Page One header image 1

Louisville’s About To Explode Over Corrupt Lady

March 3rd, 2011 · 11 Comments

You’ve gotta read this crazy story of corruption and all-around awfulness involving a Louisville Metro Councilcritter. It’ll blow your mind. [LEO Weekly]

The Public Service Commission will hold a home energy workshop in Hazard on March 10 at 6:00 P.M., old circuit courtroom, Perry County Courthouse. It’s free. Go learn how you could save money on your utility bills. [Press Release]

The Faux Family Foundation and ole Marty are crying over instant racing again. It’s almost like they don’t realize you can already gamble in Kentucky. [The 'Ville Voice]

Ohio’s right wing just passed an anti-union piece of legislation. Could Kentucky be next? [HuffPo]

What’s that? You mean union pay ISN’T busting up state budgets around the country? You don’t say! [NY Times]

From the White House event during which Wendell Berry received a National Humanities Medal: Wendell E. Berry. (Applause.) The 2010 National Humanities Medal to Wendell E. Berry for his achievements as a poet, novelist, farmer, and conservationist. The author of more than 40 books, Mr. Berry has spent his career exploring our relationship with the land and community. (Applause.) [Press Release]

These two folks who were convicted of abusing a mentally handicapped man should rot in prison for the rest of their lives. This is yet another reason the State Senate needs to step up to the plate to protect the elderly and those who can’t help themselves. It’s a shame David Williams is afraid to do so and continues to send things back to Committee. [H-L]

It’d be funny watching the Democrats in Washington continually give in to Republican demands. Never putting up a fight. If it weren’t so serious. [ABC News]

Maybe some day Steve Beshear will present something to the state legislature regarding the budget that he’s discussed with people prior to sending it over. Maybe then it won’t get killed for political reasons. [WFPL]

Yet another reason Kentucky can’t have nice things. Because horrible people steal from needy kids. [Richmond Register]

Yesterday the Federal Chief Performance Officer and OMB Deputy Director for Management announced they’re ridding the federal government of excess real estate. The move will save taxpayers some $15 billion and that’s a good thing, regardless of politics. [Press Release]

Attorney General Jack Conway announced the 12th annual LifeSmarts competition that takes place this morning at 9:00 at KSU. It’s a consumer education game show competition for high school students that’s pretty cool. On top of addressing the need for more meaningful consumer education for students, it’s a solid way for folks to learn about issues in the marketplace. Teams from Bath, Bracken, Grant, Jefferson, Mason and Powell Counties will be competing for the state title. [LifeSmarts]

Sarah The Quitter Palin is all upset over the God Hates Fags people being able to spew their ignorance. She also says she’s not allowed to say “God” in the “public square.” It’s probably because “God” knows she has no clue what a “public square” is. [Wonkette]

Tags: Budget · Corruption · David L. Williams · Eastern Kentucky · Economy · Education · FEAR! · First Amendment · Gambling · Giving Back · Labor · Steve Beshear · Youth

11 responses so far ↓

  • 1 spinnikerca // Mar 3, 2011 at 8:41 am

    I think the picketing at funerals decision came out as it did in part because of the way it came up. The family sued the picketers. It wasn’t a matter of the picketers suing to demand access. It seems to me if the family/venue denied access due to privacy reasons, that would be a very different case, and supportable, even under what I understand of the court’s rationale. Here, the family was saying these people weren’t allowed to express their opinions in a location where they were allowed to be, and that they owed a particular duty to the family, and there is no precedent for that. (It was essentially an ‘intentional infliction of emotional distress’ case based solely on speech, where ‘intentional infliction of emotional distress’ is a VERY limited concept typically involving dismemberment of a corpse. Just saying.)

  • 2 jake // Mar 3, 2011 at 8:54 am

    It’s a matter of free speech.

  • 3 FreeManInKy // Mar 3, 2011 at 9:37 am

    Although, in Kentucky we have a law against harassing a church service. A funeral is a church service. So…. I hope they try to come to Kentucky.

  • 4 spinnikerca // Mar 3, 2011 at 10:58 am

    jake, yeah, that is why it won, but there is ‘time and manner’ regulation allowed of free speech, just very little.

    For example, a wikipedia entry on intentional infliction of emotional distress points out that free speech typically will protect even nasty, untrue speech, or at least that no free speech has yet been found sufficiently ‘outrageous’ to satisfy the standard.

    I’m not allowed to post the link, but the example given in wikipedia of speech which did not satisfy the standard, provided here purely for illustrative purposes, is the following:

    “The U.S. Supreme Court case Hustler v. Falwell involved an IIED claim brought by the evangelist Jerry Falwell against the publisher of Hustler Magazine for a parody ad that described Falwell as having lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. The Court ruled that the First Amendment protected such parodies of public figures from civil liability.”

    So the standard to be met was high, and the tort disfavored. Even so, I’m going to read Alito’s dissenting opinion, and have hopes I will agree with it. It is one of those situations where with ALL respect for procedure as the best long term guardian of our rights, I still don’t like the outcome.

  • 5 Monica // Mar 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Wonkette’s Comments Section: More priceless than the article.

  • 6 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Mar 3, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    As much as I hate it, the court was correct their ruling. I’m not typically a believer in the slippery slope threat, but in the case of free speech, it has legs.

    There is such a massive and collective desire of opposition groups to silence those that they disagree with, that to even partially open that door, would open the flood gates of people trying to apply the legal precedent to other areas.

    In much the same way, I think the Obama administration’s decision not to defend gay marriage cases creates a frightening precedent for other administrations to use the same cause to justify the government non-defense of other laws. While I don’t oppose gay marriage, the precedent of the government officially acting before a Supreme Court finding for the case, circumvents the 3rd branch of government, and now sets the bar very low.

    For instance, under this decision basis, a newly elected Republican president to could decide to suspend the implementation of Obamacare on the ruling of the Florida lower court. A predictable Supreme Court decision on the health insurance mandate is still very much up in the air.

    While I find protesting funerals and restricting gay marriage both very troubling and morally bankrupt, to circumvent the process to obtain a desired outcome, undermines the entire process and opens the process to abuse.

    I think there are ways of neutralizing the impact of some of these church groups without circumventing the system.

  • 7 jtt // Mar 3, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    In this case, they were nowhere near the church and were not doing anything to interfere directly with the service. They did not go to the cemetary. The father didn’t even know what the signs said until he saw it on the news. The opinion (written by Soto herself) was right on point.

  • 8 spinnikerca // Mar 3, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    jtt – in that case I agree with the court decision. My own feeling of ‘outrageous’ involves the family’s feelings at and going to the event itself, not someone on national tv anywhere, USA. I was under the impression this was in sight of the mourners. At times they have been.

  • 9 spinnikerca // Mar 3, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    And I really do think the government already interferes too much with free speech.

  • 10 FactFace // Mar 4, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    I am all for free speech, but to protest at someone’s funeral is not right. If the protestors disagreed with the deceased person’s lifestyle, they waited a little too late to speak out. They should have spoken to the person while he or she was alive. When they’re dead it’s too late. The protestors need to find something productive to do, such as feeding the hungry or visiting the sick. They’re ridiculous!

  • 11 wondering // Mar 4, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    The court decision was the correct one, but these things have a way of working themselves out. I foresee situations where the groups that work to shield families from seeing the Westboro bunch (their names escape me at the moment) physically relocate the protestors to a point well away from the funeral, procession or cemetery, and the local constabulary turns a blind eye.