to the police. Stop parading around like you know a secret & giving clues. Take his name, and your "concrete" info to the Whitewater police, and let's see what they do with it. I have a guess. It will be either nothing, because they were never legally justified to investigate him in the first place, or it will be a very public outing in the papers. At that point I would would wager on a suit against the city by both the person acting as John Adams as well as the falsely accused Mr. Laird. Alex, you just became incredible in my eyes.

Feel free to say what you will about me, as long is is prefaced with "in my opinion".

Website registration is out there for all to see. I can go and look at John Adams website registration. His host has privileged that information, but looking it up is not an invasion of his privacy by me or anyone else.

The "suspect" was a figure of speech. There was no "list". It was all taken out of context and spun. If you say you are so hungry you could eat a horse, will we find you at the Kentucky Derby with a bottle of A-1?

Not one person here has ever said we want to revoke free speech. Maybe what we want or need to agree on is a definition of free speech. Read all of his website, if you can. Look what he says about the cheif. Is he ridiculing the office or the man? If he is ridiculing the office that is fine. If he is ridiculing the man, that is not. By the very rules and regulations of this site. He says the City Clerk is "Not to be trusted....not even close". If I made a comment like that here about ms_sassy_wi, or mommyopes... would that fly?

Yes, you do have the freedom to disclose his identity if you act within the law to do so as a private citizen. If you are the Police Chief, responsible for reducing the legal liability of the taxpayer you need to look at the implications of your actions (falsely accusing Mr. Laird). In the story it states, "The effort to unmask Adams included examining his e-mails and Web site registration and running a license plate check on a man suspected of being Adams." How is this anything but an intrusion of privacy? This is a non-criminal investigation, but they default to calling him a suspect? When does 'intelligence gathering' make it ok to violate a persons privacy, falsely accuse people of non-crimes to subject them to public ridicule, waste taxpayers funds, and utilize restricted databases. If they had an investigation that was valid they would have no problem getting a warrant. This Mr. Adams would be ID'd in a few hours. The problem is Whitewater has nothing valid to go on. They run, in my opinion, what appears to be a fine department. They are tarnishing that view in my eyes. Will they investigate Officerfriendly1, Professor, or anyone of us next? How about me? Who cares who this guy is? Do your job correctly and Mr. Adams will eventually have to flat out lie, or realize he has run out of material to write about.

alex_Hamilton08 and others who challenge John Adams' credibility: I have no opinion whatsoever as to the validity of his statements. I am here I guess to comment on the right as an American to not have freedom of speech revoked. If anyone is so inclined, they could start their own blog and put their rebuttal statements or perception of the truth and call it something similar so it googles right up with John Adams'...

In closing, let me add this. I know some of the people John Adams ridiculed in his "Witch Hunt" series. They are honest hard working people that put in well beyond their 40 hours a week, just as many of us do. You talk of common decency in the same sentence with John Adams. Now there is an oxymoron. I often wonder what his agenda is. It's never really been clear to me. As I said, his time will come. I can wait.

ms_sassy_wi: Good one. LOL

What control? As far as I can tell, most people don't seem too interested in his true identity. Most of the posts seem to be more about whether or not he should be able to remain anonymous. Seems like you just want to seem in control by putting it out there that you know his true identity. I suppose next you will tell me you know my true identity?

concrete: A mixture of gravel, pebbles, or broken stone with cement or with tar, etc., used for sidewalks, roadways, foundations, etc., and esp. for submarine structures.

what does that have to do with the supposed identity of our mysterious John Adams? (sarcasm)

I just wonder if you would (might) be opening yourself up to a libel lawsuit IF, on the off-chance, you were wrong and "accused" the wrong guy. Stranger things have happened, even in law enforcement/prosecution/death sentencing...

I like the control. Even John Adams can appreciate that. Right John?

alex_hamilton08: If you have "concrete proof" why not contact the Whitewater authorites? Maybe they will give you a big reward! (Sarcasm)

What part of "concrete" do you not understand?

As I see it, No, alex_Hamilton08. The "Use Policy Agreement" states: Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.

Here's why: I wonder how you can ascertain that you can identify John Adams with "concrete proof, with evidence easily acquired in the public domain"? It appears that John Adams wishes to remain anonymous. Common decency, in my opinion, says that you respect those wishes. Legally, I don't know.

The internet has ALL KINDS of wrong information posted. If you don't believe me, check out wikipedia!

Thank you Professor, I agree. John Adams has the right to speak foolishly and without moderation. Lucky for him, he also has the ability.

My opinion, he has no credibility... correct. Maybe to some people credibility doesn't mean anything. I guess I am old fashioned. I just think if he wants to make Whitewater a better place, as he claims, and he speaks the truth as he claims (or as he sees it), then why hide? So far, him, or no one here can tell me that, other than becayse he wants to.
So, here is a question for all the freedom of speech fans out there. Let's say I had concrete proof, with evidence easily acquired in the public domain, do I have the right of free speech to reveal his identity?

Perhaps this U.S. Supreme Court case will shed some light on the issue....One of my favorites, actually. "In 1944, in Baumgartner v. U.S. (322 US 665) it was held that Americans hold the prerogative to "criticize public men and measures [the police and their actions]---and that means not only informed and responsible criticism, but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation". Who knew?

Alex, I think TJNCJ has a point. Your comment 2-3 back is somewhat correct, with the exception of "credibility" statement. You may not agree, and do not have to read it, but it does not mean he lacks credibility. While you and I may agree on his credibility, others may find him very credible. If he were disabled would you need to point him out and say so? Does it make the person a bad person? I know many people with wild views of life, but that doesn't make me discredit them. Do you say that I am incredible for writing under the name Beachsexton?
************************************
Here is my answer to Mike, Alex, and Fans motives and reasoning behind Mr. Adams need to tell 'untruths'. I think when he started he may have had some good points, then as time went on he began to run out of material. Having an audience and finding the need to self-satisfy his own importance could be his motive to create issues, bend the truth, and maybe even lie. However, many people say things that are untrue. Candidates do it all the time. Statisticians can take a 100% valid data set and by leaving out key parts change the whole meaning. The real issue is why the Chief felt obligated to give validity to anything Mr.. Adams said by conducting an investigation, using the DMV records, and attempting to track his computer down. This equates to a misuse of power, waste of time, resources, focus, and money. Lacking a legal justification, the Chief exposes the taxpayers to suit. This is the most disturbing part. Like the Professor said, this happens because we allow it. Maybe Officerfriendly1 can chime in on the law pertaining to the use of DMV records, or the problems that could result from the Chief taking this any farther. Confrontation is great, when both sides want it. It is Mr. Adams desire to hide behind a curtain, so why push? Is it worth it at this point? He will go back to being a thorn in the side of the Whitewater government until he crosses the line and does something illegal, or just quits writing.

A stretch in what way? I simply responded to MikeF's comment about the importance of identity on one man's blog as you put it.

Alex-That is a stretch. We are not talking about the constitution but one mans blog. Adams had the truth and wisdom to convince the people he was right and then came out. If the "new" JA is a crackpot, ignore him and he will go away. If he is right maybe his day will come too.

I can't resist this, MikeF.
John Adams will tell you that his namesake wrote anonymously. That even back before there was a Constitution, anonymous free speech was a right (chicken before the egg, perhaps?). What he doesn't tell you is that the original John Adams wrote anonymously because his life depended on it, and not from the British. Many colonists were not happy with the mind set of the revolutionarys. John Adams wrote anonymously to try and sway their opinion without getting killed. When enough people had changed their minds, it then bacame necessary to put some value to his words, and stand up to those who resisted him.
To wonder if identity is important, ask yourself this...
How important of a document would the Constitution be if it were signed with nothing but X's? Are you going to fight and die for a document that the very authors will not take the credit or the blame for? The same holds true today, as does with my earlier statement. By being anonymous, he has no credibility. It doesn't matter if what he says is true or not. It is not credible. Plain and simple.

I can agree with both Alex and Fan in that regard. One exception, and that is to Fans comment about attacking the reasoning behind Mr. Adams choice to be anonymous. We have given many reasons why a person would want to remain anonymous while speaking out. Officer had pointed out his reasoning in his past comments, as has Professor, and many others. Some people do not have the liberty to speak out at all. The positions they hold do not allow for it. That is why a majority of the people her use fake e-mails and handles (screen names) to comment in the Gazette blogs. We have debated this and I will not go on, but there is a justification behind Mr. Adams decision. The Chief will just learn to live with it and not use, or abuse his power to get his way.

Right, MikeF. My interest is: What is his motivation for saying things that aren't true. Why distort reality, then hide behind the First Amendment?

What's wrong with judging him for that?

But why do you need to know the identity of a person to evaluate their thoughts and opinions? Do we not judge thoughts and opinions here without knowing the name of the person who is sitting behind the keyboard?
I say let his words stand or fall on their own merit.

Well said, alex.

The two sides will never meet, I'm done wasting my time on this and him. My opinion is simply that John Adams has no value. Read him, support him if you wish. I choose not to. I choose to wait until he is exposed, then I will meet him face to face, and then exercise my freedom of speech.

If it's his purpose to manipulate us, he accomplishes that by having some people here defend his First Amendment rights.

I'd rather attack the intelligence (or lack thereof) of what he says. And also expose the psychological basis for his unwillingness to participate in in-person debates, especially since he wants everyone to believe he's so concerned about what the Whitewater city government is doing. There's no way he can feel good about being taken to task on all that.

Well, gazettefan, I have to agree with you. I don't think that Adams is celebrating the First Amendment. But, you have to admit, he definitely has gotten all of us to.

Thanks, alex.

Even if his statements about that raid didn't spill over into illegal speech, I would wonder how his "opinion" celebrates the First Amendment?

Can't a person be critized for lying or being stupid without that criticism itself being regarded as an attack on the First Amendment?

He has the right to anonymity; but his wish for anonymity may be based in his inability to deal with the demands of a reasonable in-person debate.

This Adams character may be abusing his power by instigating and libeling the cities government, but it is important to bear in mind that thanks to cases such as NYT v Sullivan, we, as Americans, don't have to worry about libeling the government. That would be Sedition, and anyone who has studied the United States war propaganda efforts in WWI knows how nasty that can get.
Please don't think that I'm making excuses for this Adams fellow, but bear in mind that it is not only within his rights to do what he is doing, it is also necessary (on some level) to keep people (like us) engaged in civic discussions (like this)!

The Chief can not always get what he wants. More importantly is the fact he misused his power of office, or the tools afforded him, to unjustly investigate an infringement on his ego. This in not a violation of the law, and it does not matter what we all think of the writings of John Adams. We have already determined they are not illegal. The Chief has never said they were illegal. What could be gained by identifying this person? What is the reasoning behind it? Is it worth being sued over if they are wrong (as it appears they were) and defame an innocent person or placing them in danger by people who disagree? Just because the Chief wants to talk in person does not mean he will get what he wants. What is he going to do when he finds this John Adams and Mr. Adams does not want to go talk? Is he going to arrest him for disobeying him? Is he going to handcuff him? What happens when the Chief goes to Mr Adams house and Mr Adams tells him off? Maybe he meets the Chief at the door with a gun thinking "he has the right to defend his property? All of this is far fetched, until it is forced to become reality. The Chief traveled down a dangerous road and should admit he was wrong in doing so. Mr. Adams, regardless of what you think of his writings, is justified in his actions as long as he does not break the law. He obviously knows this, and therefore should be allowed to write for whatever audience chooses to read his works.

Depends on what statement you are talking about. His report on the involvement of the Whitewater Police Department in the Star Packaging raid is totally misleading.

Aside from his First Amendment rights, which include his right to say certain things that are untrue, what is the feeling out there as to the accuracy of his statements?

I read too much into the Constitution? I simply look for a word and it isn't there. I think what I am not reading is more of an issue. Talk about superfluous concepts...
The bottom line is this..
The police cheif attempted to do one thing that John Adams has failed to do, and that is talk face to face. Right away everyone is quick to jump on the "they want to shut him up" bandwagon. Let's consider another view. Maybe the police cheif wanted to address the issues that John Adams wrote of, and not the peresonal attacks. Granted, he may of possibly gone to the wrong house, we don't know that for sure because John Adams is too much of a coward to come forward. His truth is not that important to him.
How much can you trust a man that will not stand behind his words? Just because he writes them does not make them true.
His 15 minutes of glory will end soon.
And that will be a blessing.

Adams even has the right to say certain things that are untrue. Common courtesy, though, should have him not say things that are untrue.

alex_Hamilton08 reads to many superfluous concepts into the constitution. He is correct in saying there is no specific clause, or statement, in the Constitution that says one has the right to anonymity. The constitution does not specifically say you have a right to graduate high school either. It is the work of court cases that have followed, and defined the Constitution as we know it today. Court cases such as Talley in 1960 clearly give us the right to anonymity in free speech so long as it meets a series of tests. Some of those tests are obvious (see the Gazette rules for posting) and some are more clearly defined by the courts. If you care to look a few up search under "clear and present danger" test. This test would also be the basis for the investigation by the Police Chief as he considered (or failed to consider) probable cause. Assuming they worked up the ranks, they should know that the writings of Mr. Adams, clearly are not a threat. They are not threatening (except to their ego), they are not insidious, they are not defamatory (thy are opinions and lack malice)... While we may not agree with him, we certainly need to afford him the same rights as you or I. I suggest the City Administrator looks up the 1957 case of Yates were the courts defined comments that provoked actions vs comments that purely conveyed ideas.

Beachsexton, great post and well said. Big brother is watching. What a shame in this day and age of supposed free speech that Whitewater officials are acting so archaically. Sometimes, people do need to be protected when they speak. Many distrust big (and little)government and fear retaliation. I tend to be very outspoken but there are definitely times when I keep quiet and prefer anonymity because of potential consequences.

Isn't Whitewater where that Churchill goof was allowed to spew his Oswaldianism?

Or maybe he's an Oswaldian, spewing Oswaldianism.

If he is truely as radical and out of touch with the reality of Whitewater as a community then anyone reading it would recognize as much. Those from other areas who happen across it would view it as a novelty website if the claims are as outlandish as the city would lead you to believe.

Sounds like Whitewater, WI is a modern day Jay Edgar Hoover operation.

Some people hold positions or jobs that do not allow for named free speech opinions. Anonymity is crucial for true opinions to be expressed without fear of retribution. Without anonymity, half the people here would be on a government watch list for being a “anti-government radical goof”. Always question authority. If the authority can’t handle the questions then they should not hold positions of authority. Keep up the good work John Adams!

Gfan: I guess I would say 'no'--at least not at the level you imply. But, let's not get off the topic....

The posts are coming fast and furious: the responses are disconnected from each of their provocations.

P-Fessor, shouldn't I know you substantially from the content of your posts? If not, why not?

Tell us about what you check out of the library and also tell us the extent of your worry.

G-fan: And you understand so much about me--how?

And what web sites you visit, thanks to our phone companies 'helping' with the installation of the 'Quantico circuit'....

Who said the Professor was an American hater. I'm sure he loves America. It's only uncertain as to what he loves most about America.

And you left out the malcontent-mafia of Janesville when you mentioned Mao, Stalin, and Hitler.

Just be careful what books you check out of the library!

:-)

How can anyone claim that the First Amendment is in trouble while the malcontent-mafia of Janesville blathers every manner of slander, libel, and defamation -with impunity?

They have a TV show, exposure in the papers, exposure on the radio, and exposure in the Labor Day Parade.

OK, that's scary....Professor and I came up with the same quote at the same time. Instant karma's gonna get you!

Holy cow! We've managed to bring Stalin, Mao and Hitler into the debate, along with branding Professor an America-hater for expressing the opinion (that I happen to agree with) that our rights were severely damaged by the Patriot Act. To quote Ben Franklin, "He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither."

PFessor, you're welcome.

That settles it. Dispand every police department across the nation.

GFan....you make me laugh. Thanks.

Sorry, 4u: I'll stick with Ben Franklin's advice: 'Those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither'.

I would have to agree that, in hindsite, we have given away to much of our freedom. I am also of the belief we can reverse the current situation. All is not lost, Professor.

Be prepared for the Professor to say that we were the cause.

professor, when we do have another terrorist attack (and most are sure we will) you will be the first to blame the government or the former (as long as it is a republican) administration for not having better security. or will you still want to relax national security? it is a shame that we have had to tighten up, but they want to kill all christians and jews. you and i are both on their long list. good luck my fellow american

My fav is where the Detective says, "Seems like an anti-government radical to me." You can surely 'feel' her frustration about that pesky, first amendment thing.

Then you defend the right of others to criticize the content of his speech -correct?

As for the malcontent having a "few things right", that defence was also made for Stalin, Mao, and Hitler -and even for the malcontent- mafia of Janesville.

Here is a little more information...the actions of detective Tina Winger are disturbing.

http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/apr/14/...

and where in the constitution does it outlaw, ban, or for that matter, address anonymous free speech in a negitive manner? this person may offend but i defend his right. too many folks look at life through rose colored glasses. they want to live in the ideal and neither grasp nor comprehend reality. he may have a thousand complaints but if some or right, then the city should address the issue. they only want to find him to ridicule him. or maybe worse. he needs to retain an attorney ASAP to proactively set up legal barriers and copyrights. good luck adams!