Speaker Richardson predicts demise of blogging.

Per Dick Pettys via Cracker Squire:

“Those dadgum blog sites. You know what I predict is going to happen? I predict somebody’s going to sue one of those site domains for slander, and somebody’s going to get hit with a big suit because there’s no accountability, and they say and do things about people that are blatantly false.

“If y’all did, you’d get sued in a New York minute … Somebody’s going to sue ’em and hit ’em with enough money … and somebody is going to say, “We’d better be careful with this.”

“We’re brazen now because people will say things ’cause they know there’s no accountability. There’s no reason for it. It bugs me a little. I see ’em do it about people who’re private citizens. I accept my role as a public official. They can say I’m bad, dumb and ugly, and truth is a defense.”

“I know everybody thinks that’s going to last a while. I don’t believe it’ll last too much longer.”


  1. Jason Pye says:

    I wonder now if Richardson is one of those who “doesn’t like Peach Pundit.”

    I’ve heard that from talking to a few people up at the Capitol.

  2. Brian from Ellijay says:

    What else do you expect? When a blog blatantly and baselessly attacks people with accusations like Pundit made toward Isakson, Judson, and others.

    Attacking someone from your real name is at least ballsy, but you pussies who use pseudonyms should either stand behind your name or shut the F up.

  3. griftdrift says:

    James Williams from unincorporated Dekalb County.

    Sometimes from Moultrie, Ga.

    Also known as griftdrift.

    Feel free to step up Brian From Ellijay.

  4. Rick Day says:

    You say attack Isakson, Judson, and others as if it was a bad thing.

    Interesting last name “from Ellijay”. Is it Hindu?

    ummm… me? Got zero to hide. I’m in the book.

    The Ellijay book – In Ellijay, heh…

  5. Brian from Ellijay says:


    Most people know that I am Brian Laurens. Sorry for not restating it.

    Brian Laurens

  6. The issues regarding Hill and Isacson were clarified, retracted where needed and settled within the respective threads. And we still never found out why the Health Care Lobby was allegedly ticked off at Judson.

    Glenn are you going to require that the Free Speech cases be heard only in the Ethics Center of the USA, Fulton County, Georgia?

    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.”

    “The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.”
    Justice Anthony Kennedy (1936 – )

    “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech”

    Benjamin Franklin
    July 9, 1722, “New England Courant,”

    Victor Jones, Macon, Georgia
    p.s. local/state/national/international press and bloggers, someone is begging for our attention…game on Glenn.

  7. Chris says:

    Victorblahblahlbah: Last I checked, slander and libel were not protected speech.

    As for why the Speaker doesn’t like PP, Might I suggest a few reasons.

  8. leantothemiddle says:

    How amusing that those who rose to power using talk radio and conservative bloggers to slander and demean their opposition are now turning against them as they become the targets. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

  9. John Konop says:


    In all due respect the Isakson question was never answered! I asked it multiple times on the thread and no one had an answer!

    “Erick also accused Senator Isakson of taking the coveted fiancé committee as a bribe for his support of the immigration bill”. “The only problem with Erick’s fantasy is Isakson got appointed to the thankless ETHICS committee, which very few Senators want. A blogger with “ETHICS” would have taken down the post and sent an apology to Senator Isakson”.

    Please help me understand how Erick’s post makes any sense since Erick got the committees confused? And please help me understand why someone with ethics would not have taken down the post and apologized to Senator Isakson since the bribe in question was based on a false premise?

  10. Erick says:

    I find the Speaker’s statement rather hilarious. While I agree with him on some blogs, I think we try to be careful around here to limit ourselves to public figures, though I realize more and more have thinner skin than I ever expected.

    The problem I’m discovering is that a lot of Republicans don’t like having me, a Republican, blogging critically about Republicans. It’s as if I’m suppose to stick with some party line. Some of my Democrat friends have the same problem.

  11. HeartofGa says:

    It is very interesting that Richardson who championed limiting a patient’s right to sue their doctor is now threatening to sue bloggers. I suggest that we apply the same tort standards to bloggers as ER docs. We should all be pretty safe then. Perhaps we can get him to carry legislation next session to protect bloggers from frivilous lawsuits that clog up the courts and drive up the cost of free speech.

  12. Chris says:

    “The problem I’m discovering is that a lot of Republicans don’t like having me, a Republican, blogging critically about Republicans.”

    Erick, tell them it wouldn’t be an issue if they behaved like Republicans.

  13. Bill Simon says:


    I’m profoundly shocked! Do you get people who also accuse you of being a Democrat because you dare point-out the flaws of some Republicans?

  14. griftdrift says:

    Considering the number of attorneys who are bloggers or associated with bloggers, I believe any suit might result in the creation of the greatest Republican / Democrat / Independent dream team ever seen. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

  15. Doug Deal says:


    I think you might be waking up to what has troubled me about the Republican party since GW was elected.

    It’s become a big tent of only True Believers.

  16. IndyInjun says:

    Give me 15 minutes of prime floor time in the Georgia House of Representatives to address this ‘anonymous’ blogger’s objections to the abandonment of GOP principles.

    I might need another 10 minutes to revise and extend my remarks to cover his tax reform baby too.

    Fair enough, Mr. Speaker?

  17. To: Chris Farris

    Have you apologized to the Gwinett Police Department yet? What is a frigtard?

    Begin Chris Farris Blog Quote:
    Sun 1 Jul 2007

    “Gwinnett police are morons”
    Posted by Chris Farris under Politics
    No Comments
    They closed my subdivision for 6 hours for this. Frigtards.”
    -End Chris Farris Blog Quote

  18. Inside_Man says:


    It’s because the fact sheet is filled with contact info which is supplied elsewhere on the site. I guess.

  19. shep1975 says:

    “Respondent would have us find that a State’s interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury, even when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. This we decline to do.”

    “‘…The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are “intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.’ Associated Press v. Walker, ”

    “Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.”

    “’Outrageousness’ in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An “outrageousness” standard thus runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience.”

    “[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.”

    Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST, majority opinion. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

  20. “John Sugg helps educate Glenn about Georgia Health Care”

    “So it’s not likely we’ll see many changes – other than the faux-pro-family Republicans sending more kids to early deaths by kicking them off PeachCare. But just in case there is a political epiphany, some enlightened doctors have a plan.”

    “Kahn, for example, heads a group of physicians who tallied Georgia health-care expenditures for 2003 at $37 billion. By eliminating the insurance companies, Kahn says, we’d save $8 billion. “With that we could provide health care for everyone in Georgia, without decreasing what’s paid to doctors and hospitals, and we’d still save at least 2 percent of that $37 billion,” he says. “Everybody is covered and costs go down.” U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has proposed a similar national plan.”

  21. SharkBait says:

    Politicians don’t like my blog either, but then neither does Robins Air Force Base or their pet corporations. I post evidence on my site so they can’t say I’m slandering anyone. I love blogging. It’s not like the Macon Telegraph Telegraph is going to report the news. 13WMAZ won’t report it either. One of their reporters called me up wanting my story, but she lied about that. She wouldn’t report the story and now she works for one of the defendants, the 21st Century Partnership. Ain’t blogging fun?

Comments are closed.