In Reply: Standing up and speaking out against on and offline bullies is about encouraging us not to passively accept their nonsense and to protect and defend ourselves and each other.

Revised and extended a little, in reply to the following comment at the intentionally lyin'assed Other McCain post "Portrait of a Stalker Troll: @Repsac3, Also Known as Walter James Casper III," by "journalist" Robert Stacy McCain:

Actually, no...that's exactly what it's like within fandom communities. Politics, fandom...it's generally the same online because the Internet is like never leaving junior high.

And...you missed my point. But I think I know what the problem is. I'm sure you know what the Streisand Effect is. (My personal favorite example is the now infamous Charles Carreon) So here are a few helpful guides. (Sorry for the language, folks)

The Complete Guide to Not Giving a Fuck.
The actual advice in here is a little questionable, but the important thing is the point that people are going to believe things about you that you don't think are true, and no amount of "setting them straight" is going to change that, like our friend Girl B's situation. She just wants people to hear her side, too. Does it work, though? Nope. The only thing you can really do is Not Give a Fuck. And as the writer notes, most people neither know nor care. I certainly didn't, and I can tell you this fact right now: if you hadn't responded, I would have forgotten about you already. Really.

My guide to not giving a fuck // Alden Tan.
This one, IMO, has more practical advice, primarily because he's pointing out that bitching on social media won't solve anything. Seriously, I don't even use it to vent. Private journals are a wonderful thing.

And finally, my personal favorite:

wadewilson: Internet Drama And You.
Though this is centered around that wacky subset of fandom known as roleplayers about whom I plead the Fifth on knowing anything about, it's still good advice about this issue. (So you can skip the whole "Pretendy fun time games" bit...unless you want to apply that to political discussions online. Because really, is anyone in any position to do anything even paying attention to us? Ha...big bag of NOPE.) But the big point here is that even though you might not start Internet drama yourself, you can end it.

Oh, and have I been there? You bet your ass I have. Someone on one of these commiseration spirals had badmouthed a good friend of mine. It hurts even worse when one of these spoiled little girls insults someone I care about, but part of learning to not give a fuck was learning that their opinion of her wasn't even worth the thought I was giving it. They weren't going to change their single functioning collective brain cell over it, so I had to make the hard choice to just drop it. Was if fair? HELL NO. Did I have a right to defend her? Sure I did. Was it worth it lowering myself to their level? Not even remotely. But ultimately, I just wanted these mouthbreathers to leave us alone, and they did. The price of that was allowing their short attention spans work in my favor. That's pretty much the universal Internet currency of peace of mind: letting people forget about you. - La Pucelle

All I can say is we disagree... In my opinion you put entirly too much responsibility on the people being attacked, and virtually none on the people doing the attacking. I would never want to live in a world where people--victims, potential victims, and good people everywhere--don't stand up to bullies, online or off. Standing up and speaking out isn't about convincing the bullies; with very few exceptions, they're a lost cause. It's about encouraging the rest of us not to passively accept their nonsense and to protect and defend ourselves and each other.

You certainly can ignore a single isolated incident or two (and yes, it probably is in your best interest to do so, for exactly the reasons you describe.) But follow McCain's link to Donald Douglas' behavior over the last year or so one more time. These are not single, isolated incidents and they are not motivated by anything I do or do not do. The behavior shown at that link is Donald Douglas' responsibility and cross to bear. That he has chosen to make me the object of his "affections" has nothing to do with me, and my pretending that he isn't behaving the way he is isn't going to make him stop behaving the way he does toward me.

In any case, adding the guy's posts to a list the way I do may not be your solution, but it surely isn't stalking, harassment, or trolling, either. I trust you can see that. (If it helps, think of the list as my tiny contribution to Dr. Douglas' own little Streisand Effect. His attempts to obfuscate his responsibly for his strange behavior, and instead accuse me, is just as deserving of that sort of pushback, is it not? I mean, it's not like you're saying no one should've posted about Charles Carron's (or Babs') bad behaviors, right?)

Thanks for the conversation, though... I appreciate your thoughts, even though I don't entirely agree with 'em...

Personally, I'm glad you haven't "forgotten about me already"... Aside from the enlightening conversation, your willingness to discuss it with me renewed my longstanding belief that, even here on the internet, not every partisan from the "other" side (or "our" side, for that matter) is obligated to behave like all is WAR!!! While I don't plan to spend much time in McCain's comment sections, I hope to run into you again.
--

Posted Thursday, January 9, 2014, 10:25 AM (or thereabouts)
--

When I was posing La Pucelle's links here, I took the time to read them more thoroughly than I did initially. The following, from The Complete Guide to Not Giving a Fuck, actually argues for my position, and I'm sorry I didn't notice it until long after I posted my reply comment to him on McCain's site. (It may also explain why he found some of the advice there "a little questionable."):

STEP 4. Tell the truth.

You don’t need to be an asshole, but the world does not need another conflict-avoidant, evasive person. No one wants another individual who steps in line with everyone else. The status quo is doing fine without you, so it’s up to you to call bullshit if you see it.

In Reply: I don't agree that I should willingly silence myself against those who lash out and lie about me, even if I'm throwing away the opportunity to be the better man by speaking up

Revised and extended a little, in reply to the following comment at the (surprisingly, willfully dishonest) Other McCain post "Portrait of a Stalker Troll: @Repsac3, Also Known as Walter James Casper III," by "journalist" Robert Stacy McCain:

OK, here's the deal: I'm going to give you a fair shake because you're actually coherent. (unlike Schmeldfelt) I was right, I've seen this before. Specifically on LiveJournal fandom communities. As much as I'll admit that I look down on teenage girls in fandoms, they've provided a lot of insight and some of them have been surprisingly mature. So here goes.

Girl A and B are in the same fandom, let's say Doctor Who, and they both write fanfiction. Girl A is upset at Girl B for some reason, let's say that Girl B doesn't like the Doctor/Jack Harkness "ship" and writes Doctor/Martha fanfiction. So Girl A starts writing gossip on her LJ about Girl B, and Girl A's clique gets in on it. And even worse, either Girl A or one of her clique starts posting in one of the many anonymous communities about Girl B and her fanfiction. (They're like 4chan. If you don't know, don't ask. Believe me, you're better off not knowing) Every manner of high school gossip you can think of, with a bunch of "anons" badmouthing Girl B among a relatively small community. However, they keep their gossip and badmouthing to their own journals and the anonymous community; they never contact her directly.

Now, Girl B usually has two options. The first option is to go on these communities to defend her reputation. Occasionally, the friends of the injured party also get in on the act to defend their friend, i.e., "whiteknighting", thereby escalating the incident and earning Girl B a reputation as a "wanker", someone who drags out drama. By answering drama with more drama, Girl B ends up making a bad reputation all on her own where one usually never existed in the first place.

The other option Girl B can take is ignoring the threads about her on anonymous communities or on the journals of Girl A or those of her friends. And eventually, the drama started by Girl A fades away, since Internet memories tend to be short unless there's something to the rumors or the issue is exacerbated and artificially extended by Girl B herself.

Is it fair? Hardly. Welcome to human nature. But it's been accepted by both courts and by piddling little online fandoms alike that being gossiped about online is not cyberstalking. When badmouthing crosses over into direct and continued contact, it becomes bullying, and persistent following of someone crosses into stalking. One tweet does not constitute stalking or bullying, but continued attempts to contact a target is, even if the stalker in question thinks he is "trying to set the record straight." No one else sees it this way, nor will anyone but the stalker ever see it this way.

So that's pretty much where we are right now. You have the same options as Girl B. - La Pucelle

First off, the nature of partisan blogging is that it is confrontational... We frequently post on our blogs about the facts, ideas, and attitudes that another blogger is discussing on his, sometimes in agreement, but far more often in opposition. Sometimes the confrontations are all about the ideas, and sometimes they get personal, but ether way, it's built into the thing in a way it more than likely isn't in the communities you're describing.

That said, there has been no contact between Dr Douglas and I in about 9 months. He posts about me on his blog or via twitter, and I respond in kind, posting about what he said or making note of the fact that he once again lashed out, on my twitter feed or blog...

Sure, I have the choice not to post... (...just like Dr Douglas does, and just like every blogger or commenter or twitter-user does, just before posting about what some liberal/conservative asshat said on their blog.) But being cowed into silence because the crazy ass who's writing about you will be somewhere between slightly-and-somewhat more likely to post additional crazy shit about you if you respond to what he says (and will perhaps have friends who'll pile on along with him, taboot) is no way to live your life...

I call Donald Douglas out when he attacks because much of what he says is patently untrue, and he shouldn't be able to lie about me on his blog without my pointing out every lie he tells on mine if I so choose...not even if some think that not doing so would be the smarter or more "sane, grown-up" way to behave.

I understand what you're getting at but no, I don't agree that I should willingly silence myself against those who lash out and lie about me, even if I'm throwing away the opportunity to be the better man by speaking up... (I decided a few years ago to curtail being the guy who lashes out in the first place as often as possible--and yes, I have at times failed at doing that, since...but that's about as far as I'm willing to go...)

(As an aside, if even half of we partisan bloggers and commenters were sane grown-ups, the partisan blogosphere would shrivel up and die.)
---

Posted Wednesday, January 8, 2013, 10:45 PM (or thereabouts)

In Reply: Stupid Behavior and Online Lynch Mobs

In reply to Why Did BuzzFeed & Co. Target Justine Sacco for Online Assassination

In general I'm against these social media lynch mobs and people being fired (or even disciplined) by their employers, especially for words and deeds that take place outside the workplace (and in some cases, at the workplace either.) That goes for this woman, the duck guy, Imus, the idiot who mistreated the Chick-fil-a girl back when that was going on, the girl at Arlington National Cemetery who wiseassedly mocked the sign calling for quiet and respect in a pair of photos posed on her Facebook account, and maybe even Bashir, too... While the people/companies they work for have the right to let them go if their words or deeds reflect poorly on the company products or brand, I think it's a mistake for employers to get that involved in their employee's off work political or social behaviors.

The same goes for people who disagree with bloggers or political partisans and take/make their attacks on them offline, by releasing personal information about where they live, work, shop or worship, and who their spouses or kids are, thus condoneing (and let's be honest, in some cases encouraging) people to harass them and their families or try to get them fired from their jobs. (I see little difference between the hounding of this woman and the personal attacks (not the policy disagreements or even the photoshop mockery, but the personal attacks on the kid, himself) on PajamaBoy, for instance. YMMV... -- For more on this, there's a great discussion on the Popehat Blog, at a post titled "The Political Is Personal. Why?")

In short, this liberal pretty much agrees with this post...

Posted 12/21/13, about 1:40 PM (Blog uses relative times--currently "3 hours ago"--I'll fix the times later, if/when the blog gets more specific.)

And when someone pointed out that I hadn't mentioned Paula Deen...

Yep, her too...
In her case I think she might've done some of what she was accused of, but it was a long time ago, and she seemed to be legitimately sorry. I believe people can screw up, and then learn and grow and do better. (I'd also put Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond in that category... and yes, I think Trent Lott got railroaded trying to say something nice to/about an old man.)

(On Edit): See also: Dixie Chicks

And... I also didn't mention Baldwin. He verbally exposed himself too many times. Whether he's a bigot or has anger issues (or both), he deserved what he got, and sooner than he got it, too. 'nuff said.

Posted 12/21/13, about 2:40 PM

On a similar subject (sort of): Donald Douglas - An Ethical "Push-me, Pull-you"

In Reply: "free speech is often about defending the rights of those one finds repugnant" (Simple Justice)

In reply to: Blogging: More Than The Cost of Admission | Simple Justice, wherein the author brings up several points worthy of consideration as concerns defending folks (and in particular, those folks) against Team Kimberlin.
---

You bring up several points that definitely deserve consideration...and do so with respect for all sides, which is all too rare here on the internet machine.

In fact, most of 'em are so worthy of consideration that I want to stew over 'em for awhile before expressing an opinion.

In part, I'm concerned that my desire not to support the rightwing bloggers on partisan and personal grounds is influencing my opinion of some of what you've said here. I believe in free speech and more speech, but I find some of the folks that stance has me defending morally repugnant and personally ungrateful, besides. While I'm defending them, they're attacking me both personally and via sweeping generalization. It definitely makes one want to just not bother, and some of what you've written here might be justification to do just that.

On the other hand, one's values are one's values. No one ever said it was easy, and free speech is often about defending the rights of those one finds repugnant. In any case, I just want to be sure that I'm agreeing with you (or Ken) for the right reasons.

The only bit I can speak to (at least a little) is whether there isn't a person or cause more deserving. My take has always been that one does what one does and starts where one starts. Every dollar donated to one cause is a dollar that isn't donated to any other cause. By donating to help families who lost their homes in a natural disaster, you're not helping starving children in Africa. By spaying and neutering stray cats, you're turning your back on programs that help homeless veterans. And yeah, putting money into a defense fund for internet free speech necessarily means those who do will give less to defend the indigent accused of more serious crime.

I take this all to be a plea to consider what's really important to you, and to donate accordingly. But at the same time, I also think there have to be people out there for free speech AND folks for indigents accused of murder AND people whose cause is stray cats AND... (etc.) While it's up to us to put our money where our values are, choosing from among all the competing "goods" there are, it's also important that someone fights for the local art museum, music education or the grey spotted salamander, even if others believe that money could be much better spent saving the causes they champion instead. We start where we start, and we do what we can (and we hope others do too, so that every worthy cause ultimately gets funded.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval September 18, 2013 at 1:27 pm

In Reply: Delete Tweet, or Own Up to Your Mistakes? (Legal Insurrection)

In reply to the Legal Insurrection post To delete a tweet, or not to delete a tweet, that is the question, discussing whether or not to disappear tweets (and by extension, blog posts, etc) where one offers, repeats, or reacts to inaccurate infirmation or says something that turns out to be embarassing. (Follow the link above to the original post for more info.)

I can see both sides (especially in the case of traditional media outlets which, like it or don't, many trust more than bloggers), but I'm in the "leave it up and issue a correction tweet or two" camp. (In some instances when I've tweeted incorrect information (when I thought it was a serious enough error), I've also gone back and commented on my own tweet, correcting the incorrect info. Problem solved.)

While it's embarrassing to repeat, retweet, or react to a news report that later turns out to've been incorrect, I don't so much blame the person who repeated it as the source of the bad information. (Yeah, I hold the "traditional media" to a higher standard than I do bloggers and other social media users, too.)

Everyone makes mistakes, overreacts, or otherwise puts out things they later wish they hadn't (or at the very least, had handled differently). Owning up to being a human being with human foibles makes one more trustworthy in the long run.
--

Posted September 18, 2013 at 12:07 pm

Something I Really Need To Remember...

Sunday Morning Wordle, 8/4/12 (x2)

Via blog link:

Via text cut'n'paste:

(I've been using the former method, but I think I prefer the latter, even if it is more work. The html link doesn't cover the whole week (or everything on the visible page, which it more what I expected), obviously... All those mentions of "chicken" in the "chick-fil-a playlist" post should've blown that word up in the first version the same way it did in the second.)

---

Sunday Morning Wordle, 7/29/12

Sunday Morning Wordle, 7/22/12

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 to: Aurora Tragedy Shines Spotlight On Medical Schools | Popehat:

I thought this post was "too soon," as well… …until I followed a few of the links, and read some other posts out there in the blogosphere. My conclusion now is that 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.
---

Also:
Half-Assed Media Speculation About the Batman Shooter - Hit & Run: Reason.com
---

Posted Jul 20, 2012 @7:23 pm

Sunday Morning Wordle, 7/1/12

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: "...these swattings did happen to these bloggers, and someone dunnit." (Kimberlin, Swatting, Free Speech)

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

"Not that I’m necessarily on either or any side here, but what proof/evidence is there that these “SWATtings” were actually performed by Kimberlin or his associates?" - M. Bouffant, June 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm
---

It’s almost all circumstantial, but it does seem to be happening to this particular group of bloggers, all of whom wrote stories critical of Brett Kimberlin and his cohorts. While some of the bloggers in question seem a whole lot more sure than I am about whodunnit–in some cases exactly whodunnit–the fact is, these swattings did happen to these bloggers not long after exposing or embarrassing Kimberlin and co., and someone dunnit.

Besides, even if one is skeptical–even to the point of thinking it might be an inside, false-flag mission, even (and while i’m not linking to ‘em, there are folks who believe that)–putting more sunlight on the thing and speaking out for federal investigations or task forces or whatever is still a good thing, in that a successful investigation will expose the guilty parties, whoever they are.
---

Posted June 26, 2012 at 7:49 pm

In Reply: It ain't about left v right... It's about right v wrong. (#Kimberlin, Patterico's Pontifications)

In reply to: Patterico's Pontifications ~ Aaron Walker SWATted
---

"The part that sickens me is that if lefties were getting SWATted, fringe right people would say the same kind of crap. We’ve reached the point where many don’t even see political opponents as people."

Amen, Patterico.

Many folks have talked about these issues for what they are; the badass nasty dangerous tactics of some pretty awful (and likely not quite sane) people, and in the case of Aaron especially, attacks on free speech. (To be honest, I've spent alot more time following and commenting about Aaron's situation because there was a clearly identified villan and the whole thing was much easier to understand. The rest is pretty speculative, with shadowy characters that all sound a little too Truther/Birther conspiratorial to get a handle on...)

For too many others though, the whole thing has become a convenient way to attack the left, which makes it that much harder for libs to stand up for free speech and no threats, SWATting, or lawfare for all. Anon--who writes in an awful familiar tone, btw--is just one example of the kind of attacks we on the left face when talking about this. Anytime folks try to talk about these attacks in a non-partisan way--or God / FSM / heaven forbid, actually say these are NOT left vs right, lib vs con issues--there is some pretty intense pushback, including from some of the more involved players (My most recent run-in was with Lee Stranahan, who jumped into a Twitter conversation stream between Liberty_chick and I, just to assert that we were wrong, and it IS a left vs right issue.)

Partisanship has it's place, but not when people are having armed units sent to their houses and having their free speech rights curtailed. Those who insist on making these attacks on (mostly) rightwing bloggers into examples of just what all eeeeevil commie-nihilist liberal leftists are like... ...Well, all I can say is, you may be helping your cause, but that cause isn't justice for the folks who've been SWATted or sued by these dangerous individuals. Far be it for some crazy lib like me to tell you what to do here... ...but if you're making this a referendum on liberals, instead of a war for free speech and safe congress for all of us, you really ought to rethink what you're doing, and why. (Don't listen to me if you suspect my motives or my sincerity are not up to your exacting standards; instead, listen to the many voices on your own side of the partisan fence preaching from the same gospel as I am. It ain't about left v right... It's about right v wrong.)

~~~

No one, no matter their politics, deserves to have the police sent to their house under false pretenses, period.

No one, no matter their politics, deserves to be threatened with acts of violence to themselves or their families, or acts of vandalism to their property, period.

No one, no matter their politics, deserves to be repeatedly dragged into court under false or frivolous pretenses in an effort to keep them quiet, period. (...though here, I blame the legal system almost as much as the serial litigants themselves. Anti-SLAPP laws and a more informed judiciary would go a long way, here.)

I don't think I could be any more clear as to where I stand, but if I was the slightest bit vague, I'll do what I can to clarify... (FWIW, I got SEK's initial comment, eventually... but it took several readings to figure out his meaning and intent in posting what he did. I have faith that his blog post will be far more clear.)
---

Posted 6/26/2012 @ 1:29 am PP blog time.

Judging Friends and Foes Over the Intertubes and Innernets

repsac3: Folks online are only as real...

repsac3: Fortunately, there is a record...

repsac3: ...the real meat--the REAL truth...

repsac3: To whatever extent...

Advice from others has it's place, but firsthand experience and your own good sense is worth far more. Don't spend a whole lot of time listening to some third party characterize and interpret what a person said and did through the lens of their own biases and beliefs--especially when you can see exactly what that person said and did, in full context, all on your own.

For good and for ill, anyone whose been online for awhile has created a searchable record that speaks to who they are. The truth is out there. Use it, and judge for yourself...

In Reply: I'm Sorry... WHO Broke the Agreement?!?

In reply to this comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "Because really important news always involves bikinis.":

I promised to make no mention of him nor link to him, and I did neither. He’s bound by the same agreement, but has continually violated it over the past few months, a fact about which I really don’t care, which is why I haven’t brought it up.

(However, I’m glad he’s posting my phone number on the Internet, though, as that’s a very polite thing to do.)
---

I was gonna say... T'wasn't you who broke the ceasefire agreement... Teh Donalde's mentioned you and that guy who isn't TinTin several times recently, [on edit: SEK, only once, on Friday, May 18, 2012; it was the other guy Dr. Douglas mentioned several times.] hoping to get in on the whole "I'm a victim" thing brought on by the RW "Kimberlin" jihad of late. (He wants so very badly to be taken seriously by his fellow Wingnuts that he's willing to do whatever it takes... Sadly for him, several folks on the right saw through the mask and called him out for his own anti-free speech / Kimberlin-like behaviors...)

Besides... I have screencaps... God is watching...
---

Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:47 pm

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

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 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