Why are these people not ARRESTED!!!

I thought using propaganda on American citizens by American citizens, and especially by American citizens in the American gov't, and especially especially those who are elected to AMerican Gov't ... is illegal??!!
WHy then oh why is Senator Inhofe's website with 400 faux global warming deniers, a link on  FAUX Noise's Website as a LATEST NEWS update?  Media Matters points it out, but I just want to know WHY this is not an issue with Congress??
ANYBODY!!

This seems like blatant propaganda on Americans by AMericans to sway the will of the people!!!

On December 21, the front page of FoxNews.com contained a headline under the "LATEST NEWS" tab that read "Report: Over 400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Warming." However, the purported "LATEST NEWS" item did not link to a news report but, rather, to a post on "The Inhofe EPW Press Blog," the blog of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking minority member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

I ask a gain.
Is this not propaganda and is this not illegal ???

Why ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT IN JAIL??!!

The article also points out that they are trying to pass this  fake pony show of "peer" scientists as real science!

The headline also appeared in the "SCITECH" section of the FoxNews.com front page on December 21, and the link led to the same Inhofe post.

This just has to be illegal somehow???
Ok, maybe we all have to sue them in court if our elected leaders just keep letting this go on!!

•  Fox has the first amendment right to

  post and air whatever it wants on TV with very limited exceptions.

  by oceanstar17 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:44:50 PM PDT

  •  They "report"

    and I have "decided" they're morons.

    by bleeding blue on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:03:57 AM PDT

•  It's Not Illegal to be an Idiot

  with a big expensive soapbox.

  Thank the gods for dKos and YouTube...

  by Uthaclena on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:48:52 PM PDT

•  Try these.

  Article I, Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

  Amendment I

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  by ben masel on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:53:07 PM PDT

  •  There ought to be limits to freedom of speech

    you know...

    Although the Constitution applies only to persons.  I'm not sure that wingnuts qualify.

    by IhateBush on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:27:31 PM PDT

    •  While most newspapers were solo projects

      at the time the 1st Amendment was enacted, a few were indeed collaborative projects.

      And, the diarist proposes imprisonment, which corporations are not subject to, but "these people," are.

      by ben masel on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:38:39 PM PDT

    •  No-- But propaganda stations should not be able t

      to masquarade as news channels.

      Reinstating the fairness doctrine will not address this.  There should to be standards for calling a station a news station.

      First, the content deciders (be they publishers or managing editors) must be professionals, not party hacks and former speech writers.

      Second, "contributors" need to disclose their 3 main sources of income.  Those paid by think tanks need to disclose the sources of the think tank's income.

      Third, there needs to be some standard of fact checking.  Too many factual errors or egregious omissions and its labeled an opinion, not a news channel.

      by inHI on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:19:32 AM PDT

      •  Maybe you didn't read it the 1st time?

           Amendment I
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        by ben masel on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:48:38 AM PDT

        •  How does this impede free speech?

          Like in your own town, in the global village, you need to know who is talking to you.

          by inHI on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 11:11:54 PM PDT

          •  You wish to forbid them to say

            "This is Fox News."

            And to impose a licensing authority to decide who is a professional, by implication denying a forum to anyone you deem not a professional.

            Also, anomymous speech is protected in the village. McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission.

            by ben masel on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:39:32 AM PDT

    •  Sigh

      Although the Constitution applies only to persons.  I'm not sure that wingnuts qualify.

      I don't like hearing this sort of thing from our side, even tongue-in-cheek. It's too similar to agruments that have actually been made, in all seriousness and successfully, to deny Constitutional rights and protections to non-whites, women etcetera. And the same people would no doubt use it again to take away the rights of liberals, non-Christians, and (again) women and non-whites.

      As far as limits to freedom of speech, we have limits. No libel/slander, no "Fire" in a crowded movie theater or equivalent, no inciting violence, no conspiracy to commit a crime, no conspiracy to overthrow the government. The military is under stricter rules, as are people with security clearances and on-duty government employees. Seems good enough to me. What more would you add? And who gets to write the rules?

      by kyril on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 01:29:50 AM PDT

      •  Not false advertising either

        doesn't say 'Fox News and No Propaganda'. No attempt to defraud.

          I think it's established a long time ago their name should be "Fox News and Propaganda'..and there aren't many people who don't really know that...
           They do have news on as well...

          The conspiracy charge is interesting tho, and to me, a non lawyer, heh, is clearly true. They have been at the center of the drive to control the message which is part of the plan of the soft coup/treasury raid that has been unfolding before our unbelieving eyes. Get a rope.

         They're free to speak, and free to conspire, and accept the punishment for the conspiracy.
           Probably be a big legal wrangle tho, not worth it, like impeachment.

        by KenBee on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:49:53 AM PDT

•  Ya pretty much can't believe anything

  from these people.

  But as the post itself makes clear, the report was not put out by the U.S. Senate or by the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, but by the "office of the GOP Ranking Member."

  It's not hard to understand why average Americans are asleep with apathy... the poor souls actually believe what they're told... it's just so sad.

  by GoracleFan on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:39:32 PM PDT

•  Yesterday Maynard G Krebs posted

  several links to BBC documentaries that haven't aired on U.S. TV (and won't, ever).

  The Century of Self (four parts, this is a link to Google Video's Part I) and The Power of Nightmares (three parts, also Google Video, this is Part 1) go a long way to answering your question.

  by doorguy on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:57:28 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for these

    I missed them yesterday!

    by luckylizard on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 05:11:39 AM PDT

•  Thanks for your question!

  They're not in jail because it's not illegal to deny global warming.  It's just stupid, but if we criminalized that we'd have to build a lot more jails, and there wouldn't just be conservatives in them.

  by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 05:55:09 AM PDT

  •  Zing!

    by ben masel on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:00:28 AM PDT