Illinois Judge Orders Phyllis Schlafly Website to Take Down All Pro-Trump Articles
Oct 24, 2016 15:31:17 #
Illinois Judge Orders Phyllis Schlafly Website to Take Down All Pro-Trump Articles
This week an activist Illinois judge ordered Eagle Forum to remove all pro-Trump articles after April 10, 2016.
Unreal.
PSEagles.com reported:
Phyllis Schlafly spent her whole life organizing Republicans and communicating conservative political views. She created the www.eagleforum.org web site in 1996 to help further those goals, in conjunction with many other efforts. It contains gigabytes of her works.
Now a court order has thrown the site into doubt. A group of six disgruntled eagles have filed a lawsuit, and Illinois judge John B. Barberis has sided with them.
Their main political argument is that they oppose Donald Trump, and their main legal argument is that Phyllis Schlafly’s death has left a power vacuum, so that they can take over one of her several Eagle organizations, called “Eagle Forum c4”.
The worst part is that they wish to use Phyllis Schlafly’s name, image, reputation, and legacy to support causes opposite to what she stood for. She spent the last six months of her life trying to stop them from carrying out their vendetta.
I hope to keep her works online and available, and I hope to separate them from the platform of her opponents.
I do not know too much about Judge Barberis, except that he is the lowest rated judge in Illinois. He is busy doing fundraisers for his campaign in a election next month to be a judge on a higher court.
His Oct. 20 order is very strange. It is an amendment to a Temporary Restraining Order that issued on April 29, 2016, and that expired 10 days later. It is against Eagle Forum c4 officers as defendants, but then suspends them from Eagle Forum c4, so that they have no ability to carry out the order.
The lawsuit is against Eagle Forum c4 but orders me personally to assist in transferring “Eagle Forum [c4] Property”. This is in spite of the fact that I am not a party to the case, and the court papers say that I am “not associated or affiliated with Eagle Forum [c4] in any way.”
The judge ordered that all pro-Trump articles posted on www.eagleforum.org since April 10, 2016 be removed. He also said the parties are enjoined from advocating any position with respect to the litigation.
I have never heard of any political advocacy organization being ordered not to express opinions on a web site. Not in the USA, anyway. I thought that the First Amendment prohibited that sort of thing.
The order has language like “All authority to communicate with any third party regarding … is hereby revoked.” Since when does anyone need permission to communicate with a third party?
Complying with this order will not be easy. I am not sure exactly what was on the site on April 10. If I remove the pro-Trump articles, I will create dead links. If I explain the dead links, I might be accused of advocating something. I am reluctant to even post the court order, as that might be construed as advocating about litigation.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/illinois-judge-orders-phyllis-schlafly-website-take-pro-trump-articles/
This week an activist Illinois judge ordered Eagle Forum to remove all pro-Trump articles after April 10, 2016.
Unreal.
PSEagles.com reported:
Phyllis Schlafly spent her whole life organizing Republicans and communicating conservative political views. She created the www.eagleforum.org web site in 1996 to help further those goals, in conjunction with many other efforts. It contains gigabytes of her works.
Now a court order has thrown the site into doubt. A group of six disgruntled eagles have filed a lawsuit, and Illinois judge John B. Barberis has sided with them.
Their main political argument is that they oppose Donald Trump, and their main legal argument is that Phyllis Schlafly’s death has left a power vacuum, so that they can take over one of her several Eagle organizations, called “Eagle Forum c4”.
The worst part is that they wish to use Phyllis Schlafly’s name, image, reputation, and legacy to support causes opposite to what she stood for. She spent the last six months of her life trying to stop them from carrying out their vendetta.
I hope to keep her works online and available, and I hope to separate them from the platform of her opponents.
I do not know too much about Judge Barberis, except that he is the lowest rated judge in Illinois. He is busy doing fundraisers for his campaign in a election next month to be a judge on a higher court.
His Oct. 20 order is very strange. It is an amendment to a Temporary Restraining Order that issued on April 29, 2016, and that expired 10 days later. It is against Eagle Forum c4 officers as defendants, but then suspends them from Eagle Forum c4, so that they have no ability to carry out the order.
The lawsuit is against Eagle Forum c4 but orders me personally to assist in transferring “Eagle Forum [c4] Property”. This is in spite of the fact that I am not a party to the case, and the court papers say that I am “not associated or affiliated with Eagle Forum [c4] in any way.”
The judge ordered that all pro-Trump articles posted on www.eagleforum.org since April 10, 2016 be removed. He also said the parties are enjoined from advocating any position with respect to the litigation.
I have never heard of any political advocacy organization being ordered not to express opinions on a web site. Not in the USA, anyway. I thought that the First Amendment prohibited that sort of thing.
The order has language like “All authority to communicate with any third party regarding … is hereby revoked.” Since when does anyone need permission to communicate with a third party?
Complying with this order will not be easy. I am not sure exactly what was on the site on April 10. If I remove the pro-Trump articles, I will create dead links. If I explain the dead links, I might be accused of advocating something. I am reluctant to even post the court order, as that might be construed as advocating about litigation.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/illinois-judge-orders-phyllis-schlafly-website-take-pro-trump-articles/
Oct 24, 2016 15:45:11 #
eagleye13 wrote:
Illinois Judge Orders Phyllis Schlafly Website to ... (show quote)
Censorship to the extreme !!!
Oct 24, 2016 16:03:42 #
Check out topic: Here Are Biden's 10 Conditions For Debating Trump
Oct 24, 2016 16:30:34 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
eagleye13 wrote:
Illinois Judge Orders Phyllis Schlafly Website to ... (show quote)
Huh. So, now opinions and thoughts are intellectual property? Remember the movies "1984"? They got the date wrong, but pretty much everything else is a Nostradamus moment.
Oct 24, 2016 17:24:13 #
Oct 24, 2016 18:08:44 #
moldyoldy wrote:
So, you blame the judge instead of the people who filed suit.
You didn't think about that before you asked, did you?
Oct 24, 2016 18:41:22 #
Super Dave wrote:
You didn't think about that before you asked, did you?
The plaintiffs hate trump, he does not represent them. They do not want to be associated with him. They can file an injunction to block him until the management issues are settled. The judge is not the problem. Trump will always be a problem.
Check out topic: Second Amendment Case
Oct 24, 2016 19:06:26 #
moldyoldy wrote:
The plaintiffs hate trump, he does not represent them. They do not want to be associated with him. They can file an injunction to block him until the management issues are settled. The judge is not the problem. Trump will always be a problem.
The Devil/and his cohorts, seem to be able to infiltrate most everything.
They did that Phyllis Schafley's life long organization, Eagle Forum.
Now they want to live off her name and reputation. I hope ALL people are aware of that.
Oct 25, 2016 09:15:07 #
moldyoldy wrote:
The plaintiffs hate trump, he does not represent them. They do not want to be associated with him. They can file an injunction to block him until the management issues are settled. The judge is not the problem. Trump will always be a problem.
It's a judges job is to rule based on the Constitution and lesser applicable laws. That's why you blame the judge.
Didn't you know that?
Oct 25, 2016 12:19:01 #
Super Dave wrote:
It's a judges job is to rule based on the Constitution and lesser applicable laws. That's why you blame the judge.
Didn't you know that?
Didn't you know that?
The judge did his job.
Oct 25, 2016 14:02:34 #
moldyoldy wrote:
The judge did his job.
If that were true there is no blame to be had.
Check out topic: Biden v Trump Debate Topics?
Oct 25, 2016 21:09:34 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out topic: Here Are Biden's 10 Conditions For Debating Trump