RTFA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

Dog-whistle politics, also known as the use of code words, is a type of political campaigning or speechmaking employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience. The term is usually used pejoratively by those that do not approve of the tactics. According to blogger Ian Welsh,

When you speak in code(…), most of the time the only people who hear and understand what you just said are the intended group, who have an understanding of the world and a use of words that is not shared by the majority of the population.[1]

The term is an analogy to dog whistles built in such a way that humans cannot hear them due to their high frequency, but dogs can.

…regarding the United States (also from the same article):

One group of American code words is claimed to appeal to racism of the intended audience. The phrase “states’ rights”, although literally referring to powers of individual state governments in the United States, has been described as a code word for institutionalized segregation and racism.[7] Other terms that some people say are used to indicate alleged veiled racism are “crime in the streets” and “welfare queens”. [8]

President George W. Bush is claimed to use coded language in his speeches to send messages to his supporters among the religious right that will be ignored by other parts of the U.S. population. Examples include his frequent use of biblical phrases and the veiled mention of the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision in the 2004 Presidential debates. The latter refers to overturning Roe v. Wade, which is likened to the Dred Scott case by some of its critics. [9]

David Gergen claimed that John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign against Barack Obama used dog whistle tactics targeting racists, while retaining plausible deniability. [10]

I was talking about this very topic with Placidwater the other day, but I didn’t know there was a name for it. Well, there you go.

RTFA: http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/09/10/ed-rosentha…

You know, I wasn’t allowed to present these facts in either case. And the jurors were misled, because a half-truth isn’t a truth. A half-truth is a lie. The jury was told that I had distributed this material, but they didn’t hear that I had been told that I was free from prosecution.

That’s an estoppel issue. Let me explain that. Let’s say there’s a red light, but a cop waves you through. Another cop, on the other side, can’t give you a ticket for crossing the red light because you have been told that what you’re doing was legal, right? You’re following the cop’s orders.

So I was told by the city attorney’s office that what I was doing was legal and I was free from prosecution. So even if she was wrong, I should’ve been able to say to a jury, “Hey, look. I was led to believe that what I was doing was legal by an official.” But the judge said, “No. Even though this person is a government official, she can’t testify for you.”

RU: The jury from the first trial was outraged after your conviction when they found out what was actually going on. That was very unusual. Describe what happened with the jury after the trial.

No comment.