This is very weird:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/20/je...uit/index.html
"LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- A group calling itself African Americans Against Exploitation Inc. has filed a lawsuit alleging fraud against the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and is seeking a temporary restraining order barring him from representing African Americans without their consent."
Does anyone really believe that when Rev. Jackson makes a speech or releases a statement that every single African American is behind him? Disagreement is part of human nature! Won't he be marginalized or become more prominent based the alignment of his views with the views of the majority of African Americans, regardless of whether he is anointed a spokesperson or not? Why go to court over it? Isn't there a better way to express your disagreement, one that sheds more light on why and where you disagree?
It just seems silly, like suing Michael Jackson for not actually being the King of Pop. It's not like it's an actual throne that he can be deposed from. Or suing the GOP because not every single member agrees with every plank in their platform, yet they claim to represent their members.
Can anyone shed any light on this for me? It just seems like a frivolous lawsuit.
Threaded Mode