p>
On BMG, we’ve had one or two people who’ve focused exclusively on this case since they go here. They’ve posted update after update, with no reaction or comment from the community. The posters themselves don’t participate in discussions, or go off their topic. Fine, plenty of room for all here. Admittedly, I was always surprised at the passion about a case at best tangential to the topics under discussion here, but hey. More the merrier.
<
p>
But suddenly, it’s front page material. A break in the case? Nah. Sudden new evidence. Uh-uh. The key phrase is…
<
p>
The appeal AG Tom Reilly’s office is mounting against…her First Amendment rights.
<
p>
I never quite figured out what the “endorsement” (that most people didn’t want anyway) meant. I think I’m starting to understand now.
I have no idea what our endorsement has to do with this. We have FP’d several posts over the last several months (many from way before the time you joined BMG) about the Mary Jean story, which is an interesting legal case. I FP’d this one because it links to the full text of the AG’s brief on appeal, which is the most detailed statement available of the State Police’s position on why the video should be suppressed.
<
p>
It’s an important legal issue in an emerging area of law. Not everything is about your candidate, or about you.
p>
I was just starting to write when I saw David’s response. Thanks David, I agree that the links to primary documents makes Mary Jean’s site worth visiting and keeping up with.
<
p>
I would add that Jean’s crusade against Conte, no matter how venal he may be, would very unlikely have gotten the legs it has had it not gone into the court system. Look at most newspapers and you’ll see courts are always and important beat. That’s because the courts are the forum we as a society have set up to settle disputes. The fascinating thing here is that Mary Jean keeps on winning. Let alone that her site resonates because Conte simply doesn’t pass the smell test on case after case. But she seems to have struck a nerve.
<
p>
Your post is a case in point. And your frankly dishonest use of the ellipsis tips me off that you are someone with an agenda.
<
p>
The full phrase reads:
…the appeal AG Tom Reilly’s office is mounting against the injunction she won against the State Police for trying to interfere with her First Amendment rights.
Notice the words you left out: “…the injunction she won against the State Police for trying to interfere with… “
<
p>
This is a statement of fact. She did win an injunction and according to the judge (not Mary Jean’s imagination) the SP was trying to interfere with her first amendment rights. The post NEVER said that Reilly was doing it, which makes you a distorter on a par with Guarino. What Reilly (not personally, but those he hires and fires) is doing is challenging that judge’s assessment. And that seems like fair game for scrutiny.
<
p>
I have limited my postings to this issue because I don’t want it to get mixed up with other agendas I may have, like who I support for governor. If you don’t like that don’t read my posts. But please don’t try to pass that off as logic as to why they are not worth reading.
maverickdemsays
This story languished in three prior incarnations with nary a comment. In fact, the first three versions had ZERO comments. Nada.
<
p>
I appreciate that it is the editor’s prerogative, but, man, it seems odd that this was front-paged. . .
But if it were AG Patrick, I am not sure that it would be on the front page.
<
p>
Sorry, WJ, I think we are debating apples and oranges. You are entitled to believe this is an important issue, just as I am entitled to wonder how an issue that received no comments in its first three versions gets front paged.
Hey MD, your logic still befuddles me. Do me the favor of reading the reply I posted this evening to CentralMassDad’s thoughtful (though in my opinion wide of the mark) comment. I am seriously interested in whether you think at least have a bit of a point?
rollbizsays
about this case, other than the obvious issues with First Amendment issues and campaign issues and You’re Posting This Because of the Endorsement issues is…
<
p>
This video obviously has legs…Why not just have let it die before it did? Also, now that it has those legs, does anyone really think it can be killed? It’s on YouTube, for cryin’ out loud…
bonuskillsays
Once I start the ball rolling, it has very little chance of being stopped.
<
p>
Wait for my next Viddy……..LOL
rightmiddleleftsays
“Tom Reilly’s” office and I recall, has been since the beginning. It should be directed at the “Attorney General” who represents the interests of the Commonwealth and its various agencies. As you say David, the legal issues may be interesting but I have also always been suspect of the motives of BMG and its endorsement of this video by personalizing the entire matter as if it was big brother Tom Reilly’s fault.
…is at the bottom of the appeal filed in federal court. Hey, as AG he gets to jump in front of the camera’s when a highway tragedy occurs. He also needs to stand behind the official actions of the office he was elected to run. Being in the public sector means that your record is in greater measure a matter of public record. Isn’t that how he is trying to distinguish himself from the two private sector creatures he is facing?
<
p>
It’s not big brother Reilly as much as it is, where is he when a voice of reason needs to heard? On the wrong side, it seems.
garysays
There are, after all, 2 sides to a case or controversey.
<
p>
“Sure I appealed the case. There are privacy statutes in Massachusetts. Do you want conversations between you and wife, or husband or children illegally taped and publicly displayed on the intrawebs!? This case is about your privacy.”
<
p>
Vote for me….
<
p>
hmm…ok, maybe needs a little work. But not much.
It’s OK and valid when Frank Philips (or hey, Reilly himself) literally distorts what is known about Patrick’s corporate history in very misleading statements or articles, but as soon as ANYone mentions ANYthing about something Reilly himself put his name on (after all, they didn’t HAVE to appeal) it’s whining all ’round.
<
p>
And you accuse Patrick supporters of drinking Kool-Aid?
<
p>
I’m sorry to be snippy, but I’m rather tired of the double standard.
centralmassdadsays
Why does anyone care? Is it just that the video was made, and posted? I was expecting to see the cops smash the guy’s face or something, given the all the coverup innuendo.
<
p>
You threaten judges, you get arrested. Big whoop.
Basically, yes, as I understand it. The Staties apparently are trying to prove a point by going to the mat on the publication of this video, even though it obviously is pretty mild stuff.
Yeah, I’m gonna go meta. Sorry.
<
p>
On BMG, we’ve had one or two people who’ve focused exclusively on this case since they go here. They’ve posted update after update, with no reaction or comment from the community. The posters themselves don’t participate in discussions, or go off their topic. Fine, plenty of room for all here. Admittedly, I was always surprised at the passion about a case at best tangential to the topics under discussion here, but hey. More the merrier.
<
p>
But suddenly, it’s front page material. A break in the case? Nah. Sudden new evidence. Uh-uh. The key phrase is…
<
p>
<
p>
I never quite figured out what the “endorsement” (that most people didn’t want anyway) meant. I think I’m starting to understand now.
I have no idea what our endorsement has to do with this. We have FP’d several posts over the last several months (many from way before the time you joined BMG) about the Mary Jean story, which is an interesting legal case. I FP’d this one because it links to the full text of the AG’s brief on appeal, which is the most detailed statement available of the State Police’s position on why the video should be suppressed.
<
p>
It’s an important legal issue in an emerging area of law. Not everything is about your candidate, or about you.
…. this message I can also respond.
<
p>
I was just starting to write when I saw David’s response. Thanks David, I agree that the links to primary documents makes Mary Jean’s site worth visiting and keeping up with.
<
p>
I would add that Jean’s crusade against Conte, no matter how venal he may be, would very unlikely have gotten the legs it has had it not gone into the court system. Look at most newspapers and you’ll see courts are always and important beat. That’s because the courts are the forum we as a society have set up to settle disputes. The fascinating thing here is that Mary Jean keeps on winning. Let alone that her site resonates because Conte simply doesn’t pass the smell test on case after case. But she seems to have struck a nerve.
<
p>
Your post is a case in point. And your frankly dishonest use of the ellipsis tips me off that you are someone with an agenda.
<
p>
The full phrase reads:
Notice the words you left out: “…the injunction she won against the State Police for trying to interfere with… “
<
p>
This is a statement of fact. She did win an injunction and according to the judge (not Mary Jean’s imagination) the SP was trying to interfere with her first amendment rights. The post NEVER said that Reilly was doing it, which makes you a distorter on a par with Guarino. What Reilly (not personally, but those he hires and fires) is doing is challenging that judge’s assessment. And that seems like fair game for scrutiny.
<
p>
I have limited my postings to this issue because I don’t want it to get mixed up with other agendas I may have, like who I support for governor. If you don’t like that don’t read my posts. But please don’t try to pass that off as logic as to why they are not worth reading.
This story languished in three prior incarnations with nary a comment. In fact, the first three versions had ZERO comments. Nada.
<
p>
I appreciate that it is the editor’s prerogative, but, man, it seems odd that this was front-paged. . .
of?
But if it were AG Patrick, I am not sure that it would be on the front page.
<
p>
Sorry, WJ, I think we are debating apples and oranges. You are entitled to believe this is an important issue, just as I am entitled to wonder how an issue that received no comments in its first three versions gets front paged.
<
p>
Finally, I settled on editor’s prerogative.
Hey MD, your logic still befuddles me. Do me the favor of reading the reply I posted this evening to CentralMassDad’s thoughtful (though in my opinion wide of the mark) comment. I am seriously interested in whether you think at least have a bit of a point?
about this case, other than the obvious issues with First Amendment issues and campaign issues and You’re Posting This Because of the Endorsement issues is…
<
p>
This video obviously has legs…Why not just have let it die before it did? Also, now that it has those legs, does anyone really think it can be killed? It’s on YouTube, for cryin’ out loud…
Once I start the ball rolling, it has very little chance of being stopped.
<
p>
Wait for my next Viddy……..LOL
“Tom Reilly’s” office and I recall, has been since the beginning. It should be directed at the “Attorney General” who represents the interests of the Commonwealth and its various agencies. As you say David, the legal issues may be interesting but I have also always been suspect of the motives of BMG and its endorsement of this video by personalizing the entire matter as if it was big brother Tom Reilly’s fault.
…is at the bottom of the appeal filed in federal court. Hey, as AG he gets to jump in front of the camera’s when a highway tragedy occurs. He also needs to stand behind the official actions of the office he was elected to run. Being in the public sector means that your record is in greater measure a matter of public record. Isn’t that how he is trying to distinguish himself from the two private sector creatures he is facing?
<
p>
It’s not big brother Reilly as much as it is, where is he when a voice of reason needs to heard? On the wrong side, it seems.
There are, after all, 2 sides to a case or controversey.
<
p>
“Sure I appealed the case. There are privacy statutes in Massachusetts. Do you want conversations between you and wife, or husband or children illegally taped and publicly displayed on the intrawebs!? This case is about your privacy.”
<
p>
Vote for me….
<
p>
hmm…ok, maybe needs a little work. But not much.
It’s OK and valid when Frank Philips (or hey, Reilly himself) literally distorts what is known about Patrick’s corporate history in very misleading statements or articles, but as soon as ANYone mentions ANYthing about something Reilly himself put his name on (after all, they didn’t HAVE to appeal) it’s whining all ’round.
<
p>
And you accuse Patrick supporters of drinking Kool-Aid?
<
p>
I’m sorry to be snippy, but I’m rather tired of the double standard.
Why does anyone care? Is it just that the video was made, and posted? I was expecting to see the cops smash the guy’s face or something, given the all the coverup innuendo.
<
p>
You threaten judges, you get arrested. Big whoop.
Basically, yes, as I understand it. The Staties apparently are trying to prove a point by going to the mat on the publication of this video, even though it obviously is pretty mild stuff.