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

X-Post: Dishonest Donald Douglas: Fascist First Amendment Fail

Three stories, common theme:

American Power: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

"MY free speech rights are sacrosanct. YOUR free speech rights are fascist*."
(*Donald Douglas epithet / misused word of the week, apparently.)
((Also, dig the side order of "Might Money makes right."))
---

Palin: Calling For Chick-Fil-A Boycott "Has A Chilling Effect On Our First Amendment Rights" | Video | Media Matters for America



"MY free speech is sacrosanct. YOUR free speech chills free speech."
(And by the way, how DARE you use your free speech to expose mine for the bigoted tripe that it is.)
---

May I present "conservative, heterosexual, white male" John Rocker:

"Over recent years, it seems the term “free speech” has become more of an oxymoron than an absolute in our society. Technically, as our Founding Fathers intended, we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement. I supposedly have the same right to express myself as you do. In a perfect world, my rights should be no different from yours. I’m quite certain that given the current stage of the world’s social climate, however, anyone ascribing to the ridiculous notion that our world is perfect is kidding himself. Our “perfect” world was replaced many moons ago by the defective reality in which we are all forced to reside – and one of the most blatant areas to view the erosion of perfection is seen in the lack of ability many in this great country have to speak freely without fear of chastisement."

"MY free speech is socra.. sicru... ... the gooddest. YOUR free speech hurts my conservative, heterosexual, white male feelings."

Best post on Rocker, bar none: The Right Not To Be Criticized: John Rocker Edition | Popehat. Read it, but protect your screen from beverage / bodily fluid spray...


Links:
American Power: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

Palin: Calling For Chick-Fil-A Boycott "Has A Chilling Effect On Our First Amendment Rights" | Video | Media Matters for America

The Right Not To Be Criticized: John Rocker Edition | Popehat
---

An American Nihilist X-post

In Reply: Don't Make the Perfect the Enemy of the Good. Every Little Bit Helps.

In reply to the following comment at the post, The Freedom Not To Participate | Popehat:

Demosthenes • Jul 28, 2012 @3:50 pm:

repsac3:

"I start with the premise that if money is speech, I want as many of my measly dollars as possible to be lifting their voices in accord with my values…I'm certainly not going to willingly fail to use an agent of change I have at my disposal…To me, paying attention to both the value of the products and the sociopolitical values of the people who create them are important."

You don't actually live by that premise, I bet. Do you question the business owners and employees of every business you patronize, to see whether their values accord with yours? Do you refuse to go to (just an example) the McDonald's at 12th and State, even if you don't (or didn't) have a problem with McDonald's generally, because the franchisee there isn't in accord with your political views? And that must be really hard if you buy anything off E-Bay or Amazon's used market. Many people there aren't so good about e-mail.

Or is it just that, once you hear about someone doing or saying something you don't like, you stop (or don't start) buying from them? Because if so, that's your right, although I object to you actually doing it for the same reasons I've already explained to Grifter. But — and I don't mean to insult you by saying this — I just find it highly unlikely that you're as proactive in honoring your principles as you've made it seem. Most people tend to be more reactive.
---

@Demosthenes: Nowhere did I say one must consider one's values in absolutely every instance, or that not doing so in some cases–whether out of ignorance or because "dammit, I really want that burger"–invalidates those times when one does shop here rather than there because of the company's stand on marriage equality (for or against), employee healthcare (whether you believe they offer too much or too little), or any other issue you care about. That's like saying one's opposition to US military action in any one case, means that one must therefore oppose (or at least weigh in on) US military action in every case, or one's opposition in the particular case is somehow less worthy. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.

To be absolutely clear, I believe that one starts where one starts and does what one can, and that every action one takes in furtherance of affecting the world in a positive way is a step in the right direction. It's like the story of The Boy and the Starfish. If litter is something that bothers you, there is no shame in only picking up one plastic shopping bag worth of garbage at a trash-strewn playground while watching your kids play on the swings. You made that playground one plastic shopping bag's worth more clean. Every little bit helps.

Now, since you dragged me in, I don't share your view about the difference between speech and action, in the sense that what one says is an expression of what one actually does, intends to do, or at the very least, would like to do. I'm not suggesting that a person saying "I want to rob a bank" is the same as actually robbing a bank or that one could or should be legally prosecuted for the thoughts they express…but I might consider avoiding walking into a bank with that guy, just in case.

Words express ideas and beliefs, and some ideas and beliefs are offensive, whether acted on or not. In the case of Chick-fil-A, I'm not offended by the CEO's proclamation of faith or his belief about the sinful nature of homosexuality. I disagree, but I treat things like that the same way I treat those who don't eat certain foods on certain days based on their religious beliefs. In both cases, I'm good, as long as you don't insist that I believe what you believe, or try to pass laws forcing me to adhere to your religious beliefs. If your church teaches you not to engage in homosexual behavior or eat meat on Fridays, I'm cool with that. But when you try to enact laws forbidding me to eat steak on Friday (or have sex with another consenting adult, whatever the day stitched into my underwear), your crossing the line. Chick-fil-A donated money and took other actions that help to prevent certain consenting adults from forming the relationships they choose, and partaking of the same benefits as other consenting adults who do so. And I'm opposed to that. It's that simple.
---

Posted Jul 28, 2012 @5:21 pm

In Reply: If money is Speech, Shouldn't Yours Say What You Want it to Say?

In reply to The Freedom Not To Participate | Popehat

I start with the premise that if money is speech, I want as many of my measly dollars as possible to be lifting their voices in accord with my values. The way I see it, individual citizens don't have enough ways to influence the world as it is, and I'm certainly not going to willingly fail to use an agent of change I have at my disposal.

Beyond that, I think a whole lot of what we do in this world speaks to and in effect casts a vote for one's values regardless–whether one does or doesn't purchase Chick-fil-A over the company's social stands or because they love (or hate) the food, the advertising, the way the drive-thru's work, or for any other reason, that person is speaking up for their values.

To me, paying attention to both the value of the products and the sociopolitical values of the people who create them are important. I prefer to reward those who agree with me and ignore (if not outright punish) those who don't, including via my wallet–another way I express myself, money being speech, n'all….

Some folks just like chicken (or prefer pizza).

That's America, in a nutshell.

Some folks will consume all the news they can, learning about all the issues and carefully weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Other folks will vote for the one who looks a lot like their favorite movie actor or whose mother was born just two towns over. Values, either way.
---

Posted Jul 28, 2012 @3:35 pm

In Reply: When Eagle (Scouts) Attack (or, of loyalty oaths and litmus tests)

In reply to I Am Not the Best Kind of Citizen - Popehat
---

I left Troop 106, Huntington, NY, when the scoutmaster told my friend--an atheist--that he had to leave the summer camp out and quit the troop if he refused to attend one of the Sunday services. He packed up and left, and I left with him. (I'm guessing this was 1979 or '80.)

There is very little chance I ever would've become an Eagle scout, and there's even a good chance I would've quit scouting altogether anyway... but I was very proud of my friend for standing up for his right of conscience that day--I probably would've picked a service and gone, were I in his shoes--and I'm glad to this day that I left with him.

I can understand institutions and groups who want to instill values in their members, including particular religious or sociopolitical values. What I cannot understand--and refuse to be a part of--are institutions and groups who refuse to allow people admittance unless they subscribe to those particular values at the outset. I've never been a fan of Loyalty Oaths and litmus tests...
---

Posted Jul 23, 2012 @5:56 pm
---

The whole discussion is pretty fascinating, whatever your views on the Boy Scouts or religious faith. If you're interested, I suggest reading this whole post, including the comment section (That link again was: I Am Not the Best Kind of Citizen - Popehat) as well as this post: Atheist Scout Booted from Scouting - Beliefnet.com (my friend obviously wasn't the only one) and the follow-up post at Popehat: Guest Post: An Eagle Scout's Thoughts On The BSA's Policies | Popehat (including the comment section)

The original Popehat post was inspired by Eagle Scouts stand up to the Boy Scouts of America: *UPDATED* - Boing Boing, which talks about the BSA's stand on homosexuality, and what a number of Eagle Scouts are doing in protest. Some of the letters bring tears to my eyes.

For the record, while I'd like for BSA to open up and change their policies regarding religious faith and homosexuality, they are a private organization, and can set their membership rules according to the values they wish to instill in their members. I also support the laws that prohibit some government entities from working with them as long as they continue to forbid membership to protected classes of people. I view them the same way I do religious faiths and denominations other than my own; they have every right to believe as they do, but I have just as much right to reject their teachings in favor of my own. The BSA are not bigots, but their beliefs do conflict with American values regarding equality, as well as with the beliefs of my faith regarding the inherent worth and dignity of all persons.

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

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.