Nor do I think it's safe to assume that the paper would assume that.
At least not without some sort of evidence.
fwiw, the Chattanooga Free Press is the conservative side of that news operation. I suspect that they would wet their pants with joy if they were being leaned upon by Obama. It'd make an awesome story that would generate a great deal of traffic and therefore income.
I may be wrong.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience of too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Again, you show your ignorance on this issue. "Being offended" is not "harming". You are not free to be "offended". The issue with accusations of murder or other forms of slander/defamation for someone like your neighbor is not because it's "offending" them, it's because it has a legitimate potential to cause safety, legal, and economic issues for them.I have the feeling that both of them dislike being called something that should offend them so there goes your "rights as long as I don't harm others theory".
If you say "That business had ****ty service" and it offends the business owner, too bad. If you start making up lies about the business and making an orchastrated effort to cost them customers, then you're running into an issue because you're tangably harming them through fraudulent speech.
No, that theory doesn't. Let's first ignore the idoitic obvious notions that 1) driving a car isn't speeech and 2) I've never suggested that EVERY action should be legal as long as it's not directly actively harming someone else...As I said, if your theory was valid I could drive one hundred miles an hour and ignore all the red lights, as long as no one else was around, and it doesn't work that way, not in the real world.
You're on public road ways and regardless of whether or not you can see people at any given point there is a realistic and reasonable understanding that at any given point you could come upon another vehicle and that going at that high of a speed would prevent a significant risk to them. Your example is like firing a gun into the air in public and suggesting that it should be fine if the bullet doesn't come down and hit anyone. The fact that no one got hit, or the fact that no car got onto the road as you were flying down the highway, doesn't change the fact you're acting recklessly in a public location that at any moment could REASONABLY have other innocent citizens in the path of your reckless behavior.
If you're on your private property, on a dirt road you've made yourself, and you want to go flying around it at 100 mph that's no problem. There is no reasonable assumption that other motorists at any point could be going onto your road and thus being put in danger. However, going on PUBLIC roadways there is an expectation that other people have as much a right to use it as you and could use it at any given moment, and as such you need to be going at a speed that should adequetely allow you (and them) to account for each other in a safe manner.
You BADLY need to:
1) learn what you're actually talking about before you speak
2) stop functioning off a ridiculous stereotype of what anyone who has "Conservative" as their lean thinks and basing all your comments on that
3) cease attempting pathetic "gotcha" style posts when you're clearly lobbing up easy balls to knock out of the park.
And to use your own horrible style of arguments "We don't KNOW that the complaints weren't from subscribers!!!"