From: Kay Ahlstrom
Barefeet: Really..... THAT's your real name ... as an attorney?! Not a
sweeping disbelief, but when the issue of free speech must be set aside for
a person's sensibilities, the whole issue is missed. You don't have to let
certain objectionable things into your living room, that's what the OFF
button IS FOR and also the channel changer. Fortunately, the purpose of my
posting is not to fit into a club or to please people. My motive is to
convey the truth and fight for the rights of those who have been abused by
the system, which I believe the Rizolis and even Harold Wolfe have been.
Take a look at precedent - the underdog, if you will, one(s) who have been
demonized, marginalized, isolated and then criminalized. THEIRS are the
rights that must be defended. It isn't popular, brings on a certain degree
of scorn, but IT'S RIGHT to defend! As an attorney, as there are a number
of attorneys here WHY IS THAT SO DIFFICULT TO GRASP. I won't impute motives
here or accuse but only challenge to look at what is at stake here. It's
easy to go along to get along with the forum crowd, but IS IT RIGHT! (I
didn't respond earlier but am now)
MY RESPONSE
Kay: I've seen the various attorneys weigh in with their PROFESSIONAL
opinion on the subject matter. If what I've seen, I would not use you as an
attorney given that, at best, you are such a klutz when it comes to the
matter of law, something that certified lawyers are experts in.
From: Kay Ahlstrom
Willie LaBarge: Sure, I'll answer your challenge and then I may email you
privately. I personally am appalled at pornographic depictions on TV, but I
DON'T HAVE TO WATCH IT. I don't seek it out. I know it's there. I DON'T
WATCH it. I suspect that others might find the political beliefs as
abhorrent... here's a tip DON'T WATCH IT! If AF-TV has porn on their
channels, it may be a different fight. If THAT is their rule, then they must
abide by it. The disclaimer will warn me that if I'm up at 3:00 a.m., not to
turn to it. If it is on and I didn't see the disclaimer - I TURN THE
CHANNEL or TURN IT OFF. The argument against porn is a 'foot in the door'
to control of the media and the Internet. Does AF-TV allow slander, libel?
In what sense? Stand up comedy? Pretty much most of THAT is slander and
libel to someone. Does AF-TV make THAT distinction? Regarding Article 14,
here's something specific - put the Rizolis back on. Their historical and
political discourse is viable, educational and legal AND NOT pornography.
MY RESPONSE
Oh my, oh my, oh my, what a mouthful. I am now really confused when you say,
"If THAT is their rule," when it comes to pornography. What if their rules
FORBID pornography, would you be screaming BLOODY MURDER over it the exact
same way you seem to be screaming BLOODY MURDER over the Rizoli brothers
being banned from AF-TV? If not, they why the aitch E double toothpicks not?
Of what I understand with libel and slander is of the following: The stuff
being parroted must be false, the one who is parroting it must know that it
is false, the one who is parroting it is claiming it to be THE TRUTH, and it
must be done with malicious intent. I am not going to debate anything
further with the law. I just simply accept what the law says, whether I
agree with it or not, and abide by it the best of my ability.
As far as pornography is concerned, a TV station has to decide whether it
will go 100% adult broadcast or 0% adult broadcast. Furthermore I do not see
anything that parental control filter that will be able to filter out the
content of AF-TV other than to block that channel completely or during
certain hours. As an inhabitant of Framingham, I would be very much bothered
if I even felt a need to use the parental control to block AF-TV at any
time.
When I was surfing one of Harold Wolfe's website, a website that has often
been referenced in this forum, I did NOT get any warning that what I was
about to surf in has adult material. Furthermore I did not see any attempt
to screen out underage surfers.
The other day, I specifically asked you this: "Is it OK to air every
disgusting, insulting lies about you or even doing it to your children?" You
have an answer to what I ask here?
From: Kay Ahlstrom
You said: "Kay, the Rizolis and their buddy Wolfe have a long and storied
history of hate and moronic behavior in this town." Really? How? In what
way? Isn't that slander? Where have the Rizolis hated or hurt anyone by
their actions? I've never seen anything in my research regarding their cases
where they were brought to court for ANYTHING hateful. There have been no
police reports, no court actions showing that the Rizolis have hurt anyone
in this town. But I have seen an article where THEY were physically
attacked, people have come against THEM and tried to hurt them? Why doesn't
THAT count. If they aren't on your 'list', it's OK to do this???!!!!
MY RESPONSE
Kay: Are you telling me that referring Jews as KIKES is not hateful? Mr.
Wolfe has it all over his disgusting websites. Go ahead and continue to
defend the indefensible. Just be prepared for the kind of reaction you will
draw upon yourself.
From: Kay Ahlstrom
Do you know David Duke or just about what you have heard OF HIM? I don't
know what the problem is with David Duke. He is a teacher now, a legislator
at one time, he has a doctorate. He's not part of the KKK, if you are
referring to that, he's been out about 50 years. Are going to hold
something against someone when they were a kid? The state of Louisiana
didn't when they elected him to Congress!
Do you know what those who support 'holocaust denial' believe, or are you
tapping into the politically correct mantra that categorically discounts
anyone who thinks outside the mainstream? Do you KNOW the Rizolis and Mr.
Wolfe? Have you spoken to them? Do you KNOW what they believe? Shouldn't
you withhold judgment until you do? Just because you disagree with what you
were told about them doesn't make their right to express any less critical.
Even if you KNOW what they say, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT!
(I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it," Voltaire)
MY RESPONSE
I guess you want us to believe that David Duke is a really loving man,
perhaps just as loving as the current Pope. If you believe that one, I have
a bridge to sell to you.
From: Kay Ahlstrom
Suze Craighead: THE FIRST AMENDMENT MUST BE ABSOLUTE, or at least
approached that way - not with the mindset of looking for a weasel clause to
subvert the rights of others. You said: "That doesn’t even pass the laugh
test. It is not "another view" to deny the FACT that an estimated 6 million
Jews and another 5-6 million non-Jews were exterminated by the Nazis during
WWII. It is a lie. A damnable lie."
Since you brought it up... I've been studying WWII since I was a kid. I love
it. I love to read about it, watch the movies on TV, all of it. It seems
that there is more information coming out now. For example, 6 million? I
understand the historians/experts had dropped the casualties in Auschwitz,
for example from 4 million to 1.1 million, so yes, it's a "damnable lie".
If that's the case, the 6 million should be dropped to, what, maybe 3
million???? But the figures always seem to add up to 6 million. But why
not discuss these things? Why is this such a forbidden subject?!!!
MY RESPONSE
You state, "It is a lie. A damnable lie" when it comes to the documented
facts that about 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust. What is YOUR
motivation for you to weigh in to somehow downplay the viciousness of the
Holocaust? Where are your credential to show your expertise on this subject
matter? I know that I was not there for I was born in 1957. However, the
amount of documentation on the Holocaust could be measured in petabytes. A
Petabyte is 1024 Terabyte and a terabyte is 1024 gigabyte and I think you
know the rest... Go go effen ahead and continue with your merry way of
somehow downplaying the atrocity of the Holocaust, and make yourself look
like one of those hate-filled fools.
As far as article 14 or any other articles are concerned, I will be giving 0
weight to the line of thinking that Kay Ahlstrom continues to advocate.
William LaBarge
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 16 Chair
I do not represent hatred nor bigotry of any kind
I am speaking only for myself and not necessarily for anyone else