In Reply: Reading Into Speech, And Finding Exactly What You're Looking For

In reply to Allergic to Bull: It’s about Fascism: Why Everyone Should Eat At Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday

I'm with you on the Boston and Chicago incidents, but I think that to lump Mayor Lee in with them, one has to read too much into what he says. Whatever meaning he intended--and I agree that he might've intended to be threatening official Mayoral action to block Chick-fil-A from locating in San Francisco, and even that if he was intending to threaten the use of Mayoral power, he likely intentionally chose his words carefully so as not to be held accountable for the threat he was making--he did not make a threat clear enough to warrant lumping him in with the other two officials in the other two cities. There are other possible meanings, and you're choosing the most damning one, and attacking him for what you think he meant, probably.

Mostly this is a disagreement of opinion--you read one thing into his tweet, and I read another, and neither of us has any definitive proof--or will ever have any, unless the Mayor says something more to clarify the meaning of that original tweet (and even then, he could be walking back his original statement, right?)--but you're also suggesting that what he said--what you believe he said--is a violation of law.

I don't think so. I don't believe there is any law under which one can be prosecuted for what folks think a person meant in a statement as unclear as his. (And even if there were some way to prove he actually meant he would take official government action, I question whether there would need to be some overt act--or some showing that Chick-fil-A suffered some quantifiable damage, at least--before a case could be brought against Mayor Lee.) But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know...

And while we're on the subject of law, I'm still perplexed by your cite of Virginia v Black, and your suggestion that one can find "the law of what counts as a threat" as a part of that decision. As you may've read, all I found when I perused the thing was the cite about "true threats," which involve clear expressions of the intent to commit unlawful violent acts. And if you're reading THAT into what Mayor Lee said, well, I'd be very surprised.

I'm a little worried about the accusation of Mayor Lee in terms of free speech, as well. If your interpretation of his meaning is wrong, you're defining down what an attack on free speech actually is--and chilling the speech of those who would disagree with Dan Cathy, or with those who would defend him (I'm sure you recognize how being casually accused of a crime can put a crimp in one's speech)--and I think that's very dangerous.

Finally, I'm certainly not going to agree that the verbal overreach of a couple of elected officials--which they already backed off from, in the face of a whole lotta pressure from, well, almost everyone--constitutes an attack on free speech that would cause me to advocate for eating at a Chick-fil-A restaurant in the name of striking a blow for the first amendment.

I'm pretty sure that Chick-fil-A will see a good size bump in their business for a little while (and on Wednesday, for sure). The thing is, buycotts tend to be short-term. People do their duty and make a point of making those purchases for a little while, then life sets in, and the McDonalds is a half a block closer, and... people in the buycott start purchasing like usual, again.
The customers Chick-fil-A gains over this issue will almost certainly give the company a bump, short term. The customers they lose will likely never come back.

That said, I sincerely hope you enjoy your chicken, sir. I hear it's dee-lish. (The whole boycott/buycott thing is academic for me... The nearest Chick-fil-A location for me to eat at or protest is like 50 miles away... ...and at this stage, I'm not willing to make a day of it, however strong my beliefs...)
---

Submitted for "Allergic to Bull" moderator approval Posted July 31, 2012 2:59 PM (Actual post time, 8/1/12, 7:15 AM)

X-Post: Donald Douglas Lashes Out and Lies, 7/29/12 - Chick-fil-A, Free Speech, Right of Conscience

In the post Mayor Edwin Lee Warns Chick-fil-A on Coming to San Francisco — Lying Fascist Repsac3 Denies It, Shills for Left's Anti-Free Speech Thugs Donald Douglas rants and rages about supposed opinions of mine that I do not in fact have. He attributes beliefs and motivations to me that exist only in his eternally angry imagination, and periodically hops up on his little soapbox and screams them at whatever people are within earshot. I'd like to say this is a new low for Dr. Douglas, but sadly, it really isn't.

On the menu today are the various elected officials who have made verbal threats of official executive or legislative action to block new Chick-fil-A locations in their cities, in response to comments made by their CEO, Dan Cathy, and donations made to groups and organizations opposing marriage equality and homosexuality itself, both by members of the Cathy family personally and by the Chick-fil-A corporation.

In the first instance, Dr Douglas is upset by a tweet between me and Aaron Worthing, discussing something The Mayor of San Francisco, Ed Lee, tweeted. Here's Donald's version of the story:

So far all the reports out indicate that San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee has warned Chick-fil-A about opening a store in the city.

See the San Franscisco Chronicle, "Mayor Ed Lee warns Chick-fil-A against coming to San Francisco":

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has joined in the growing chorus condemning Chick-fil-A for the national chicken chain’s much-publicized anti-gay views.

After mayors in Boston and Chicago recently expressed their disapproval with Chick-fil-A and its intolerance, Lee followed suit and took to his Twitter account late yesterday, firing off two successive tweets. The first one conveys his disappointment with the chain’s lack of values, and the second one takes it up a notch, suggesting that Chick-fil-A don’t even think about opening in San Francisco.

The mayor's tweets are embedded at the report.

It's clearly threatening. And the Los Angeles Times agrees, "San Francisco is the third city to tell Chick-fil-A: Keep out":

First Boston. Then Chicago.

The next city to tell Chick-fil-A to keep out? San Francisco.

Edwin M. Lee, mayor of the progressive city, tweeted Thursday night: "Very disappointed #ChickFilA doesn't share San Francisco's values & strong commitment to equality for everyone."

He also added a warning to his subsequent tweet: "Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer."

Until Thursday, San Francisco had stayed mum on the debate, which began when Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, went on the record as saying his Atlanta-based chicken chain operated on biblical values and opposed same-sex marriage.

Pretty straightforward, obviously.

But not for fascist hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, a.k.a Repsac3, who attacks Aaron Worthing on Twitter with denials of the threat:

There's a whole lot there.

First off, if Donald Douglas believes that this tweet (or indeed any of the ones Dr. Douglas failed to include between Aaron and I, which I'll get to below) constitutes an "attack" on Aaron Worthing, it's obvious why he runs to legal and political authorities to protect him from unwanted blog comments, rather than deleting them and moving on, which is what most bloggers do. And obviously, the other characterizations of me are just as unsubstantiated and therefore nonsensical as they always are. No surprise there, either.

While we're on the subject of words, I note that both of the articles Dr. Douglas cites characterize the Mayor's second tweet as a "warning," rather than a threat.

I definitely concur that it was a warning. And, contrary to the way Donald Douglas is relating the difference of opinion between Aaron and I (whether because he did not read all the tweets, and shot off, uninformed and angry, or read them all, but did not understand the dispute, which once again calls his reading comprehension into question), it could be considered a threat, as well.

Here's the conversation in full. See if you can spot the parts that Donald Douglas failed to grasp:

AaronWorthing: The mayor of San Fran, the latest fascist to use official power to stifle unpopular speech ----> @mayoredlee pic.twitter.com/HodPQ6Ay (Picture link is to Mayor Lee's tweets--and particular to our purposes, the second one, where he says "Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.".)

repsac3: @AaronWorthing @mayoredlee Those there are just words, Aaron...and they don't even contain a threat of official action, far as I see

Up to now, Aaron has made an allegation that the Mayor has threatened to us "official power" to stifle unpopular speech, and I replied by questioning his allegation that there was any threat of "official action" by the Mayor. I thought at the time that Aaron's next tweet was continuing the discussion of threats in the context of "official power" or "action," but reading it over now, maybe he wasn't...

AaronWorthing: no, that is a clear threat as understood in ordinary English. @repsac3 @mayoredlee pic.twitter.com/NGgaWBpT

Whatever Aaron was thinking though, it's obvious what I was talking about:

repsac3: @AaronWorthing @mayoredlee We disagree. I'm opposed to those who ARE issuing threats of govt action--like anti-abortion TRAP laws, 2me...
repsac3: ...but saying stay out of this city isn't a threat of govt action. It's just speech

(I was limited by the 140 characters (or 280, I guess). But in case it was in any way unclear, my intent in the first tweet was to say that I saw the threats to use legal/political power against Chick-fil-A as the same as those conservative legislators and governors who have enacted TRAP laws -- impossible / costly to meet regulations about the size of janitor closets, hallway widths, staffing requirements, etc, that are COMPLETELY unrelated to the care or safety of anyone involved with the clinic, targeted at abortion clinics exclusively --that are designed to run clinics out of town via excessive regulation, thereby accomplishing what they cannot accomplish by outlawing abortion directly. Whether it's clinics or fast food chicken, government officials should not be employing excessive regulation to stop those businesses they morally oppose. The intent of the second tweet was to say that Mayor Lee hadn't made a threat to use such government action.)

AaronWorthing: Don't be naive. The law isn't. @repsac3 @mayoredlee

repsac3: @AaronWorthing I'll have to wait for the blog post, because that tweet says nothing to me. What threat, and what law?

AaronWorthing: @repsac3 the law of what counts as a threat. Read, e.g. Virginia v black.

(Needless to say, I did look it up, reading (or at least skimming) several sources. All I found concerning "what counts as a threat" was a citation defining “true threats" as "those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals"

repsac3: @AaronWorthing not seeing the def of threat (other than cite of "true threat" which is about bodily harm). More of a pointer?

And finally in that last link, we get to the single exchange that Dr. Douglas highlighted. Did he read the rest, and either "willingly" or actually not understand them? Or did he just not read them, and think he had some kinda evidence that I was denying that anyone anywhere made any threats at all, and was defending, knee-jerk, everyone on my side of the political spectrum, whether right or wrong. (Y'know... like he does...) We may never know what facts he did and didn't bother to learn, but regardless, he was wrong.

My intent was clear throughout. I wasn't saying the Mayor did not issue a warning or threat of any kind, and never expressed any agreement with what he said, either. But there was no threat of "official action;" no indication that he intended to use or abuse his "official power" as Mayor to keep Chick-fil-A out of his town. Elected officials in other cities made such threats, and I spoke out against them. Often. I did not hear the same kind of threat to abuse his power from Mayor Lee. And that's what I said.

The despicable hater Repsac3 is lying again, no surprise.

A threat does not have to warn of physical harm. "Threat" could be financial injury, for example. In other words, a threat is any kind of caution, as Dictionary.com points out:

threat   [thret]
noun
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.

There's nothing there about a threat requiring violence. But that doesn't matter to Walter James Casper III. He lies about everything.

I did not lie.

I also did not claim that a threat required violence. If anyone did that at all, it was Aaron, in citing Virginia v Black and saying that a definition of "the law of what counts as a threat" could be found in that decision. ...though honestly, I'm pretty sure that Aaron was not suggesting that a threat requires violence, either. For one thing, it would weaken rather than strengthen his assertion that what Mayor Lee said was a threat.

I don't know what Aaron was trying to say in citing that decision. (Maybe he cited the wrong case, or maybe he just didn't think I'd bother to look, figuring that only one of us went to law school, and it wasn't me... or maybe there really is something in there in support of his claims, and I'm just not seeing it, not being a lawyer n'all...) I don't know, because Aaron never answered my tweet requesting more information. (If anyone else wishes to read the opinion and figure out what it is I'm missing within, the link follows: Supreme Court opinion, Virginia v. Black)

One can certainly read a threat to abuse official power into what Mayor Lee tweeted if one is so inclined, but it isn't a foregone conclusion or "Pretty straightforward, obviously" that use or abuse of official power is exactly what Mayor Lee intended. He could just as easily mean that the location would be a ghost town given the make-up of his city, and it wouldn't be worth their while to come. One thing I'm sure of, is that compared to the threats made by the people in Boston and Chicago--which far more clearly threatened the use and abuse of official power to stifle speech--what Mayor Lee said was pretty weak, no matter what his intent.

In any case, it isn't a lie to have a different opinion.

And if that wasn't bad enough, Donald's second accusation is downright preposterous:

And he organizes his hate campaigns with others online:

According to Donald, this tweet is evidence of my organizing a hate campaign with someone else online--in this case, this gentleman, Evan Hurst.

Ready for the truth?

Evan Hurst writes for Truth Wins Out which yes, is an organization that advocates for gay causes. He recently wrote a post OPPOSING the threats against Chick-fil-A by the Democratic politicians in Boston, Chicago (and maybe San Francisco, too... I cannot recall.) I was one of several people who commented at the post AGREEING with him, saying:

"I see the chick-fil-a issue regarding these government officials as being akin to the government officials passing immpossible/extremely costly-to-comply-with regulations on medical providers in the business of providing a service to which these government officials are opposed--abortions--and thus closing them down, or keeping them from opening. (And unlike the Chick-fil-a threats, these regulations against abortion providers are already in place in several cities and states...)

I'm all for protesting, and for the free speech and right of religious and moral conscience of all involved... ...but I cannot support targeting businesses with legally unnecessary regulations and restrictions because you oppose the business on moral grounds, whether it's anti-abortion legislators targeting clinics or pro-marriage equality legislators targeting fast food chicken."

When I went back a day or two later to read what others had said in the comments, the post and all commentary had completely disappeared. I tweeted the author, replying to his tweet "advertising" the post initially:

repsac3: @EvanHurst What became of this honest post about the Boston and Chicago elected officials bad response to chickfila? #disappeardapointed

EvanHurst: @repsac3 It went away. Not by my decision. Sorry. :( If you want a copy, I'll gladly send it, as I did save it.

repsac3: @EvanHurst Would love a copy, thanks. Reader commentary below--both 4 & against--was good, too. Pulling it was BAD, imo. Tell the bosses.
repsac3: @EvanHurst Just occurred to me you may need an e-mail address to pass along the Chickfila article: repsac3blogs@gmail.com Thanks again...

There's a saying that "if you're looking for hate (or bigotry, or racism, or other examples of bad behavior), you'll find it."

Donald Douglas is proof that even when you're looking for it, you don't always find it, however hard you try. That's some kinda hate, there, talking to an author that wrote a post that largely AGREES with Dr. Douglas' position, complimenting him on it--and expressing my disagreement with the idiots that removed it--and accepting his offer to get a copy of the post.

When you insist on behaving as dumb as a bag of hammers in furtherance of your paranoid attacks on those who disagree with you, everything looks like a nail, I guess. Hate and persecution, even in complimentary tweets to an author. Yeesh.

That's something I've mentioned previously, regarding Repsac's intimidation and stalking campaign against this blog.

That Dr. Douglas actually believes and so often repeats this in public says far more about him than me.

He's a liar and an Internet predator. People should avoid him, block him on Twitter, and report him to the proper authorities.

That, too...

My conduct toward Donald Douglas and pretty much everyone else is posted for the world to see and to judge.

I quote and cite what others have to say, and then respond with what I think and believe. I'm not perfect by any means, but I seldom call folks names or make allegations about their inter-species parentage. Most of my comments are respectful and on-topic.

Given the skewering Dr. Douglas so often gets--the result of fact-challenged attack posts like the one I'm responding to here, generally--I can understand why he doesn't like me. What is less clear is why he keeps lashing out at me unprovoked, in the first place.

I may never know...

UPDATE 7/30/12, 12:25 PM:
Quick addendum to this. After I posted it, I sent Aaron Worthing a tweet letting him know I had posted about our discussion, in case he wanted to clarify or take issue with anything I wrote:

repsac3: @AaronWorthing Blogged about a twitter exchange we had the other day. Read, respond, or ignore, as you wish: http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/donald-douglas-lashes-out-and-lies.html …

There's been no response from him so far, but when I checked his twitter feed, I noticed that he had uncritically retweeted Donald's dishonest post yesterday:

While it was long before this response went live, I'm still very disappointed in him. He struck me as more honest--or at least less knee-jerk partisan--than that...

Even still, I hope he comes by to discuss it with me and show me where I'm wrong...


Links:
American Power: Mayor Edwin Lee Warns Chick-fil-A on Coming to San Francisco — Lying Fascist Repsac3 Denies It, Shills for Left's Anti-Free Speech Thugs

Inside Scoop SF � Mayor Ed Lee warns Chick-fil-A against coming to San Francisco

San Francisco is the third city to tell Chick-fil-A: Keep out - latimes.com

American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III

American Nihilist: Donald Douglas - Reading Comprehension

virginia v black - Google Search

VIRGINIA V. BLACK

Supreme Court opinion, Virginia v. Black
---

An American Nihilist X-post

In Reply: Schadenfreudian Perks and Petar Hoistin'

In reply to the following comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "Concerning Brett Kimberlin, Patrick Frey, Aaron Worthing, etc."

"And you know, I’d be a bit more sympathetic to Mr. Walker if he had’t linked to Donald Douglas complaining about this very blog as an example of people who had undergone similar experiences..."

Yeah, that is unfortunate... but even that hasn't been without it's schadenfreudian perks at the hands of several of his fellow rightwing bloggers, once Donalde started likening his trials and tribulations to those of Kimberlin's victims...and came up looking to some of 'em more like Kimberlin than like Aaron.
---
And on that score, I couldn't help but notice how something Aaron recently quoted Kimberlin as saying:

"His false narrative that I framed him is defamatory and inciting extremists to threaten me. He is responsible for their conduct."

sounded all too familiar:

"I banned YOU. But you publicly admitted my wishes were to be disrespected and that you would taunt, harass, and intimidate "whenever and wherever I choose."

And one of those places was my college. YOU had henchmen do it for you so you could claim plausible denial. But the cat's out now. YOU are liable."

(My henchmen contacted Aaron's extremists, and I'm given to understand our minions are all going on a picnic next weekend to trade "does your eeeeevil genius boss suck as much as my eeeeevil genius boss?" war stories.)
---

Sometimes it's better to just let their own petar do the hoistin'...
~~~

Posted June 27, 2012 at 2:41 pm

In Reply: Those who pay no attention to free speech issues online are disappointing...but not eeeeevil (Popehat, Team Kimberlin)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the post The Kimberlin Crew Pokes The Bull And Gets The Horns | Popehat:

It isn't, in my mind, so much they they are Democrats therefore that party should denounce them, it is the fact they they have worked for the Democrats.

If R's have to denounce stupid shit said by a guy, he D's should probably be required to denounce actual criminal activity.
---

"If R's have to denounce stupid shit said by a guy, he D's should probably be required to denounce actual criminal activity."

I see where you're coming from... but I'd spend more time questioning the former proposition than pushing a "two wrongs make a right" kinda theory...especially if I was a Republican.

I mean, sure... anyone who actually worked with or funded Kimberlin, et. al. ought to be asked about their collaboration or funding, and given the opportunity to talk about why they chose to work with/fund the guy at the time, and where they stand now, based on the information about the accused parties that is available (as well as the info that isn't). And of course those who're speaking out for (or against) Team Kimberlin ought to be held accountable for whatever they actually do say. But D's (or R's) in general have no obligation to answer for Kimberlin (or for those who're accusing them). All D's (or all R's) are not responsible for what every/any individual D or R says or does...not even if the individual D or R claims to be speaking or acting in the name of all D's or R's or the causes they generally champion.

While I believe everyone ought to speak out against what's going on with Team Kimberlin--and what happened to Aaron Walker in particular (because it's the least convoluted, easiest to understand, and most egregious part of the thing (IMHO), if for no other reason)--I don't blame folks for not doing so, whether because they're frightened of retaliation or because they're just focused elsewhere.

My analogy is to firefighters: Yes, those who intentionally run into burning buildings to save lives are heroes, but I don't believe it follows that everyone who has never run into a burning building deserves to be criticized for not doing so.

In the same way, the people willing to stand up to Kimberlin--especially those willing to do so after being threatened or worse (like Aaron, or this Paul guy from the (currently) most recent Popehat post)--are free speech heroes. But that doesn't mean that folks who have ignored the story, whether intentionally or out of confusion or ignorance, should be slammed as cowards or "in league with the eeeeevil one(s)" for doing so. Not blogging about this story doesn't prove anything...not about anyone individually, and certainly not about any/all demographic group(s) to which they belong.

Coming from the left, I can say for good and certain that the folks intent on making this about attacking all progressives because Kimberlin claims to be one are causing liberals who would otherwise come out against attacks on free speech, intimidation, and lawfare to hold off, lest they be seen as agreeing that liberals in general have something to answer for, here. It's awful hard to align yourself with people who see you as evil incarnate, just because you disagree with 'em, politically...even when it is the right thing to do.
---

Posted Jun 11, 2012 @2:46 am, Popehat blog time.

In Reply: It's OK For People to be COMPLETELY WRONG...and still see them as worthwhile human beings. (Allergic to Bull, Bigotry...or not)

In reply to this most excellent post, which deserves reading in full: Allergic to Bull: On Romney’s Mormonism and Religious Tolerance (Honestly, it doesn't have much to do with Romney or Mormonism, except as inspiration...)
---

Straight on double-plus right, sir...

Many (most?) religions preach and teach that theirs is the one true path to all good things (however they define that), and many go further and say that those who don't follow their particular path will never get there... While it's possible for such beliefs to lead to bigotry--especially when governments or other institutions of power (including certain religious institutions themselves, ironically) get involved--the beliefs themselves are not bigoted.

I have this hippie dippy book called Das Energi, by Paul Williams (whattaya want, I'm a lib) that talks about the ability to discriminate as being key to the ability to see and perceive, and suggests that we draw our lines between people with disappearing ink. See the differences between us (be they religious, political, ethnic/heritage, ...), sure, but don't take them beyond the situations where they actually matter.

There has to come a point where it's ok for other people to be completely wrong about something--because they're not the same religion or denomination as you, or vote for candidates in the other party, or like mushrooms on their pizza--and still treat them as fellow citizens and worthwhile human beings deserving of respect.

(On that other thing... You was robbed and wronged, and I hope you get your rights back very soon. While I have issues with the partisan bent and allegations of collective guilt that some in your corner are trying to put on the thing, I unequivocally support free speech for all, even folks I probably don't much agree with... The best (and only) answer for speech you don't like or agree with is lots more speech... 'nuff said.)
---

Submitted for blog owner approval Posted: June 10, 2012 7:43 AM

In Reply: "It’s about free speech, here and now..."

In reply to Your Free Speech Ends at the Point a Bully Says So | The Moderate Voice
---

“This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”

Don’t tell me, tell the guy who opined that this Maryland decision has anything to do with “political expression” or “people on the far left,” rather than a legally skilled crazy person who is targeting ANYONE, right or left, who says too much about his sordid past.

It took me awhile to come around to the position that Aaron Walker was being railroaded, precisely because so many people have been making it about “the George Soros / Tides Foundation funded far left hitman” and saying that “there can be no law or justice as long as Eric Holder is running things”.

It’s not about “the Left.” It’s not about the guy’s history as a bomber or any of his convictions from the 80′s and 90′s. It’s about free speech, here and now, and what Kimberlin (and perhaps a few friends, though the evidence of their roles is still a little too vague for me) is doing to silence his critics.
---

Posted MAY 30, 2012 AT 7:15 PM

In Reply: "It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic." (Mahablog, Kimberlin-Walker, Free Speech)

In Reply to the following comment at The Mahablog ~ Brett Whozits Update: Rightie Blogger Arrested:

To outsiders–and probably to this judge–this “let’s all gang up on Kimberlin” coordinated attack made it look like THEY were the aggressors.

It was all speech, though. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic. - jpe - May 29, 2012 @3:23 pm

I absolutely agree, which is one of the reasons I said I wasn’t sure justice was served, here…

Like others, I have a feeling there are two separate issues though; the peace order, which, if I’m understanding it right, had been in place short-term already, but was made long-term today, and Aaron Walker (Worthing)’s arrest, which may or may not have anything to do with violating the temporary peace order that was already in place, and which, if it does, may include his instigation and participation in the blogburst as a means of harassment. (Other theories / rumors include contempt of court for behavior in the courtroom today, assault, stemming from a previous physical altercation between Walker and Kimberlin (he hit him, or not; he took his iPad and refused to return it until officers showed up;…) There are also questions as to whether Walker’s continued participation in posting about Kimberlin would be a violation of the peace order.

The closest thing I’ve found to anyone speaking for the other side of this thing is the blog and twitter stream of BreitbartUnmasked. I don’t know who it is, though the righties all seem to believe it’s one of the principle players–either Ron Brynaert or Neal Rauhauser--though some even think it’s Brett Kimberlin, himself. Check it out, but since the guy’s anon, take what he offers with as much or little salt or other spices as your taste dictates…

I think at this point just about everyone left and right whose interested in the saga wants mainstream / lamestream media coverage, and law enforcement / legal system action where necessary. (Though, it is a little scary how many rightwing commenters I’ve seen at various blogs today taking about “street justice,” or similar terms… Thankfully, they’re getting slapped down by others at the blogs (mostly), but still…) If Kimberlin, etc. are guilty, I want them to face justice. But if there’s no evidence that they are, or that one or more of their accusers are stretching the truth, I want to know that — and perhaps for them to face justice.

Lastly… Anyone else have an issue viewing The Mahablog on an iPad? When I read the comments, it defaults to–and snaps back to–the top of the comment stream. I finally figured out that I could keep it scrolled to where I wanted by hitting the comment permalink that was as close to where i wanted to be as possible–for example, to write this comment in the box, i hit the permalink of the last comment submitted, and even now keep snapping back to that comment (which luckily, was short, so I can still see the comment box–but it’s something I’d never experienced on another blog…
---

Posted May 29, 2012 @9:10 pm

In Reply: With Friends Like These... (The Mahablog, Kimberlin-Walker)

In reply to The Mahablog ~ Brett Whozits Update: Rightie Blogger Arrested

I don’t know whether or not justice was served, but it is kinda–well, let’s just say ironic–that the judge cited elements of the Rightwing shit-storm against Kimberlin (threats of violence in blog posts and comments in a whole lot of the “blogburst” posts, according to rw theorists) in granting the peace order.

Like I said… To outsiders–and probably to this judge–this “let’s all gang up on Kimberlin” coordinated attack made it look like THEY were the aggressors, not their target(s). They came off looking like a lynch mob out for frontier justice, trying to do the job that law enforcers and the courts refused to do.

And it bit ‘em in the ass.

Kimberlin / Walker Peace Order

“With friends like these,…”
---

May 29, 2012 @1:53 pm