A Tiny Little VaFlagger Post at Crossroads

Since October 10, Simpson has managed to keep the figurative duct tape on his mouth re: the Virginia Flaggers -- unless you count his homage to my justifiable intolerance of Islamic Jihad in the US as a post about the Flaggers, since I'm an honorary VaFlagger. That was posted on October 13.

So now he's carping yet again (but only with a few paragraphs) about an oft repeated complaint of his that simply hasn't gotten much traction -- a particular VaFlagger's constitutional right to free speech. Predictably, mention of "free speech" and The First Amendment brings a pedantic post from M.D. Blough that says basically what most of her First Amendment comments have said. I wonder if she's caught on yet that she can save time with Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V....

So anyway, Simpson writes,

"In the past a person critical of this blog has claimed that my belief that a certain Virginia Flagger should be able to express her opinion freely in public without suffering retaliation from her employer displays a misunderstanding of the First Amendment … but I did not invoke the amendment. I note that the Flaggers are silent on whether to support this person’s right to express her opinion publicly without fear of retaliation, while I have supported her in this matter. What that says about the Virginia Flaggers I leave up to you to decide.."

Well, first, support doesn't have to be publicly proclaimed in order to exist. Second, just because Simpson hasn't heard something doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't occurred. Third,what it possibly says is that the Flaggers may know more about the situation and circumstances than Simpson does. And fourth, it possibly means that his source(s) in Virginia may not have the entire picture themselves, so they're sending him incomplete info....

There are likely even more applicable circumstances, but that's enough for now.