Speak On It

I wonder which block heads came up with the idea of filing an injunction against the Lumberton Informer. I'm certain that the decision was made without legal counsel, but since tonight is the regular scheduled board meeting, Lindsey Carter will be there to advise them on their decision to seek an injunction. Currently, there is no way one can get the IP address of commentators for those using the Blogger commenting system and for future reference, the Lumberton Informer uses the blogger commenting system. In an effort to assist with the pending investigation of the Lumberton Informer, the following are two of the IP addresses I frequently use: 68.153.114.234 and 205.138.207.222. (Note: those are only two of the IP addresses I use, I have another IP address, but I change the setting from time to time. When the matter regarding IP addresses was first mentioned in a comment on the Lumberton Informer, I installed a hit counter to keep a record of the IP addresses. The hit counter is operated by a third-party (Statcounter) and access to the information can be obtained with a court-order. The request for access to hit counter can be submitted to Google Legal, but by the time a subpoena is obtained, the IP address you need will no longer be stored in the statcounter log. Unfortunately, IP addresses can't be obtained by simply typing the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of the blog. WTBS. Every few months or so, this blog is threatened with legal action. However, this is the first time a litigious blockhead came up with the idea of obtaining an injunction. Despite all the hoopla, I will continue to blog and since these blog posts are being downloaded and printed at city hall on a daily basis, I will reiterate the first amendment: "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 restricts the municipality's endorsement or disapproval of religion, its ability to discharge an employee for political affiliations, its ability to discharge an employee for exercising freedom of speech, and its regulation of citizens' rights to use public forum when expressing their views. For the record, this battle has already been fought in the cases of Heffron v. Intl. Soc. for Krishma Consc., Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm., and Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham.