Back in my HiWired blog days I had a category called internet speech where I documented good and bad news concerning internet free speech you can still find some of those pages in google cache.
One of the things I give major kudos to the company for is none of those posts were ever restricted although they only loosely were on a tech issue.
Well the HiWired blog is gone but next speech issues haven’t:
On Thursday, Cuban blogger Claudia Cadelo, was summoned to appear at the Interior Ministry, which is in charge of domestic security. A day earlier, Yoani Sanchez, the nation’s most prominent blogger, was told by authorities that her activities had “crossed the limits of tolerance,” and was told she couldn’t hold a planned meeting this Saturday of local bloggers, according to Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez, who writes a blog called “Generation Y,” is at the forefront of a small group of bloggers in Cuba who chronicle life on the island and occasionally vent against its government, which was run for the past 49 years by Fidel Castro until he stepped aside earlier this year for health reasons and handed power to his brother Raúl. Ms. Sanchez was the subject of a front-page story in The Wall Street Journal in December, 2007. The 33-year-old wife and mother has won several awards recently for her work, and was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people this year.
Babalu Blog simply owns this story just keep scrolling. He also has a post of round up links to other blogs here.
You know it an odd coincidence that our friends on the left declare President Bush as the great repressor of rights yet people have made a fortune calling him a Nazi, terrorist, idiot et al. Yet it is almost impossible to avoid people going after him in film, print and TV on a daily basis. These people are lionized by the left and called speakers of truth to power.
However it always seems like places like Cuba , Iran, China, North Korea, Syria et-al that tend to actually jail people for their opinions don’t seem to rate that treatment or even publicity for those jailed. I suspect acknowledgment of such violates their political beliefs which seem more like a religion every day.
It brings to mind two Doctor Who quotes the first from Face of Evil:
You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering.
The second from Image of the Fendahl:
But Gran just because people believed the word was flat didn’t it didn’t make it so,
Ah but they Behaved as if ’twere flat
For some left and right as Michelle Malkin points out today, the world will always be flat.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
Ms. Malkin does a disservice by mocking those who wish to see the Constitution of the US upheld. That’s she’s tired of hearing it makes it no less valid an issue.
One cannot escape the fact that humans generally do not spend nearly a million dollars to hide a document that actually WOULD put the issue to rest.
Not to mention, why on Earth would Obama continue to endanger the legitimacy of this, and his, historic presidency if he COULD put ‘birth certificate truthers’ out of business.
The argument against requiring proof of eligibility is completely nonsensical.
The craziest, most ill-willed citizen of all could ask for said proof: this does not diminish the validity of the request.
If the Founding Fathers didn’t think a potential President should be held up to scrutiny, then why, pray tell, did they feel it necessary to include eligibility in their Founding Documents?
What the hell. Let’s just junk our Constitution altogether, why don’t we? It’s just too inconvenient to follow it, eh?
A quick FYI this is the only answer I’m going to give on this subject:
I think your premise is wrong. The only people to who consider this a danger to his legitimacy are the people who already believe it to be false and the idea that one chooses to follow a person who already espouses conspiracy theories for a new one leads little credibility. Particularly if they tend to make their living off of them.
Nobody is saying the constitution shouldn’t be upheld, Ms. Malkin is simply saying that your argument doesn’t hold water. The constitution has been upheld. I think the people made a poor choice but that’s on them. The cert of live birth is legit, you simply choose not to accept it. As a rule people who espouse conspiracy theories if one argument fails will find a new reason to believe it.
And if we are playing the why not game do you SERIOUSLY think the Clintons of all people wouldn’t have played this card if it was there?
You have a perfect right to believe this if you want, you also have a perfect right to try to persuade others and make your case both in federal court and the court of public opinion and crow loudly if by some act of God you are proved right. Michelle Malkin has a perfect right to give her opinion on it as well and I have the right decide that it is bunk, and consider if I choose to give out Nelson’s concerning it. That might be for a later post.