http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080430/UPDATES/80430040
I have commented in the past that I didn’t agree with the column Randell Beck wrote. It was mean and uncalled for. But it was no doubt satire, and he had a (legal) right to print it. Besides, Scott, threw the first satirical punch. Did he expect Garson and Beck to take it lying down? Don’t pick a fight with a place that buys ink by the barrel. Trust me, they have beaten me up a few times to, but I punch back, because the First Amendment gives me that right. Hiring a lawyer to defend yourself against a joke is a joke. It is the chickenshit route.
But this is less about Scott then it is about Janklow. There is a lot you can say about Janks reputation over the years. But taking on the 1st Amendment and thinking that 12 podunk SD jurors have the right to define our most important amendment is just flat wrong. It also is UnAmerican and unpatriotic. Does Janklow think he is wiser then the likes of Franklin, Hamilton and Jefferson? Give me a break. Without the First Amendment, this country would cease to exist, it allows us to dissent our political and organizational (Dan Scott) leaders. I hope this is the straw the breaks the camel’s back, and after Jank’s loses big time (and he will) maybe he will finally crawl in a hole where we never here from him again. We could be so F’ing lucky.
I think I’m going to go puke now.