Robin Hood Ruling – Media Recap

robinHere’s a current rundown of the media the historic Robin Hood court decision has garnered thus far:

As usual, the freedom haters are out in force on the Facebook comments on the WMUR piece and those on the Sentinel story. The haters continue to echo the city’s libelous claims about Robin Hooders harassing, intimidating, and threatening the parking enforcement offers, DESPITE the fact that the city’s expensive private attorneys failed to provide any evidence of such behavior in court.

The Sentinel has posted a page asking readers what they think of the Robin Hood decision.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


3 Comments

  1. UnConstitutional violation of Bill of Attainer. Lack of Due Process, Lack of court hearing with a Jury of your Peers. Congratulations.

  2. Libelous is calling anyone who thinks you people are shitheads “freedom haters”.

  3. Um, no, that’s actually not libelous, at all. Libel occurs when one makes a false factual statement about a product, business, or individual, with the intent of causing actual harm.

    Opinions cannot be libel. Factual statements which are true cannot be libel. Statements which do not cause actual harm cannot be libel.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Robin Hood Ruling – Media Recap - Unofficial Network - [...] View original article. [...]

Care to comment?