Candidate running on "NOT being the 'whiteman's' biatch'" platform

[sgreger1]

An independent state Assembly candidate is taking her fight to describe herself on the ballot as "NOT the ‘whiteman's bitch' " to federal court.

Ieshuh Griffin, who's running for a Milwaukee seat, says the Government Accountability Board "unlawfully restrained my liberty" on Wednesday when it barred her from using the language.

Griffin, who describes herself as in her 30s, a community activist and paralegal, argues that her description is "not derogatory, it's not racial."

Griffin says "whiteman" is pointing to an entity, not a specific person. And she says "bitch" refers to a female dog that rolls over.

"Freedom of speech includes the right to dissent, the right to speak the truth," she said.

[tom502]

USA is dead.

[RobsanX]

Look at all the free TV time she's getting! Ha!

[truthwolf1]

you go girl

You will make somebody a nice divorce someday.

[Big L]

So does that mean I could run as "not being the blackman's meal ticket"? Blackman is an entity, not a specific person, and meal ticket is a piece of paper.

[Claywp]

How can African Americans get away with this stuff! I was just watching footage on a Philadelphia news outlet about the "New Black Panther Movement". It was a black man standing in the middle of a crowded downtown street calling on his brothers and sisters to " go out and kill a couple of crackers and a couple of cracker kids, this will get our point across". In the 2008 election they were also at polling stations throughout Philadelphia with clubs, intimidating people. They were brought up on charges and the federal government dropped it! This country is doomed!

[sgreger1]

Because racism is alive and well, and both black and (especially) hispanic groups are allowed to go out and have the equivalent of klan rallies on public streets. Their racism is condoned and the racist anti-white movement is huge, especially in CA and some southern states. The government and the police allow it, and you will start to see the racial tension raise in coming years if we dont start cracking down on this.



Now tell me snusoners, how many of you saw this story on your local news this week? If it were a white guy running on a "not being the black man's meal tiicket" platform, olberman and the like would be running stories on it 24/7.

[Claywp]

This is the video they showed on the news here in Philadelphia this morning

[lxskllr]

Because racism is alive and well, and both black and (especially) hispanic groups are allowed to go out and have the equivalent of klan rallies on public streets. Their racism is condoned and the racist anti-white movement is huge, especially in CA and some southern states. The government and the police allow it, and you will start to see the racial tension raise in coming years if we dont start cracking down on this.



Now tell me snusoners, how many of you saw this story on your local news this week? If it were a white guy running on a "not being the black man's meal tiicket" platform, olberman and the like would be running stories on it 24/7.

I don't really have a problem with her, and I agree with her. There's nothing wrong with the language she used, and to restrain her is a violation of her constitutional rights. Of course, it is a one way street. If a white person said that, they'd be nailed to a cross. Instead of restricting rights, they should be granted to everybody. The whole reason it's in the constitution is to protect unpopular speech. Why would popular speech need protecting?

[sgreger1]

I don't really have a problem with her, and I agree with her. There's nothing wrong with the language she used, and to restrain her is a violation of her constitutional rights. Of course, it is a one way street. If a white person said that, they'd be nailed to a cross. Instead of restricting rights, they should be granted to everybody. The whole reason it's in the constitution is to protect unpopular speech. Why would popular speech need protecting?

No, the rules for the ballot clearly state you cant say anything derogative, sexual or racially offensive. Free speech does not extend everywhere. I cannot stand up at my desk one day at work and scream " i hate ****** and chank nips". Race is a protected group and therefore first ammendment does not apply.



Personally, i thinks thats nonesense, i think she should be able to run on whatever platform she wants. Id love to run on a "stop imprisoning the black community with welfare checks and the war on drugs" platform, but i would of course be a racist if i did that.

I think i should be able to say i hate white people in public, i should be able to say i dont like blacks. This is america and i think our most important freedom is that of free speech. But currently the laws are not that way, and she broke the rules for the ballot so she will lose.

[lxskllr]

No, the rules for the ballot clearly state you cant say anything derogative, sexual or racially offensive. Free speech does not extend everywhere. I cannot stand up at my desk one day at work and scream " i hate ****** and chank nips". Race is a protected group and therefore first ammendment does not apply.

The ballot rules are illegal imo. The constitution gets whittled down bit by bit every year with "creative" interpretation. The legal system is a sham. Law is like a licensed con game, where decisions are made based on who can work the system the best, and exploit holes no reasonable person would assume were intended by the writer.

[sgreger1]

The ballot rules are illegal imo. The constitution gets whittled down bit by bit every year with "creative" interpretation. The legal system is a sham. Law is like a licensed con game, where decisions are made based on who can work the system the best, and exploit holes no reasonable person would assume were intended by the writer.

Yah i agree. I thought the writers made their intentions pretty clear when they said free speech, doesnt seem like theres any room for interpretation there. Oh well. I think even idiots should be free to say whatever they want.