X-Post: More on Unsubstantiated Speculation Masquerading as News

In reply to 'Reliable Sources' Covers Media Response to Colorado Shooting

As I said in my rebuttal to Donald Douglas' earlier attack post, the man is just lying. Rather than cover the same ground, I'll refer back to that previous rebuttal whenever Donald offers the same specious attack...but there are a few fresh lies in this second attack post that deserve reply.

"As noted, Repsac3 is infected with incredibly deep hatred and bigotry, and this prevents him from even acknowledging progressive error, not to mention left-wing evil."

As noted, Donald Douglas appears to be making things up as he goes along. While he alleges all this hatred and bigotry, he fails to offer any examples of it. Similarly, I have no idea what "progressive error" Dr. Douglas is on about...(Perhaps he believes Brian Ross is a progressive, in keeping with his "everyone who disagrees with me is my enemy" black vs white thinkin'?) While I don't believe Brian Ross should be fired for his shoddy reporting, I have in no way defended him or suggested his conduct was acceptable... ...which is obviously why, though Donald accuses me of doing so, he fails to actually show any evidence of my doing so. Donald is making it up.

"At the clip, Howard Kurtz briefly mentions that Breitbart's website claimed that the suspect was a Democrat, and then corrected the post. That's premature as well, and I think folks should report the facts about what is happening on the ground before trying to tear apart your enemies. Of course, that is not something the progressives like Walter James Casper believe, so there's literally no reason to expect him to call out folks on his side rather than defend them."

Again, Donald Kent Douglas is lying. I discussed (or "called out") several cases where bloggers and other media outlets released speculative, unvetted information, and I judged them all by the exact same standards, saying that all but one of them were not the result of partisan bias, and explaining why I believed the remaining one might have been. I didn't defend anyone who engaged in this kind of behavior. My posts also say for themselves what I believe about how reporters ought to behave--especially during these fast-moving stories--so it's no surprise that Dr. Douglas "neglected" to quote or link to any of what I actually posted on the subject. It's so much easier to lie when you fail to show the facts...

I said...

...one cannot start pushing back against stupid correlation/causation arguments soon enough. (especially ones built on speculative factors to start with–there is ZERO evidence that the shooter was either a Tea Party member or registered to vote as a Democrat–and that's apart from the fact that even if either were true, there is nothing indicating the shootings were political, anyway.)

The established media and bloggers would do well to keep their every speculation and thought that randomly enters their head to themselves, at least until they've confirmed that they are reporting facts that are, y'know, factual. After that, I guess there's no greater or less harm in reporting a shooter's political affiliations than in reporting his/her eye color or shoe size…though for my money, relevant facts are worth far more than irrelevant ones. While all facts are facts, some facts are obviously worth more to a given story than others.

I also said...

Brian Ross's problem wasn't a hatred of the Tea party types, but unsubstantiated speculation masquerading as news. (Same goes for the asshole(s) at the Breitbart sites speculating that the shooter may've been registered to vote as a Democrat...as though one's voter registration is somehow relevant. And no, their childish pleas that "they--that is, Brian Ross--did it first" in no way absolves them. If it's wrong to speculate, it's wrong to speculate, no matter who's "side" your speculation helps or hurts.)

One set of standards, for friend and foe alike...

Let's go to the videotape:


Now first off--and contrary to Dr. Douglas' not so carefully crafted meme--no one in that video attributes ABC's terrible, speculative "reporting" about "Jim, the tea party guy" to political bias on the part of Brian Ross or anyone else at ABC.

Bob Cusack says it was "a pretty bad mistake" and likely the result of "doing a lot of research" while in the situation.

Ana Marie Cox says "people get things wrong. News organizations get things wrong, you know, in the sort of craziness right after an event like this." She goes on to say "ABC probably should put everything in context. Put everything sort of in the area, what they say, any news organization should be careful to say that we don't really know very much. And when you don't know, you say you don't know. You don't go with information that you think might be true.

You know probably better than any of us sitting here, the pressure that people have to break news. That pressure has just become so overwhelming that people will go with false news."

Howard Kurtz brings up the stations who blew the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, going to air before knowing the facts.

Contrary to Dr. Douglas' meme, no one on the show attributes Brian Ross' bad reporting to political partisanship or bias. Rather, they attribute it to unsubstantiated speculation and the media's rushes to judgement and poor vetting in their attempts to "publish" first and to fill airtime when they don't actually have established, vetted facts with which to do so... ...which is pretty much exactly what I said in my posts, as well...

Links:
American Power: 'Reliable Sources' Covers Media Response to Colorado Shooting

In Reply: Dishonest Donald Douglas Lies About Media Bias (and me, of course)

American Power: When Even Sick Left-Wing Sites Like 'Wonkette' Want Brian Ross Fired, Despicable Hate-Blogger Repsac3 Attacks Michelle Malkin as 'Whiney Wingnut Victim'

In Reply: Media and bloggers would do well to keep from reporting every thought that enters their heads as "news," and consider focusing more on reporting relevant facts, rather than any/all facts

In Reply: Whiny Wingnut Victimization and Unsubstantiated Speculation Masquerading as "News"

CNN.com - Transcripts

X-Post: Dishonest Donald Douglas Lies About Media Bias (and me, of course)

In reply to Dishonest Donald Douglas's American Power post "When Even Sick Left-Wing Sites Like 'Wonkette' Want Brian Ross Fired, Despicable Hate-Blogger Repsac3 Attacks Michelle Malkin as 'Whiney Wingnut Victim'"

"But despite the universal condemnation of the left's attempts to politicize the Aurora massacre, Walter James Casper III decided to take to Twitter to --- wait for it! --- slam conservative Michelle Malkin as a "whiney wingnut victim"

While I disagree that there has been anything in the way of "universal condemnation" of anyone's attempts to "politicize" this story--much of the condemnation, including mine, and including the condemnation Donald Douglas finds in the Reliable Sources video he uses in a later post concerns the blog/print/tv media's rushes to judgement and poor vetting in their attempts to "publish" first and to fill airtime when they don't actually have established, vetted facts with which to do so--I do think that those who prattle on about media bias whenever someone makes an error or engages in piss-poor reporting like Brian Ross did--but seemingly only when it goes against their own political points of view--are whiners. (I don't hold Media Research Center--or any of their affiliated "echo chambers"--or Media Matters for America to this standard, though. Their whole purpose is to expose what they believe to be media attacks against their own political point of view or in favor of someone else's. While some of what these sites post is the same kind of whiny crap I reference above, some of it is legitimate.)

There is damned near ZERO evidence that ABC or Brian Ross are biased against Republicans, conservatives, or the tea party. Ross searched the guy's name, probably in conjunction with the "state," if not "city and state," and blurted out what he found without bothering to follow up or check it out in any way. Had he found a "James" or "Jim" "Holmes" from "Aurora, CO" who... ...wrote letters of support to The Nation Magazine, ...got arrested for protesting against (or in favor of) the war in Iraq or income disparity, or ...was a member of the Aurora Symphony Orchestra, there is little doubt he'd've blurted out THAT dubious, unvetted "information," instead.

For all the partisan whinging and whining, what Brian Ross did was no different than what CNN and FoxNews did when reporting on the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Heath Care law. He spoke without knowing the facts. He found something that would allow him to keep talking on-air, and put it out there without bothering to make sure the information he found was accurate or relevant. Brian Ross is far from the only person to Google variations of the name and "Aurora, CO," and he isn't the only one to irresponsibly air "facts" and speculation regarding those search results without bothering to check them out first. (See: Joel B. Pollak, at Breitbart.com, who speculated that the killer was a registered Democrat; and John Hawkins at Right Wing News, who posted a link to the Facebook page of a random James Holmes from Aurora, CO.) It's irresponsible, and shitty reporting...but it's rarely partisan. (Of the three examples, the Britbart one seems the most partisan. From the context anyway, it sure looks like they intentionally searched for a "liberal" or "democrat" from "Aurora, CO" named "James Holmes" or "Jim Holmes," to rebut Brian Williams shitty reporting...in effect, engaging in their own shitty (and possibly intentionally biased) reporting. YMMV...)

After quoting conservative opinioneer (and whiner) James Taranto saying "Ross and ABC were out on this limb alone. Either other journalists learned their lesson from Tucson, or it didn't occur to them to look for a political motive this time (it was a more plausible hypothesis in a shooting that targeted a politician)", Donald says:

"And actually, Ross and ABC weren't out on a limb alone. Walter James Casper III jumped out on that limb too..."

As usual, there is no quote of or cite to my alleging or speculating about tea party involvement in the crime. I never said any such thing. Donald Douglas is simply lying, again, in an effort to attack. Perhaps he was angry that I called him out (See "REPOST," below) about his lie alleging that Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog searched for a connection between the tea party and the shooter-- (In fact, Steve was one of many who GoogleBinged the name and the location, and discounted as "not the guy" every possible link he found and discussed, in a post entitled "I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL." --or maybe he just cannot resist lashing out at me personally for whatever slights he imagines I committed against him, but either way, the facts do not fit the specious allegations he's making...so of course, he leaves them out of his attack. No surprise.

Links:
American Power: When Even Sick Left-Wing Sites Like 'Wonkette' Want Brian Ross Fired, Despicable Hate-Blogger Repsac3 Attacks Michelle Malkin as 'Whiney Wingnut Victim'
In Reply: Media and bloggers would do well to keep from reporting every thought that enters their heads as "news," and consider focusing more on reporting relevant facts, rather than any/all facts
In Reply: Whiny Wingnut Victimization and Unsubstantiated Speculation Masquerading as "News"
Covering the Colorado massacre - YouTube
American Power: 'Reliable Sources' Covers Media Response to Colorado Shooting
Exclusive: Contra ABC News, Dark Knight Aurora, CO Shooting Suspect James Holmes Could Be Registered Democrat - UPDATE: Not Registered?
Is This James Holmes’ Facebook Page? | Right Wing News
I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL
---

REPOST:

(I even saw one ass blaming Steve (the "No More Mister Nice Blog" blogger)for his quote of the Breitbart piece above and blaming Steve, not the Breitbart author or Brian Ross, for the speculation about Tea Party involvement. Even after the facts were pointed out to him, the same blogger repeats the lie a second time. UPDATE: Same blogger goes for the threepeat of that same lie. Steve M. searched the guy's name--just like Brian Ross, and just like John Hawkins at Right Wing News. Steve did not restrict his search to Tea Party members, nor did he report that the shooter was a tea party member--though he did quote a Breitbart blog post, which in turn quoted the Brian Ross piece, when THEY discussed the Tea Party angle. Donald Douglas is lying--and at this point, there is no doubt that he is aware of it, which calls his credibility--if not his sanity--into question.)

and

The Dishonest Donald Douglas Steve M. posts, and related material:
#1) "And Steve at No More Mr. Nice Guy was out of the gate looking for a tea party perp..."

Twitterer @kathykattenburg tries to steer Dr. Douglas toward honesty: "@AmPowerBlog And I think u should read Steve's piece again because he does not "search for a tea party perp." That is a complete misreading."

Needless to say, the facts had no effect:

#2) "Recall that Steve M. also searched James Holmes' name to find tea party ties, only to find out he was too young to be the "James Holmes" he'd found at the boards."

#3) "The decent, human thing to do would to be to gather facts, and especially not go looking around the Internet to see "what party is this insane person in?", or what tea party organization, as did No More Mr. Nice Blog did. That is, the decent, human thing would not be going all gonzo trying to score partisan points to destroy your enemies." (Talk about irony...)

And the title of the blog post about which Dishonest Don complains?:
I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL

Yeah... really.

In Reply: "I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies." (Popehat, Team Kimberlin, Donald Douglas)

Revised, expanded, and now updated, below, in reply to the following comment at the blog post Shut Up, They Explained: Another Blogger Threatened With Imprisonment For Writing About Brett Kimberlin | Popehat:

@Donald Douglas

"They view free speech as a right for those who uphold the progressive agenda."

That's news to me.

And I have been threatened with a defamation suit by someone who's right wing. I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies.
---

I feel yer pain...

I won't mention any names (not at Popehat, anyway), but I had a blogger (not so coincidentally named Donald Douglas) threaten to (and, according to what he himself publicly claimed, actually did) speak to two different police departments, unspecified federal authorities, at least one lawyer, AND his congressional representatives (again, at least one), primarily because I played tit-for-tat in the comment section of this fellow's blog whenever he mentioned me, even after he requested I not do so.

(For the record, none of the folks this blogger spoke to ever made any contact with me... ...but after speaking to several folks familiar with the law and/or the internet, and getting variations of the following advice from several of 'em, I pretty much stopped "inciting" said blogger...though we do still travel in some of the same circles.)

Here was that advice: "Any guy crazy enough to think he's entitled to have police officers, the FBI, and his congressman enforce the rules of his blog is likely crazy enough to be dangerous when he discovers that they cannot. In any case, it's probably not a good idea to put yourself in the position of finding out."

(This ties in with my recent comment at an earlier Popehat post on the subject: While those willing to stand up to Team Kimberlin even after being threatened--or actually attacked--by them are free speech heroes, there is something to be said for not poking bears or crazy people with sticks, no matter how richly they deserve it, and there is no great shame in refraining from doing so...)
---

Posted Jun 11, 2012 @4:22 am, Popehat blog time.

Updates, lots:

The blogger over at Popehat decided to remove a series of comments, beginning with mine, above, and continuing with several others that discussed what I wrote, after Dr. Douglas outed himself as the blogger to whom I was referring. While I believe the thread was discussing / debating important issues that are also at play in the Kimberlin saga, I can understand why Ken did what he did, and it is, after all, his establishment, not mine. I bear him no ill will.

That said, I don't believe the conversation should be lost, and not just because I was so heartened to read that others very quickly saw what I saw in Dr. Douglas' actions against me back then, especially as it relates to his hypocritical and nakedly partisan grandstanding about the Kimberlin matter now... ...though I'd be lying if I ever claimed that it had no bearing at all on my decision to repost the otherwise lost material. Guilty as charged.
---

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:08 am:

STFU Repsac. I went to the police because you were a ringleader in exactly the kind of campaigns that conservatives are now dealing with. You run an entire blog to attack me and organize workplace attacks: http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/ I was only after I took your harassment to the authorities that you finally stopped stalking me.

[It's 99% dormant now, and has been since February, but the "American Nihilist" blog was created to make fun of Dr. Douglas, and especially his at-one-time-pretty-consistant habit of slurring everyone and everything with which he did not agree with the adjective "nihilist." There was no "organization of workplace attacks," there, and no real "ringleader, either. I did start the blog, but there were several authors, all of whom wrote independently, and each of whom were wholly responsible for the content of their own posts. Donald is correct that I stopped responding to his posts and comments, both on my blog and on his --there was no "stalking"-- after he announced his trips to the police and congressman's offices but, as stated above, that was because it was at that moment I realized there really had to be something wrong with him. Normal, well-adjusted people don't appeal to the police and their congressional representatives to enforce their stated blog comment policies. On the advice of friends and law enforcement / legal professionals alike, I stopped poking the crazy man's cage, lest he take more extreme or violent action once he discovered that law enforcement would not make me stop commenting at his blog against his wishes.]

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:24 am:

@Repsac3: "...because I played tit-for-tat in the comment section of this fellow's blog whenever he mentioned me, even after he requested I not do so."

Yes, friends, I told Repsac to stop harassing me at MY BLOG. This is someone who backed a campaign of workplace attacks attempting to get me fired. He was not threatened with a lawsuit for defamation. He was about to prosecuted for criminal activity. http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/intent-to-annoy-and-fascist-hate.html So folks, again, please cite the examples of conservative lawfare. The campaign to silence speech is a left-wing phenomenon. That's nice that some "liberals" are speaking up here in the comments, but that doesn't mean that it's not the left that's seeking to clamp down on speech by any means necessary. See Pamela Geller for more: "Ray Bradbury Dead, Censorship On the Rise": http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/06/ray-bradbury-dead-censorship-on-the-rise-by-robert-spencer-the-man-who-wrote-the-novel-about-censorship-fahrenheit-451.html

[There was no "harassment." At posts where Donald mentioned or referred to me, I would submit a comment defending myself against whatever slur the man had posted about me. Because he generally moderated his American Power comment section for content before the fact, my comment would not actually appear on his blog unless he allowed it to. And again, at no time did I back any campaign of workplace attacks, or in any way attempt to get to get Donald fired. In fact, I regularly spoke out against every person who ever contacted Donald's employers, whether politically partisan friend or foe, on principle. I cannot prove that I was NOT about to be prosecuted criminal activity--it's kinda hard to prove a negative--but I followed up with one of the police officers that Dr. Douglas spoke to, who assured me in no uncertain terms that I was not in any criminal legal jeopardy as far as her department was concerned (though she was not pleased with the behavior of either party in the dispute, and felt we both ought to grow up, or at least spend more time outside and away from the keyboard--advice I have tried to follow, ever since.) My family lawyer here in NY and a lawyer who specializes in internet reputation-related matters based in CA, each said the same. So maybe I was about to be prosecuted for some kinda criminal activity, or maybe I wasn't...but in point of fact, I was never prosecuted for anything, and no one from any department, office, or firm ever contacted me based on Dr. Douglas' many complaints. Make of that what you will...]

***

Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @9:27 am:
Pertinent comments are welcome, but please do not use this as a venue to carry on disputes from elsewhere. Thank you.

***


Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @9:40 am:

The "amusing" thing? We likely would never have known Donny was the guy Repsac was talking about had he not spoken up...

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:48 am:

Ken, tell that to Repsac please. I'm not dragging in other disputes. I'm responding to falsehoods. Thanks.

[Ummm... No, no comment. Press on.]

***

Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @10:08 am:

It was directed to everyone.

***

Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @10:15 am:

Yes, friends, I told Repsac to stop harassing me at MY BLOG.

Did you ever consider, you know, banning him? And I love how you outted who, exactly, he is. That's really classy, and totally not the sort of thing people like Team Kimberlin do. Oh, wait. It is exactly the sort of thing they do. Yeah, my bad there. They also don't go to law enforcement to stop people from saying mean things about them... Oh wait, they do. Shit. Well, I'm sure I'll come up with a way you totally aren't like them, Donny, don't you worry. I'll not rest until I have discovered a way in which you are kinda like them. Well, I'll start right after my nap...

[To be more fair than I really need to be, Dr. Douglas was (and is) on a Google/blogspot blog and was using their comment system, which gives one no method for actually banning someone. One can moderate all comments before the fact, or allow all comments and delete those one does not like after they post. That said, Donald did very clearly announce that I was banned from commenting on his blog, in what I imagined to be his most authoritative voice. As he did not choose to ban himself from attacking me with all manner of slurs and falsehoods in his blog, however, I did not take his verbal banning very seriously, and continued to submit comments to those posts where he referred to me or my blog by name or other identifying feature.]

***


Goober • Jun 11, 2012 @6:00 pm:

Donald - I followed your link. I found this interesting tidbit:

Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply.

All I have to say is that while repsac might be an asshat troll, you are even worse.

Are you seriously coming at us with this weak-sauce BS and claiming that you were justified in going to the authorities to get him to stop hurting your feelings because "he crossed your emotional safety boundary?" My guess is that kimberlin feels like his well-established emotional safety boundary has been crossed, too. By your standard, he is perfectly entitled to go to the police.

You want to claim that
1.) you are somehow above Bret Kimberlin and
2.)that right-wing bloggers don't engage in lawfare to stop people from saying things they don't like?

1.) You're not.
2.) You did. Or at least you tried.

You don't get to stand against Bret Kimberlin when you'd be doing the exact same thing to Repsac that Kimberlin is doing to his opponents if the authorities had taken you seriously and acted like you asked them to.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that if the police had mistakenly pursued the matter, that you wouldn't be cheering them along. Tell me that.

And to say that your case is different than Kimberlins, I wonder how...

People said things about you that you didn't like.
They wouldn't stop when you asked them to.
They wouldn't stop when you warned them to.
They wouldn't stop when you demanded them to.

And so you went to the police.

Wait, I forgot, was i just describing your case or Kimberlin's? I lost track...

Ken is right. Stop with the partisan crap, folks. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum either comes from. if you let politics taint your thinking to the point to where you can condemn a man for doing something that you did, yourself, and justify it by playing a right vs. left game, you've lost track of the target.

Oh, and my politics are probably to the right of Ken's, in case you were preparing to throw insults my way about being a lefty supporter.

***

repsac3 • Jun 11, 2012 @6:51 pm:

Sorry to cause a kerfuffle...

My intent was just to say that:

1) these things happen, one way or another, all across the political spectrum. It's not about left or right--and especially not about "the left" and "the right," or any other demographic. It's about right and wrong, and that knows no color, creed, or political philosophy; and

2) bloggers and media types who don't discuss this whole "team Kimberlin" thing, whether because they are ignorant of the stories, or because they intentionally choose not to get involved out of confusion (some aspects go pretty far into the weeds) or out of fear of reprisal, are not evil and do not prove anything about the kind of people they are, either as individuals or as members of those demo groups I mentioned above.

As for the rest, both out of deference to the host and because it's all been said already anyway, I got nothin' more to add... (In retrospect, I'd even go back and subtract some, were it possible... But alas, bells cannot be unrung...)

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:04 pm:

To all the ignorant trolls who don't know what they are talking about, especially "Goober":

1. Repsac3 sponsored workplace attacks at his blog, designed to get me fired --- ultimately I found pro bono representation to defend against the left's lies and smears, which he never repudiated. I was defending against HIS BLOG's and his allies' Kimberlin-style attacks.

2. He harassed me at the comments to MY BLOG when he was told repeatedly to cease and desist --- that's not a "free speech" issue.

3. Brett Kimberlin is waging lawfare against anyone who criticizes him ON THEIR BLOGS, whereas I've never filed a lawsuit against anyone.

I'm not going to spam the comments with the evidence of the progressive attacks on me. THIS IS A PARTISAN ISSUE AND IT'S THE LEFT TRYING TO CRUSH FREE SPEECH. Progressives are on jihad. Look at the Atlas Shrugged link above FOR JUST ONE MORE example.

And get a clue, sheesh. Name one example of conservatives doing what Brett Kimberlin is doing. God, comparing me to Kimberlin, a convicted domestic bomber, is seriously deranged. Get some help.

***

Narad • Jun 11, 2012 @7:15 pm:

To all the ignorant trolls who don't know what they are talking about....

"Trolls"? I'm sorry that your CV as a complete academic washout failed to precede you before I responded previously, but perhaps you shouldn't compound the problem by not knowing what words mean.

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:20 pm:

@Repsac3, the guy who sponsored workplace attacks against my employment:

"...these things happen, one way or another, all across the political spectrum."

Wrong. Where are the conservatives waging lawfare against progressives for blogging the truth about someone? It's always the other way around. It goes like this: Progressives attack people. They then get called out for it by those defending the targets. And then they finally launch campaigns of destruction to obliterate their ideological enemies. The victim is either destroyed or ends up fighting long costly battles to defend themselves, as I did. It's that simple. No one here has evidence of a right-wing campaign against left bloggers who simply wrote the truth. I'll update my views when I see the evidence, but I'm not holding my breath. And with all due respect to Ken, Repsac3 is a proven liar.

[Response to the first link:
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas Says The Devil I Made 'em Do It... (See comments)
And response to the second:
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas: Satire Impaired]

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:24 pm:

@Narad:

"I'm sorry that your CV as a complete academic washout..."

Not. I'm an Associate Professor of Political Science at community college. The opposite of a washout, I'm a teacher and mentor to hundreds of political science students, and thousands of GE students over the years. And you? What do you do, besides launch ad hom attacks on people of which you have no clue?

***

Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @7:25 pm:

No, Donny. While perhaps in this specific case it is about leftist groups funding an attack on free speech by (mostly) right-wing folks, the first target of this lawfare episode is a left-winger. And just because this single instance it is Leftists funding this, if you honestly think the Right is so virtuous as to never resort to threats of legal actions to silence critics, apparently you have never heard of Angela Corey. Nor of efforts to criminalize speech. Efforts that are supported by Republicans. See New York's efforts to pass cyber-bullying laws. See Tennesee's laws to that effect. See any number of similar instances. While, as Ken has said, there are valid partisan issues involved here, if you only care about this from a "Right vs Left" standpoint, you a) aren't helping the story because you become the basis of the Left's dismissal and b) you really don't give a flying fuck about free speech in the first place. I don't care who the fuck you think you are, Donny, but you're acting like a complete tool. How about you cut that out, hmm?

***

Jess • Jun 11, 2012 @7:31 pm:

Donald, I know I’ve posted this comment before but it bears repeating. It is what YOU make of it. You CHOOSE to make this a partisan issue and therefore in my opinion you are part of the problem. I’m with Scott Jacobs and Goober on this one. I don’t see anything about someone actually actively reaching out and contacting your employer and sending them false content to get you fired, which would be a different story all together. If your employer wastes their time getting hung up on reading some asshat’s blog you have a far bigger problem and that problem is with your employer. If you can’t delete or ignore asshat comments on your own blog you need to either become more technically competent or put on your big boy pants and suck it up knowing thats what happens when you have a blog. Ken has been the ONE place that has focused attention where it needs to be and you are becoming a very annoying distraction. Truly this is not the place for your pissing contest with another blogger. Please go away.

***

Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @7:34 pm:

I asked people not to drag a dispute from elsewhere to here. Apparently people felt that I didn't mean it. They continued, and others engaged them in it.

I've deleted the comments that were engaging in the dispute. If you have a problem with that, or will have difficulty not engaging in this any more, please go take a breather someplace until you are OK with it.

For now, cut it out. Further persistence will be met with me editing comments to amuse myself.

***

Following Ken's putting his foot down on this whole thread, Donald tried to justify his participation in it to Ken via Twitter, offering up still more links ostensibly "proving" I am the devil incarnate or whatever, and followed that up with quite the twitter war with Scott Jacobs--who by the way, is romantically involved with Breitbart blogger Mandy Nagy (Liberty_Chick), who in turn, has been intimately involved in this whole Kimberlin affair almost from the beginning.

You can imagine how it all turned out...

Anyway... That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it

X-Post: Donald Kent Douglas Wins The Internet!!!

After a whole lotta reflection, I'm giving up. Throwing in the towel. I'm forfeiting the game, and letting Dr. Douglas take home the trophy, such as it is...

While our friend Donalde is welcome to make any heroic claims he wants about his victory and the reasons for it, the fact is, this has been building for awhile.
What started out as one thing became another. In some ways, I started behaving like my opponent--mostly by thinking all this personal bullshit actually mattered, and believing that my online worth was somehow tied into "winning" this competition, but also in some of the actions I took--and I was having more trouble squaring who I wanted to be with who and how I actually was. There came a point where my heart wasn't in it anymore, but I felt roped in in general, and that I had no choice but to defend myself and my honor when attacked, especially.

There have been a few people, words, and incidents (or some combination thereof) that have brought me to the post I'm making, here...

This whole legal fiasco of Donald's has a lot to do with it, but not for the reasons he will likely claim. I'll get to that, below.

But even before that, there was:

1) the general decline in posting by all of the authors, here... Whether spoken or unspoken, our hearts just weren't in it, anymore... I suspect we all had our reasons, but we all pretty much slowed to a crawl (except me, but only when legalistically defending myself against attacks...)

2) This comment from xpatPHD (or "splat," according to my spellcheck) about the place lacking in the fun it used to have, was also instrumental. It made a whole lotta sense (even if I never was one of the fun ones, really... I still maintain I'm the cute one in the group, but opinions differ.) While stupid pride and the feeling that I had to defend my good name kept me posting those legalistic tour duh forces (yeah, I know...) anyway, I knew he was right...

3) I found myself spending more time AFTK in that big scary real world, or online AFTP (away from the politics), reading music blogs, literary sites, and all manner of nerdy, fun, non-confrontational whatnot... ...and 1) really enjoying it, and 2) not giving a thought to this confrontational bullshit. Like it wasn't even there.

There were probably a few other "pre-legal freakout" factors, but I can't think of 'em just now. Even so, I'm sure they were just as special and life-changing...whatever they may've been....

And then came Donalde's freakout, culminating (so far, and so far as I know, anyway) in his visits to the Irvine Police, and his congressman...

Though it's very likely that Dr Douglas will claim otherwise, it isn't about my fearing the awesome american power that is him, himself, or my facing up to my supposed "crimes," but yes, the fact that Donald Douglas actually walked into a police station (& perhaps more than one, as well as a congressman's office, and maybe a DOJ or FBI office, taboot) to complain because someone was submitting comments to his moderated blog against his wishes did affect me. To put it plainly, I realized that Donald Douglas is fucking disturbed in a way that I just hadn't seen, before. (People told me, going clear all the way back to Octopus in 2008 or so--a man to whom I owe a heartfelt apology in this regard--but until Donald went and did this, I didn't really believe he was, well, actually disturbed. I just thought he was really wrong, and maybe a bit too "passionate" about some things.)
But anyone who would be crazy/brave enough to waste the time of first responders and political officials over blog comments that he was already perfectly capable of controlling, and insisting that laws designed to protect battered women apply to him and his blog, is really pretty. far. out. there.

And it wasn't just me thinkin' it... Folks online said so... Folks I spoke to offline said so, too, including some of the folks I consulted with about the laws that do and don't apply to the situation--folks who have more real-world experience with these kinda things than I do... Over and over, I heard essentially the same message... Only the wording would change:

Any guy crazy enough to think he's entitled to have police officers and the FBI enforce the rules of his blog is likely crazy enough to be dangerous when he discovers that they cannot. In any case, it's probably not a good idea to put yourself in the position of finding out.

---

Then there was having to talk to people about what went on... It didn't really occur to me until I was about to go talk to my friend, the lawyer, but not everybody blogs... ...and even fewer blog politically... And very few do the kind of crap in the name of political blogging that Donalde and I have been doing with and to each other for the last several years. I can't speak for Donalde--obviously--but I was pretty embarrassed to have to explain it all, but especially that last part...

The bullshit I subjected myself to...
The bullshit I did...
The whole stupid stereotypical male pissing contest aspect of the thing...
Like I said above, this isn't who I want to be, and having to admit out loud that it's who I've been was a real wake-up call...

The final straws came in the last 36-48 hours. First, was a post by one of Donalde's online blogging friends: Saberpoint: Strange Things Are Happening....Donald Douglas Annoyed by Leftwing Blogger. In his post, Stogie says:

"One thing is apparent. Casper has won.

Donald has allowed this individual to get under his skin in a very big way. All Casper has to do now is make any small remark and Donald has a mental breakdown...or so it seems.

Donald, there is much truth to the saying "Don't feed the trolls." You have been serving Casper a 16 oz steak on a daily basis. You have rewarded his efforts. Stop commenting about Respac3 aka Walter James Casper III. Stop reacting to him. Stop referring to him as "hate blogger Walter James Casper III." Is he a hate blogger? Who knows? Who cares, but why give him such a fearsome reputation?"

And in kinda the same vein, a few comments by (very) occasional nihilist Doctor Biobrain, attached to a post at his blog. ...And like Stogie's words above, they were addressed to Donald Douglas. Here's a representative sample, taken from several comments there:

Frankly, I've never understood why they bother with you. You're a boring clown who doesn't deserve to have a blog named American Nihilist dedicated to denouncing you. Exposing your hypocrisy, errors, and lies is like trying to count sand. After awhile, you realize it's pointless and just give up. - And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: 11:30 PM

"Again, that's why you shouldn't mess with people. You never know who is crazy and who might cross lines you don't want crossed. And if you treated people with more respect, you wouldn't be having these problems." - And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: 11:48 AM

"I mean, like the claims of me being a nihilist. What the fuck did that even mean? I'm a CPA who has his own business, a family man, completely trustworthy, and widely regarded as a nice guy by everyone. I'm one of the most optimistic people you'll ever meet and rightly so, because my life is good and I'm having fun about 99.9% of the time. I believe America is great and want it to be even better for everyone.

And so the idea that I'm a nihilist was soooooo ridiculous that I eventually turned it into its own thing. I really enjoy writing those nihilist posts and I owe it all to you, for being my inspiration.

And yet you stand by those claims, as well as all the other smears you've thrown at me over the years. And what did you gain from it? Nothing. Not a damn thing, except a lot of hassle and a blog devoted to denouncing you.

So how about you change your ways? Stop the personal smears and start making amends by acknowledging that you were wrong for personally attacking all the people you attacked. I'm telling you, these people aren't monsters. Or I hope they're not anyway. And maybe it's too late and they'll just pounce on you, but you shouldn't let it bother you because it shouldn't be personal. And more likely than not, you'll find that they're just regular people like everyone else.

The way I see things, if you're not having fun in life, then you're doing it wrong. And I don't see how you're having fun with this. There's a solution and you're the only one who can do it. You can never insult someone into submission, but you can certainly win them over with a little friendliness and understanding.

Liberals aren't evil nihilists, Donald and we never were. Life isn't nearly that exciting." - And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: 2:12 AM

"As I keep saying, there are scary people in this world and you shouldn't fuck with people you don't know. That's why you should be respectful to everyone, because you never know when someone might go crazy and kill you. And so if you go around insulting people all the time and making personal attacks, you don't DESERVE to be pummeled, but you wouldn't be entirely blameless for it either. And that's why we don't go around insulting people and making personal attacks, because we don't want to piss off the crazies." - And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: 12:21 AM

While I don't agree with every last word either of 'em said in their comments, both of 'em spoke to me, even though--coincidentally--they were both actually talking to Donald.

There is no reason why Donalde should have a blog devoted to refudiating everything he says... Why should anyone care? Why should I treat him as though he's worthy of that kind of attention? Why should I bother with what he says or thinks about me or anything else, when it's clear that the people who value his opinions are people I don't give a damned about in the first place...

Stogie's right, but Donalde isn't the only one reacting to the other like Pavlov's dog... I was doing it, too, responding here to every mention of my name there, pretty much on sight...

Bio's right... Debating Donalde and dealing with his lies and ever-shifting hypocrisies is like counting grains of sand... Wet sand. In the snow. With gale force winds.
And when you come right down to it, it serves no legitimate purpose. Why wallow in the mud and slime with this clod? "...you both get dirty, but only the pig likes it."

I'd rather accentuate the positive, thanks... ...and it's time I start...

So, though Donald Douglas seemingly won't listen to 'em, I will.

The fact is, I want no part of it, anymore...

I'm done.

If this is what Donalde wants to call "winning," he can have it, with all the blessings and good wishes I can muster...
Maybe my leaving the dance floor will indirectly curtail Donald's hateful tango of derision, distraction and destruction... (It takes two, you know... Even if Donald's still not willing to stop, finding a new dance partner stupid and pig-headed enough to take over for me will take time...)
---

Here's what I'm intending, at least right now...

The. Blog. Stays. Up.

That's a promise I won't go back on. I'm a stickler for the written record, besides, so it just makes sense... I'll probably adjust a few things... ...and maybe even repurpose the place, perhaps... We shall see... (Unless/until I do repurpose the place or whatever, the other authors continue to be free to post as they wish... Any topic--even the one I'm giving up on, even. (As always, I only speak for myself. They can post as they please, according to their own consciences.)--whenever and however they wish...)

The one exception to my declaration above is this legal business... I'll continue to discuss that here and wherever else necessary, online or off, for as long as it's a going concern, but once it's gone, so is Donald Douglas, man and myth, as a topic of my blogging. (And Donald... If you secretly have even the slightest misgivings about calling your congressman, the police, & who-knows-who-fuck-all over blog comments, I'm offering you an easy, blame-free (blame-me) way out... Say you're stopping because it's unnecessary, seeing as how I gave in, defeated... It's all up to you, Bud, and I won't call you out... You'll never get a better opportunity to slink out of such a stupid, crazy, bone-headed, CRAZY (and did I say crazy?) f@ck%ng move, without even having to admit either fault or failure. If I was you, I'd think about it.)

That isn't to say I won't discuss the same topics as him, or even quote and cite American Power, sometimes... But to the extent that it's possible, I'll avoid mentioning his name, or discussing him, personally. (While my phrasing may seem a tad weaselly, I don't much go in for absolute statements and zero tolerance policies... There are circumstances that would warrant my talking about Donald personally--especially given the current situation--and I'm not going to swear to do / not do something that could at some later point turn out to be unreasonable.)

In true Donalde Kent Douglas fashion though, he is now and forevermore BANNED!!! from commenting on any/all blogs under my control... No whining, threats or fretting... All future submissions disappeared on sight, without further notice or comment. Persona non grata, gone-a, goodbye...
---

That's it, least as far as I can think of just now...

Given the intended finality of this post and it's subject, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks as needed, for a reasonable slice of the future... (whatever that means...), and to bump this post topwards whenever I feel it needs it... ...at least until the (possible) repurposing of AmNi... Folks who drop by later have a right to know why the posts dried up...

So congratulations Donald... You "won"... Commence declaring victory.
I'll be... ...well... ...somewhere else, and likely having more fun than you.
---

An American Nihilist x-post (Quite possibly, the last.)

In Reply: A Quick Thanks to Stogie

In reply to Saberpoint: Strange Things Are Happening....Donald Douglas Annoyed by Leftwing Blogger, after realizing that some of what he said to another blogger made sense... ...even if that other blogger wasn't ready to hear it.
---

Just a quick thanks... While I didn't exactly take the meaning you intended, I heard what you was sayin', and it made sense...

This "geek" is throwin' in the towel: Donald Kent Douglas Wins The Internet!!

---
wv: bardleri - not quite trusting that Shakespeare guy...

---
Submitted for Saber Point blog moderator approval Posted 2/9/12, 5:20 AM (SP blog time)

X-Post: Criminalizing The Internet, Part 2

A repository of the laws being cited by Donald Kent Douglas, in his attempts to legally bar me from responding to his posts (and teach me a lesson about daring to oppose him, of course)...((and with this, on 2/8/12, only the latter remains as a viable motive.)) ...and my responses to them. (The reason(s) each law doesn't apply to our situation is emboldened. Newest additions at the top...)

All this, because I submitted comments to posts at his moderated American Power blog (often, posts where he attacks me by name) against his wishes... Yeesh... (That and because he disagrees with me politically... Can't forget that...)
---

Added Tuesday, February 7, 2012, 6:30 AM (PDST):

Today's offering, "American Power: Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III," wasn't so much a citation of law as an "If I Were King Of The Internets" statement. On some level, I'd probably prefer that the law said whatever I needed it to for me to smite my enemies, too... ...but that's just not how the world works...

Even in today's post though, there's this, cited from HaltAbuse.org:

First, you need to determine whether or not what you're experiencing is truly harassment.

Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply. The legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is:

"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person."

This is of course a very broad definition, which state and federal legislation and common law have narrowed and refined in various ways. However, for our purposes, WHOA defines online harassment as any actions that meet the qualifications of the above definition after the harasser has been told to cease.

If someone simply disagrees with you, however strongly or unpleasantly, that isn't harassment. Someone who sends you a single email message that isn't overtly threatening probably hasn't harassed you. Spam, while very annoying, isn't harassment. And messages posted to any open venue, such as a newsgroup, a web-based board, an AOL discussion forum or a chat room, are seldom truly harassing unless they're forged to appear to come from you or contain direct threats or libelous statements. The same goes for things said on someone else's web site. Harassment usually involves repeated communications via email or some sort of instant messaging program after the harasser has clearly been told to go away.

My records indicate I sent three e-mails to Dr Douglas' blog e-mail address, all of which were more or less on topic, and only after reading this invitation: "Comments are closed. Readers who'd like to comment may reply to me by e-mail (at my Blogger profile) and I'll add comments in updates to this post." Everything else have been comments submitted to his "open venue" blog, intending that they be posted publicly, and did not contain any threats or libelous statements.
---

Relevant / on topic / interesting links:
Schneier on Security: Anonymous Internet Annoying Is Illegal in the U.S.
Concurring Opinions � Annoy someone online (anonymously); go to jail
Anonymous Internet annoyance illegal? Yes and no.
---

An American Nihilist x-post

X-Post: Criminalizing The Internet, Part 1

A repository of the laws being cited by Donald Kent Douglas, in his attempts to legally bar me from responding to his posts (and teach me a lesson about daring to oppose him, of course)...((and with this, on 2/8/12, only the latter remains as a viable motive.)) ...and my responses to them. (The reason(s) each law doesn't apply to our situation is emboldened. Newest additions at the top...)

All this, because I submitted comments to posts at his moderated American Power blog (often, posts where he attacks me by name) against his wishes... Yeesh... (That and because he disagrees with me politically... Can't forget that...)
---
Below as posted 2/6/12, 10:00 AM (...mostly... I think I made a few grammatical edits and definitely link additions, since...)
From: American Power: Federal Investigation of Walter James Casper III Could Involve Civil Rights Abuses, Monday, February 6, 2012, 7:00 AM (PDST)

Federal statute 47 U.S.C. 223 prohibits anonymous harassment on the Internet and general harassment with the intent to annoy. As one writer indicates:

Ok, let me put this in plain English for you, using the language of section 223 itself:

Anybody who uses the Internet to post or email any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person has just committed a Federal crime, for which they can be imprisoned, fined, or both.

(Note: the terms "lewd", "lascivious", "filthy", and "indecent" were struck from the law subsequent to this blogger's opinion piece from 2006. Not that anything I submitted to Dr. Douglas' American Power blog was lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, either...)

There has been no obscene content, and no intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass anyone. I submitted generally on-topic comments to a moderated blog.

Just to be clear, the rest of 47 U.S.C. 223:

(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;

Nope, for what should be obvious reasons...

(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

Nope... no anonymity, and no intent... (also read legal opinions that say a computer is not covered under "telecommunications device," unless one is using VOIP.)

(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

Nope. (Do I need to explain?)

(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or

There has been no pattern or repetition, and no contact solely to harass. (And then there's that "telecommunications device" question, again...)

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

Again, no... (Whatever Donald Douglas' claims are, he most assuredly is making them about me...)

***

From: American Power: Update On Big Talking Harassment-Blogger Capt. Fogg of 'Human Voices', Sunday, February 5, 2012, 1:00 AM (PDST)

US Code 18 Section 2261A:

Whoever--

(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(2) with the intent--

(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or

(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--

(i) that person;
(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 [1] of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;


uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); [2] shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title.

This one seems pretty obvious... there has been no travel, and/or no intent to to kill, injure, harass, place anyone under surveillance, or cause anyone substantial emotional distress, by any means.

ALSO:

§ 223. OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS
(a) Prohibited acts generally

Whoever—

(1) in interstate or foreign communications—

(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—

(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person...

No obscenity or child pornography, and no intent...

***

From: American Power: California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III, Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 6:00 AM (PDST)

SEC. 5. Section 653m of the California Penal Code

a. Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

b. Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with intent to annoy another person at his or her residence, is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

c. Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

Aside from the jurisdictional issues, (see below), there has been no intent to annoy or repeated contact, and no obscene language or threat to inflict injury to person or property.

***

From: American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III, Friday, January 27, 2012, 9:45 PM (PDST)

SEC. 4. Section 646.9 of the California Penal Code is amended to read:

646.9.

a. Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
b. Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
c. Every person who, having been convicted of a felony under this section, commits a second or subsequent violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
d. In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the sentencing court may order a person convicted of a felony under this section to register as a sex offender pursuant to subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290.
e. For the purposes of this section, "harasses" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
f. For purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."
g. For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section.
h. For purposes of this section, the term "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Aside from the jurisdictional issues--alleged crimes are committed where the alleged criminal is, not where the alleged victim is--there have been no willful and repeated behaviors, or any credible threat with intent to place anyone in fear for his/her safety. Rather, we're talking about non-threatening, on-topic comments submitted to a public blog for moderator approval.

***

September 22, 2011, 12:28 AM (EDST)

"And you might be careful about sponsoring your workplace attacks against me at this blog. You, as the admin, published calls to contact my employers, and that's called "tortious interference" with someone's work, and a judge recently ruled against a blogger in Minnesota. My lawyer raised the references, so we're on to you, and you are not on sound legal ground. And no, you haven't been contacted, because I never claimed I was going to contact you or have law enforcement contact you. The point is that you ARE on the radar and what you are doing is wrong. And you keep doing it, against your own interests. So, WISE UP, idiot ASFL. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMMENT AND HARASS ME IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY REPORTING ON YOUR PROGRESSIVE CAMPAIGNS OF HATE." - American Nihilist: Pizza and The Same Old Douglas Whine, September 22, 2011, 12:28 AM

"I read up on this "tortious interference" business... With all respect due your fine lawyer, I'm pretty sure you must suffer some visible harm (like for instance, being fired as a result of something I myself posted) before you can make any such claim against me.

Specifically (from the link above, and with particular attention to numbers 3 and 5 in the first case, and 1-3 in the second):

To establish a claim for tortious interference of contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of the contract’s breach; (4) absence of justification; and (5) damages caused by the breach. Similarly, a claim for tortious interference with prospective advantage requires a showing that: (l) the defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the prospective contractual relation, (2) causing pecuniary harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, and (3) the interference either induced or otherwise caused a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or prevented the continuance of the prospective relation...." - American Nihilist: Pizza and The Same Old Douglas Whine September 22, 2011 1:25 PM

---

Relevant / on topic / interesting links:
Schneier on Security: Anonymous Internet Annoying Is Illegal in the U.S.
Concurring Opinions � Annoy someone online (anonymously); go to jail
Anonymous Internet annoyance illegal? Yes and no.
---

An American Nihilist x-post

X-Post: IN May Want Me; CA, Not So Much...

Regarding all this...

American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III
American Power: California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III

...this...

American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III
American Power: California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III.

I have it on extremely good and virtually unimpeachable authority that CA law enforcement has zero interest in what two bloggers (or at the very least, these particular two bloggers) say or do to or about each other on their respective blogs, including in/at their comment sections. The elements of the crime(s) have not been met, and CA has no jurisdiction over a NY blogger. NY and CA lawyers (the latter, a specialist in internet defamation/harassment/stalking/??? cases--and a real ambulance chaser... He's trying to convince me I have a case.) concur. (And for the record, IN really doesn't want me, either... Sometimes I wonder whether NY even cares...)

Maybe I'll have more to say about it all in future, but then again, maybe I won't... (It didn't deserve the attention it's already gotten...) ((OTOH, I mighta said more now, if I didn't have someplace I had to be...))

Thanks for the support, dear readers... (...all three or four of you...including the Berlusconi troll, even...) You folks is OK... ...for nihilist henchmen, anyway...
---

An American Nihilist x-post

In Reply: Donald Douglas' Attack on American Exceptionalism, and on Folks He Hates

In reply to American Power: Oops! MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Spews Hatred of American Exceptionalism: Racist Attack Blogger Walter James Casper III Caught Lying Again!
---

Sorry, Donald... but your "american exceptionalism" attack is nonsense. I never said that exceptionalism was not worth the breath with which it was spoken; I said there are those who use it as an excuse for nativism and divisiveness, and it is those excuses that are unworthy... Even your readers will be able to see the difference, Donald...

As for Rachel, I don't really know what she was trying to say (unless it was that America isn't perfect, maybe,)* but your guilt by association attack, as though I agree with or have to answer for every word the woman speaks, is pretty lame. I said my piece... Attack what I actually said... Don't just call it denialism and dishonesty... Show that it is either...

I feel bad for you Donald... Your need to lash out at others makes you a pathetic excuse for a man.

But thanks for "stalking" my blog and Twitter stream enough to launch this kind of ridiculousness... It shows how much of a hypocrite you really are...
---

*I later discovered that Rachel Maddow's intent was to question why so many refer to "a SHINING city on a hill," when the John Winthrop sermon from which the image was borrowed never referred to the city on a hill as shining.

"For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us."

Intentionally or not, Ronald Reagan recast the city on the hill as shining, perhaps in reference to the Sermon on the Mount, at Mathew 5, 14-16

14"You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

---

Links:
American Power: American Exceptionalism
Like too many republicans, mrs newt #3...
American Power: Oops! MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Spews Hatred of American Exceptionalism: Racist Attack Blogger Walter James Casper III Caught Lying Again!
Rachel Maddow Sniffs in Disdain at Belief in America as 'Shining' City on a Hill | NewsBusters.org
A Model of Christian Charity --- by Gov. John Winthrop, 1630
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III
---

Submitted AND APPROVED January 27, 2012, 1:52 PM (because Donald apparently intends to use the comments I submit to his blog and that he allows through moderation to "prove" to law enforcement that I am harassing him... I shit you not.)

X-Post: Is The Right To Free Speech Unlimited?

In reply to American Power: Patricia McAllister Fired by LAUSD: Anti-Semitic Teacher Caught on Tape at 'Occupy L.A.' Protest

Here is the story:

(Ironic last line, if ya ask me...)

Dr. Douglas expresses some very definite views on the matter in his post:

"The woman's entitled to her opinions, no matter how sick..."

"I find McAllister's comments reprehensible. But as one who's been the subject of a three-year campaign attempting to get me fired, I have serious issues with concern trolling bullshit like this."

"The district states a principle, yet abandons it because the teacher is untenured. Thus, being tenured creates rights that are denied to individuals not similarly situated. Ugly or not, the woman was stating her opinion, a political opinion, at a political rally while acting in private capacity. The district's decision reaches into the realm of personal space. And it should not. This is tyranny. They fired her because they could, not because it was right. And there's so much more going on there: McAllister taught small children, so perhaps parents would have been upset, as the Times suggests. Fine. Let the parents pull their kids out of class. Or better yet, let them pull their students out of the school altogether."

"Note how McAllister is not misspeaking when she spouts her hatred. It would have come out on the job, sooner or later. And if the kids in her charge are young and vulnerable, transfer her into the higher grades. If students are offended they'll know without having to be force-fed outrage. They can complain fair and square and the school would have been on solid ground in terminating her for racist, discriminatory speech in the classroom, prohibited by statutory regulation."

Donald Donald obviously believes that free speech is an absolute right, and there can be no abrogating the right of someone to say whatever they wish, without official consequence. It's an attractive idea...

But some feel differently...

From: Free speech -- within limits - latimes.com:

"This newspaper ardently supports the right to free speech, even when that speech is controversial, hateful or ignorant. But no right is absolute, and Patricia McAllister, a substitute teacher with the Los Angeles Unified School District, crossed a line with her anti-Semitic comment at Occupy Los Angeles."

"McAllister wasn't at work when she spoke. Though she identified herself as a school district employee, she was careful to note that she was not speaking as a representative of L.A. Unified. And Deasy knows as well as anyone that courts have historically — and correctly — protected teachers' free-speech rights.

But there are limits. As a teacher, McAllister works with a captive audience of vulnerable children. Her comments certainly raise questions about her ability to treat them all equally and fairly. What's more, even if she's been the soul of discretion on the job, as well as kind and evenhanded with all her students, by making herself a public symbol of intolerance, McAllister no longer can serve effectively as a teacher."

"As execrable as her comments were, it might be a different matter if McAllister were, say, a Department of Motor Vehicles clerk. There, she would be dealing with adults who could hold their own, and would have little direct authority over them. It also might be different if she had expressed a controversial opinion that was not an inflammatory attack on a particular ethnic or religious group.

We're reluctant to restrict anyone's ability to express even the most loathsome views openly and publicly. But when a teacher trumpets hateful opinions that could intimidate the impressionable young people she's supposed to be serving, that's not just free speech — it's a performance issue. In speaking out so intemperately, McAllister's ability to do her job was fatally compromised."

I'll note here that I made a similar distinction regarding WHERE someone works as regards another teacher, posted before this story broke (or before I knew anything about it, anyway), saying:

"While I oppose online disputes going offline, there are folks who have a legitimate right to speak to individuals at a person's place of employment, even about online issues--including someone's boss, if that's where it led--assuming the grievance is valid.

Were I a student or parent of a student at LBCC, it's likely that I would request not to be assigned into any of Dr. Douglas' classes, based on what I believe to be bigoted attitudes about African Americans, Muslims, gay folks, and those he deems too far left of center. I wouldn't want to be forced into subjecting myself or my child to someone who espouses such views, and were I a student or parent at that school, I believe I would have both the right and good cause to express my concerns. (Whether it's the right thing to do in a given circumstance is subject to interpretation, of course, and different individuals will likely have different opinions. While I'd speak up if Donald was a teacher or a candidate running for office, I wouldn't if he was a fry cook or a shoe salesman, though I probably wouldn't shop/spend money where he worked even then, just on principle.)

The same principle comes into play in the case of Vicky Knox, who was mentioned by one of the bloggers above. Vicky absolutely has free speech... ...but so do the parents in that school district, whether in support of her or otherwise. Free speech doesn't mean you're protected from having folks disagree with you...or even from folks holding you accountable for what you say..."

The debate is given a good airing in the comments at Libertarian Republican: Nazi-sympathizing LAUSD worker given the Axe by School District, including the following:

Chuck, OCTOBER 19, 2011 1:52 PM:
"Rightfully? Had she not announced who her employer was, thereby associating her remarks with same, you might have a point. Short of that, she has no case to make. If someone working for me was on tape all over the internet saying, "Yeah, I work for Coffer Contracting and I hate me some Jews, and we need to run their asses out of the country.", They'd be lucky to escape getting the shit beat out of them by yours truly, and I sure as shit wouldn't feel compelled to keep paying them to wreck my public image. Any suggestion that it should be otherwise is simply irrational."

Gary, OCTOBER 19, 2011 2:10 PM:
Chuckie only sees the little picture.

What happens when those evil and racist "Tea Baggers" are fired for their hate speech?

KN@PPSTER, OCTOBER 19, 2011 5:58 PM:
Chuck is meta-right -- to the extent that she may have associated her employer with her remarks, they had reason to dissociate from her.

On the other hand, this wasn't just any employer -- it was a government agency. I may not like private discrimination, but it's a right. Discrimination, even against the truly reprehensible, on the taxpayer dime is less justifiable.

And on the third hand, does anyone think that she'd have been fired if she had been speaking in favor of a school bond issue, or in support of same-sex marriage, or for in-state tuition for immigrants?

Even given my earlier statement, I do find the absolutist argument seductive, too. And of course, it all gets tied up in the fact that this woman worked for the government, rather than a private interest, which brings a different degree of scrutiny to bear... Firing her does amount to government censorship of her ideas, and once we grant the government the right to censor her views, an argument can be made that we give them the right to censor any government employee's views, whatever their politics...

Whatever you think about this story now, would your mind change if she had worked for--and been fired by--a private school?... your local pizza joint?...

Does an employer have the right to fire an employee whose outside-of-work behavior reflects poorly on his or her business, and should there be different rules for folks who work for the federal, state, or local government than there are for employees of private schools and businesses?

As long as a teacher keeps his or her disgusting bigotry or other nasty beliefs out of the classroom and off-campus, should there really be no recourse for those who find the bigotry reprehensible, short of removing yourself from the situation--home-schooling or changing schools--assuming that is even possible-- if one is the parent of a student (or the student himself) or finding another job if one is an offended co-worker?

Is there a difference between the freedom to express a thought, and being free of any legal or government consequence after one has done so, and are both embodied in the principle of Free Speech as we understand it?

What about the right of other individuals to speak in opposition to bigoted or other disgusting ideas, including demands that teachers (or anyone) who engage(s) in them not teach (or work) in their community? What obligation does an employer have to their "customers"?

There are limits to free speech... From inciting a riot to libel laws to "free speech zones," it is clear that one cannot say anything one wishes anywhere one wishes without consequence.

I believe that like pornography, there is a line between free speech and offensive speech, and every employee--including government employees--has to avoid stepping afoul of that line, or pass a kind of a smell test when they don't, where "we can't absolutely define it, but we know it when we see it" applies... Firing someone for expressing a conservative, liberal, atheist or Christian viewpoint is different from firing someone for bigoted speech... I trust the American people--in the form of juries, and the judges we elect or appoint--to understand the difference, and to get most of these questions right (though yes, there will be mistakes and decisions with which folks will disagree, just as with every other aspect of our imperfect judicial system.)

As tempting as it is to say all speech is and should be free of legal or government consequence, it's just not realistic... There have to be circumstance-specific standards, and a means to limit the exposure to/of those who refuse to abide by them. One size does not fit all, and each situation should be judged by it's own merits and the standards that apply to it...

Thoughts?

---
Also talking about it:

American Power: Patricia McAllister Fired by LAUSD: Anti-Semitic Teacher Caught on Tape at 'Occupy L.A.' Protest

Free speech -- within limits - latimes.com

The Devil's American Nihilist Henchmen: Online Disagreements and The Offline World We Live In...

Libertarian Republican: Nazi-sympathizing LAUSD worker given the Axe by School District
and
Libertarian Republican: Patty the L.A. Nazi doubles down: Truth needs to be told about the "Zionist Jews" controlling our money system

Reason Guilty of Anti-ANTI-Semitism: Sub Teacher Fired - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Should anti-Semitic Occupy LA woman have been fired? (Reader poll) - Legal Insurrection
---

An American Nihilist and Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post