In Reply: There is no intolerance in saying "I disagree with that"...

In reply to Brendan Eich Firing Called Fascism by Conservatives | New Republic:

Yep... There's no fascism here... This is a guy making a donation to a cause he supports, other people deciding they don't want to work for or support a company that would hire a guy who made that particular donation, and the company (and by some accounts, the original guy, too) deciding that the controversy over his donation is bad for the company. (And now, a whole bunch of different people deciding they don't want to support a company that would force or allow that original guy to go... Stay tuned...)

That's all free speech (in the general sense), free association, and free market...

And while we're at it, the toleration meme--that one is forced by some odd notion of "tolerance" to passively accept whatever nonsense (bigotry, lies, false information, ...) comes out of any other American's mouth (or keyboard, or free speaking wallet) or one is a baaaaad liberal--is another one for the debunked dung heap. There is no intolerance in saying "I disagree with that" (that idea, that political belief, that notion about marriage), or with saying "I will not shop in a place (or work in a place) where the CEO of the company expresses that point of view."

And while I know this'll probably hit the "we never claimed to be tolerant" buzzsaw, I wonder where their tolerance is for the board's decision, or for the ideals of the people who were boycotting Mozilla last week, as they boycott Mozilla themselves this week?

Where indeed...
---

Posted Monday, April 7, 2014, 11:30 PM

In Reply: Free speech means that the folks who disagree with you get to respond to what you say with speech of their own.

In reply to the following comment by LtColO at the post: ‘Bastion of intolerance and punishment’: Tammy Bruce shreds Mozilla for caving to ‘gay gestapo’ | Twitchy:

"I'm just curious when Silicon Valley will get REAL righteous and start ousting all these Muslim engineers that are busting out code for them on the daily? I mean, that's a faith that doesn't tolerate ANY acceptance of the gay "lifestyle" whatsoever. So go for it! Be consistent! And don't give me the dodge, "Well, being a CEO is one thing" because there are plenty of critical leadership roles below CEO that are held by Muslims. I want to see the gutsy Leftists really walk the talk."
---

Maybe you should highlight one of those critical leaders and start a boycott...if that's not too anti-free speech. (Or should that be "if it's only anti-free speech when folks who disagree with you boycott.")

Deciding which products and services you will and will not use is the very essence of free speech--even if you decide based on things that the CEO, board of directors, or "critical leaders within the company who are muslim" (or who are associated by their religion with actually-guilty others) have said or done.

With very few exceptions, the "traditional marriage" people boycotting Mozilla this week are not behaving any differently than the "marriage equality" folks boycotting them last week, and neither group are fascists or opposing free speech by behaving as they are. Free speech means that the folks who disagree with you get to respond to what you say with speech of their own.
---

Posted Monday, April 7, 2014, 9:34 PM

In Reply: No... That ain't fascism you're smelling... It's freedom.

In reply to the following comment by ztitans1 at the post The absurdity of the Mozilla boycott - WashingtonExaminer.com:

"That is a slippery slope if you justify someone being driven from their employment due to their socio-political beliefs. I say you and those who think like this better get prepared for when the pendulum swings. Retribution may be swift and violent. People wil not react well as their liberties cocontinue to be taken away by the PC crowd. Tolerance of other people's views used to be part of the liberal philosophy, when did they crossover to tyranny?"
---

I believe in the public's right to decide which companies they do and do not give their money to, and to decide that based on whatever criteria they choose, including the socio-political beliefs of the CEO of the company...or their board of directors. Every conservative who is deleting their Firefox browser is behaving like they believe that too, in spite of their words calling such behavior FASCISM!! or a slippery slope.

No one's saying a person or corporate entity cannot have and express whatever views they wish...but if they take positions on controversial issues, there will be people--sometimes a whole lot of people--who will not do business with them based on those views. That is as true of the traditional marriage folks boycotting Mozilla today as it was the marriage equality folks boycotting them last week. That is what free speech and freedom in general is all about...

Honestly, I don't believe you really disagree with that, your vague but dire warnings to the contrary...

Tolerance of other people's views means live and let live, not limiting the legal rights and opportunities of certain people because you have a moral objection to how they live and love. If Brendan were tolerant, he wouldn't've financially supported a law that would refuse to allow or recognize marriage equality, and would retroactively strip the rights of legally married couples. Tolerance of other people's views does not mean one must passively accept whatever nonsense someone expresses. (If it did this conversation wouldn't be taking place; either you'd be "tolerating" my views, or I'd be "tolerating" yours... All that would be left to figure out is what omnipotent overlord gets to decide which of our views deserves "toleration" and which does not.)

I believe in free speech and the marketplace of ideas... You don't have to agree with me (or even tolerate me--at least the way you're defining it), I don't have to agree with (or tolerate) you, and each of us can decide which companies we will and will not spend our money supporting, based on whatever ideas and ideals we have and hold.

No... That ain't fascism you're smelling... It's freedom.
---

Posted Monday, April 7, 2014, 5:35 PM

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: "Speaking out is seldom if ever un-American, whether in support of Geller and her bigotry or in opposition to it." (Bigotry, Pamela Geller, Dishonesty, Free Speech, Protest)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the post Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller - Great Neck, NY Patch:

"repsec3 here is the official reason given by the synagogue (not PG) for their withdrawal. They were worried about the safety of their children, etc obviously from radical Islam! What's not to understand? Nearly every time there is a conference on shariah or radcial islam, the hotels etc are pressured to cancel as happened here by a government official no less among others. It's deniers like you that enable their UnAmerican tactics...

'As the notoriety and media exposure of the planned program this Sunday have increased, so has the legal liability and potential security exposure of our institution and it's [sic] member families. In an era of heightened security concerns it is irresponsible to jeopardize the safety of those who call Great Neck Synagogue home, especially our children, even at the risk of diverting attention from a potentially important voice in the ongoing debate.'"

---

My Reply:

Funny that you choose to include "obviously from radical islam" in your response, when that obviously wasn't in the synagogue's statement. The only announced protest in opposition to Geller's appearance that I can find was organized by members of the Great Neck Synagogue, who intended to hold up signs across the street. The interfaith organization and the rabbis who were opposed pretty specifically said they did not intend to attend or to stage any protest. In fact, the only real push for a large on-site protest was being made by Ms. Geller's supporters. (And that's to say nothing of the armed bodyguards she announced she'd be bringing with her. Necessary or not, I'd imagine that they upped the synagogue's potential legal liability and security exposure.)

Now, I do think it was somewhat short-sighted of the synagogue to choose to have this event while the children were attending Sunday school at the same time--and I question why they didn't change the time of the event once they realized it would likely be an issue--but the fact that any protests might frighten the children or make it more difficult for their parents to drop them off and pick them up--both fully reasonable concerns--is not the same as suggesting that any individual or group threatened the safety or security of a single parent or child.

Speaking out is seldom if ever un-American, whether in support of Geller and her bigotry or in opposition to it.
---

Posted: 12:13 am on Saturday, April 13, 2013
---

Added Links:
Sunday, April 14 Event Cancellation : Great Neck Synagogue
Shul Cancels Pamela Geller — But Fails To Take Stand – Forward Thinking – Forward.com
Chabad to host Geller after Great Neck Synagogue drops controversial speaker - The Island Now: News
Geller Forum Shifts To New Venues | The Jewish Week
Controversial anti-jihad blogger will bring armed guards to synagogue speech | PIX 11

In Reply: "Geller has every right to speak. But free speech does not guarantee an audience, protection from criticism, or the use of someone else's soapbox." (Dishonest media, Pamela Geller, Bigotry, Free Speech)

In reply to the following three comments offered at the post Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller - Great Neck, NY Patch:

"The fact that you went to the state-run media confirms the fact that you're a low information voter. Did you happen to ask the police?"

and

"Not everybody agrees that it is bigotry. Why are you trying to rob people of the right to hear anything they want to.Are you the parents of those who wish to listen and formulate their opinions after hearing Ms.Gellar,"

and

"Geller's not a bigot, YOU ARE.

Geller speaks the truth about islam and the Left's joint group-grope against America and Israel, and you and the far left and jihadis threatened a riot at the synagogue, forcing the cancellation.

Keep it up, you will eventually get the violence you are aiming for, but you better have bought your toe tags by then, because you won't like the result."
---

My reply:
"Not everybody agrees that it is bigotry."

Not everyone agrees that it isn't, either. So why would you want to rob people of the right to say they believe it is bigotry, in very much the same way as you accuse others of "robbing" Geller's "right" to speak. (Geller has every right to speak. What she doesn't have is a right to speak at a private venue that finds her speech offensive, or dangerous. Free speech does not guarantee an audience, or someone else's soapbox to stand on, either.)

"threatened a riot at the synagogue"

Any citation for that? Because again, no media source--including this one--is making any such allegation. The only person saying anyone was threatened is Pamela Geller, in her interpretation of the synagogue's decision. No one from the synagogue, or the media, or the local police has reported any confirmed threat to any person place or thing. (And with respect to Natalie's "state-run media" comment from yesterday, I'm pretty sure that Mr Jacques is not a tool of the government... Not positive, mind you, but pretty sure... YMMV...)
---

Posted: 3:29 pm on Friday, April 12, 2013

In Reply: Threats against the neighborhood, the children, or the Great Neck Synagogue? Where? (Pamela Geller, Bigotry, Dishonesty, Free Speech)

In reply to the following comment at the post Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller - Great Neck, NY Patch:

"The threats to the residents of the neighborhood, against their children, and against the synagogue are more real than Geller's unproven bigotry. Read her work and enlighten your ignorance. Then stand for her freedom of speech or most surely you will lose your own.
This synagogue stood alone against weeks of threats and intimidation. There must be a complete investigation of the threats and those responsible must be prosecuted. Freedom denied to one American is denied to all.
Ironically, these tactics have spread Geller's work to an enormously wider audience than that of one temple."
---

I asked several media outlets--including this one [see e-mail appended below]--to document these supposed threats against the neighborhood, the children, or the synagogue, or to at least obtain statements from people associated with the synagogue saying that anyone was actually threatened. No media outlet or synagogue official has gone on the record with any threat. Make of that what you will.

Posted: 8:53 pm on Thursday, April 11, 2013
---

E-mail:

To: rich.jacques@patch.com (and sent to several other media outlets who'd reported on the Geller controversy)

Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller, Jewishpress.com and other supportive social media outlets are implying that protesters threatened Sunday school children who attend classes at the synagogue, and that is why the synagogue board cancelled Pamela Geller's speech. Please interview the rabbi and others at the synagogue, and confirm or debunk that allegation. If you do find threats, please post specific examples if possible.

In Reply: "Bigotry has no place in a synagogue, in any house of worship, or anywhere else in America." (Pamela Geller, Free Speech, Bigotry, Religion)

In reply to Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller - Great Neck, NY Patch
--

While I wish they'd done so because they believe bigotry has no place in their synagogue (or in any house of worship, or anywhere else in America, for that matter), I'm glad they cancelled her speech, if only because *I* believe there should be no place for bigotry in America, least of all in a house of worship.

Posted: 9:51 pm on Wednesday, April 10, 2013

A Dishonest [blogger], Smirking

"Should he be fired for this? Of course not."

Bravo. Well said.

Perhaps I'd be more bothered by efforts to get Loomis fired if I hadn't been on the receiving end of identical efforts by his co-bloggers at Lawyers, Guns and Money and by his ideological allies in the progressive ASFL fever swamps.

Isn't that exactly why [that guy] should be EXTREMELY bothered?

Isn't he espousing one set of standards for himself and another for those with whom he disagrees, or are--in his mind--guilty-by-association with those who have wronged him in this way?

And putting the two quotes together, is the saying it's alright (or "alright, so long as it's someone in some way associated with someone else who did a similar thing") to attempt to get someone fired for what they say online, so long as the attempt is ultimately unsuccessful?

"And as regular readers know full well, Walter James Casper III used his blog, with his co-bloggers, to post my contact information and exhort his readers to contact my college."

Still, as always, factually untrue. I have never posted the guy's college contact information (though I may've linked to posts where others have--including posts at the guy's own blog--in the course of discussing why it's ethically wrong for others to post or use it against him), and have repeatedly spoken out against every single person--no matter their political ideology--who has posted his workplace contact information, used his workplace contact information to complain about anything he's ever done online or off, or suggested that anyone else use his workplace contact information to do so, either.

I did not delete the post (or any/all comments expressing similar themes, or those posts or comments expressing other ideas or behaviors with which I may've personally disagreed, or indeed much of anything ever, aside spam), because I believe(d) that everyone speaking here is an adult who can string together and then defend their own words and the ideas they convey, and doesn't need a metaphorical mommy or daddy to make decisions on their behalf.

If I didn't like or agree with something posted here, I either starved it of my attention by ignoring it, or commented about it, saying why I disagreed or didn't like it. That [the guy] refuses to comprehend this simple concept (willfully, I suspect) continues to amaze me.

"Screw these people. They reap what they sow. When they start calling out the workplace harassers among their own partisans maybe I'll give a f-k about stooges like Loomis."

Demonstrably untrue, just based on the paragraphs above (and many, many more like them posted by me over the years). But par for the course.
---

Links:
[his blog]: Smirking Spectator? Guilty as Charged

Workplace Harassment - (btdt FAQ files)

Obsessed much?

An x-post from a blog that once was

In Reply: Glorifying Violence, and How Not To...

Revised and extended, in Reply to: Why Do We Tolerate Glorified Gun Violence In Movies And On TV? | The Lonely Conservative, and the following passage in particular:

Even if you don’t go out seeking violent movies and TV shows, just watching a football game can bring the violence into your home during commercials. It happened yesterday when ads for Gangster Squad, starring Josh Brolin ran.
---

There are plenty who argue that the football game itself promotes and glorifies violence (along with--variously-- boxing, pro-wrestling, mixed martial arts fighting, ...).

In a similar vein, some applaud the fact that Little Rascals" shorts and copies of Disney's "Song of the South" are so hard to find, celebrating their removal from society as a blow against racism. (And a subset of these folks advocate removing "Huckleberry Finn" from school libraries, too.)

The key is what WE individually tolerate. I trust no one here is advocating government or corporate censorship of violent films--or having someone like Bill Cosby buy them up and lock them away in a vault, either--but there is something to be said for asking why WE support these violent films and video games with our entertainment dollars. The less money these things make, the less those in charge will choose to make or bankroll them.

We have to decide where to draw the lines for ourselves and for our children--I wouldn't want the government preventing films from being made or marketed, and I doubt any of you would, either--but there's always going to be someone advocating against "violence" (or "racism") that you find perfectly acceptable.

Free speech isn't pretty.
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted 12/17/12, 1:28 PM (or so)

X-Post: In Reply: American Power's Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Donald Kent Douglas

Blah, blah, blah... Maybe I'll respond to Dishonest Donald's most recent attack post more thoroughly in some future offering--or at least add the relevant rebuttal links to this one--(I'd do it now, but I had some minor surgery a few days ago that makes keeping my arm up high enough to use the keyboard on the desktop for any length of time a little uncomfortable), but there really is no need. It's all the same old, same old unsubstantiated bullshit accusations and attacks Donald Douglas has been repeatedly posting about me for years:

American Power: Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt

Just think about this; In Donald Douglas' world, one fights the words and ideas one does not like by going to the police, lawyers, the FBI, and his congressional representatives...

"That sounds familiar. Progressive stalking trolls claim a "free speech right" to harass someone even after they have been told repeatedly to cease and desist. This is why I reported Walter James Casper III to the authorities: "Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III." As we've seen for some time, progressives have quite a different view of how free speech works, the most important manifestation being the notion that left-wing free speech includes the right to suppress political views that contradict the left's radical agenda."

If that isn't the scariest view of free speech I've ever seen, I don't know what is... (And for the record, Dishonest Donald's many reports went exactly nowhere. Not one person, office, or agency contacted me in any official or unofficial capacity as a result of his anti-free speech reports to his various authorities. Not one.)

I feel sorry for Dishonest Donald Douglas... I really do. I can't imagine what it must be like for him to so dislike the world and the people with whom he must share it that he feels compelled to post the things he does about others. It's just sad.
---

A double-down, because when you're lashing out, once is never enough.: American Power: Progressives Can Just FOAD
Of course, a double-down... Dishonest Donald Douglas is so very predictable...
---------
LINKS:

Dishonest Donald Douglas attempts to wage lawfare: 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)

Donald's low-budget conception of "free speech": Dishonest Donald Douglas' "Raging Primordial Rage"

Free speech for me, but not for thee: Dishonest Donald Douglas: Fascist First Amendment Fail

---

An American Nihilist X-post

X-Post: That guy's ' "Raging Primordial Rage"

So, I've been trying to figure out how to respond to that guy's latest diatribe against me. Ostensibly, it's a post about free speech, but the argument the guy offers: 1) is primarily about me, not free speech, 2) is not based in fact or evidence, but is instead just another example of him ranting and raging away, and 3) displays a profound misunderstanding as to what the Jonathan Rauch video he features and the organization behind it (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE) are all about.

Let's go to the videotape, and then to the guy's "argument," such as it is:

"Rauch, who is a far-left progressive, nails it on who's the biggest threat to freedom of speech, thought and expression in the country today. What's surprising, though, is that harassment-blogger Walter James Casper III "liked" it on Twitter --- tweeting it out a couple of times in fact. And it's ironic too, since Repsac3 is the epitome of the hateful, speech-controlling progressive that Rauch is denouncing. From racism to anti-Semitism to the recent attacks on Ann Coulter at Fordham, Repsac3 is down with it. He never, ever speaks out against it, and in fact joins in with his progressive hate-commentariat in mounting campaigns of personal destruction against those with whom he disagrees. I've chronicled Repsac3's criminal campaigns of intimidation many times. If he truly "likes" the ideas of Jonathan Rauch he should in fact practice them. Sadly, the record shows that while the demonically hate-addled Repsac3 purportedly champions this kind of classical liberal thought, his actual political loyalties are with those who stand against it. It's not just that Walter James Casper III is a stupid man. It's that he's also been psychological corrupted by progressive evil. Where there's a bodily inclination in him that says leftist thought suppression is not just wrong but massively vile, his raging primordial rage at conservatives kicks in to advance the exact kind of censorship that Rauch excoriates above. Repsac3 is a rodent of a person, and hardened, blackened chip of human refuse. Honestly, his only hope is to follow the words of people like Rauch and literally repent his ideology of hatred and secular demonology."

The first line isn't far off. Jonathan Rauch does believe that "the humanitarian impulse" to prevent bigots from saying bigoted things so as not to offend minorities, enforced via campus/workplace speech codes, (and yes, often put into place by progressives) is one of the biggest threats to free speech. While I still believe there should be time/place/manner standards for speech (and from what I can tell, FIRE does, as well), I'm inclined to agree. The answer to overt or implicit bigotry isn't legal/statutory rules and punishment, it's more speech--reasoned argument to persuade, and denunciation of the bigotry and those who engage in it to create a social penalty for such behavior. You don't prevent people from being attacked, you stand shoulder to shoulder with them when they are.

Sadly, therein ends the guy's engagement with the topic at hand or with reality. Everything after that first line is dishonest attack, and nothing more.

The guy labels me "the epitome of the hateful, speech-controlling progressive that Rauch is denouncing," but never offers a single example of my attempting to control speech in the manner that Rauch discusses. He accuses me of "advanc[ing] the exact kind of censorship that Rauch excoriates," but fails to offer anything in support of his accusation. Mostly though, he just vents his spleen by calling me names and vomiting up meaningless epithets--(harassment-blogger, hate-commentariat, criminal, demonically hate-addled, stupid, psychological corrupted by progressive evil, raging primordial rage [my personal favorite, and thus the title of this post], a rodent of a person, and hardened, blackened chip of human refuse, ...)--and pretends that by doing so, he's actually saying anything.

The facts are very different. Who is the guy saying those things, if not a man who believes that the brand of conservatism he espouses is the one true answer, and that everyone else is wrong (and demonically evil) for believing in a different set of political ideals?

Which of us controls the ideas that are permitted to appear on our blogs, actively moderating for content, weeding out commentary that he doesn't like or agree with?

And which of us tried to shoehorn disagreement on the internet onto criminal laws against harassment and stalking, even going so far as to talk to his local police and his congressman.

Just recently the guy approvingly tweeted about a case in England where a conservative is using that country's anti-free speech slander laws to lash out at everyone who (falsely, as far as the available evidence is concerned) accused him of being a paedophile on twitter and other social media outlets. (And when I say "everyone," I mean it... According to the linked article "His lawyers are reported to have already discovered around 1,000 original offending Tweets and a further 9,000 re-Tweets." That's a whole lotta lawsuits...):

Lord McAlpine Twitter revenge: A watershed moment as the mob are finally taught a lesson bit.ly/TM1E1d via @melaniephillips

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) November 20, 2012

For all his blather to the contrary, the guy has no problem applauding legal enforcement to criminalize speech he disapproves of, even going so far as to attempt to do so himself...which is exactly what Jonathan Rauch and FIRE oppose.

And even aside that, the guy's scapegoating of progressives is wrong. FIRE co-founder Greg Lukianoff is a former ACLU lawyer and a progressive. And the guy himself admits that Jonathan Rauch is a "far-left progressive" (who apparently also "totally awesomely sucks the cock," by the way... I know how the guy likes to highlight that fact whenever he finds it, for reasons I leave to the reader to suss out.)

Sure, there are progressives who mistakenly believe that protecting minorities from offense by using speech codes on campus and in the workplace is a good idea. But it is also progressives (like FIRE, and like the ACLU) who're on the front lines protecting unpopular speech from those who would censor or criminalize it. That the guy tries to sweepingly generalize about progressives as though Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Rauch don't exist--while simultaneously using them to bolster his bullshit attack on progressives--is the height of hypocrisy, and shows that the guy has zero credibility.

---
Links:
Progressives Are the Biggest Threat to Freedom of Speech in America (& as of 11/25/12, Freedom to Blog Update November 25, 2012, which links back to the previous post, as though it hadn't already been fully discredited above four days earlier.)

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE

New FIRE Video: Jonathan Rauch ‘In Defense of Being Offensive’ - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE

Twitter / repsac3: I liked a @YouTube video ...

Criminalizing the Internet - The Ongoing Saga

California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III

Federal Investigation of Walter James Casper III Could Involve Civil Rights Abuses

'Isn't It Totally Awesome That Nate Silver Sucks Cock?'
---

Still more on Dishonest Donald Douglas' attempts at Lawfare: 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, that guy)
---

An x-post from a blog that was.

In Reply: What Happened at Fordham Wasn't Censorship...It Was Speech

In reply to: The Weekend Interview with Greg Lukianoff: How Free Speech Died on Campus - WSJ.com
---

This whole thing is a put on. No one forced the College Republicans to disinvite Coulter. They did that on their own, of their own free will (and to hear them tell it, BEFORE president McShane expressed his opinion on the subject.) No one issued a law. Campus security was not dispatched to keep Ann Coulter (or those who invited her) off the campus.

What happened was exactly what so many of us so often say we want; for those who don't like the speech of a particular speaker to respond with speech of their own. McShane, along with many Fordham students, believe that Ann Coulter has said offensive things in the past, and spoke out against giving her the opportunity to say them again at Fordham. Whether the college Republicans legitimately agreed, or simply bowed to the pressure of having so many people disagree with their choice of speaker, this isn't a case of censorship or a lack of acedemic freedom. The college president didn't stop Ann Coulter from coming or threaten to punish those who invited her. All he did was speak out saying he was disappointed in the choice they had made, and saying why. That's not censorship...it's speech.

I agree that too many schools go too far in trying to curb unpopular or hurtful speech. While I do believe that not all speech is appropriate in all situations, there is no speech that should be suppressed in all situations, on or off campus. And while I understand the appeal of making hard and fast rules, accusations of bigoted or hurtful speech have to be judged on their own merits. Zero tolerance policies seldom work, no matter what "evil" they're trying to prevent.

While i'm a liberal, I often agree with the stands FIRE takes... But I think they're missing the mark on this one... This is speech in response to speech, and a group who says they were convinced by some of that speech to change their minds.
--

Posted Saturday, 11/17/12

=======
Richard Tauchar Replied:

"All he did was speak out saying he was disappointed in the choice they had made, and saying why."

Isn't that bad enough? It's not his place to influence students in that way. Yes, he used "speech", but it's the speech of the person in power, which carries extra weight.

My Reply to Richard:

First off, the College Republican group claim that they had already decided to "disinvite" Ms. Coulter prior to McShane releasing his statement, but even if they had not, no, I don't believe that the college president should refrain from being a part of the debate because he holds power at the college anymore than I believe Ann Coulter should refrain from participating in the debate because her celebrity affords her more power than others. If he wasn't using his power--by sanctioning those who invited Coulter, or creating a rule whereby he would have to approve all on-campus speakers prior to their being invited to speak--the fact of his power at Fordham University should not prevent him from expressing his opinion, even if some with less power at the campus may feel bad (or even vaguely threatened, though he issued no threat) because he disagreed with them.
===

Tom O'Hare sez:

BS, James. The president used his power to discourage a well-known media writer/lawyer from expressing her opinion. Stop the spin. If it had been Angela Davis, he would have been fawning all over her. Get real.

My reply to Tom:

How so, Tom?

What specifically did Reverend McShane say or do that prevents (or in any way discourages) Ann Coulter from expressing her opinions? She's as free to speak today as she ever was...

When you "get real," Reverend McShane didn't even discourage the College Republicans at Fordham University. Their own statement, signed by the President, VP, Treasurer and Secretary, the Fordham College Republicans had already decided to drop Ms. Coulter before McShane made his statement:

“We made this choice freely before Fr. McShane’s email was sent out and we
became aware of his feelings– had the President simply reached out to us
before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being
cancelled."

And while you're at it, perhaps you will back your claim that Reverend Joseph McShane is in any way sympathetic to Communism--or in fact, resides anywhere on the left side of the partisan political spectrum--with more than just your own intuition. (I mean, I suppose it's possible that he's a communist (or God forbid, a Democrat), but I can find no report saying so, and no statements of his supporting communist rhetoric or ideals.)
========

UPDATED: In Reply: The Wendy's Nontroversy: Machiavelli in the modern age

In reply to The Wendy’s social media saga | VentureBeat
---

Wendy's handled it poorly, and made the situation far, far worse...

But there's a lot left unanswered on the merits of the thing. Did the franchisee have the right to "speak" on Wendy's signpost? (I'm guessing the franchise contract speaks to this.) When you work for someone else--or in someone else's name--your right to free speech in the workplace isn't absolute.

In saying " We proudly serve ALL customers!,"did the Wendy's PR person really say anything different than what the Chick-fil-A PR person said in their 7/31 press release?: "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

Is Chick-fil-A implying other fast food restaurants DON'T treat everyone with honor, dignity, and respect?!? Should people be sending them hundreds (thousands?) of angry tweets in response to their "obvious insinuation" about their competition?

No, because there's nothing offensive in either restaurant saying they proudly serve everyone...except to folks looking to create more faux controversy and gin up that cohesive anger that brings (the right kind of) folks together against a common "enemy." Machiavelli still gets results in this modern age.
---

Posted 8/2/12, 'round noon or so

Also blogging:
The Bullshit Manufactured Wendy’s Controversy | JimSwift.net

UPDATE, 8/3/12, 6:00 PM: Found the following while searching for more information last night. While this policy is for employees, and it says elsewhere in this policy statement that franchisees are not employees, I can't imagine that the policies on political / community participation in the workplace are all that much different. Two sections of the 'Wendy's Company' employee manual:

Code of Conduct | COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT | About Wendy's

As concerned and responsible citizens, employees of Wendy's are encouraged to participate in community activities. Wendy's will strive to:

Function as an integral part of the local communities in which it conducts its business operations; and
Remain keenly aware of the benefits it and its employees receive from participating in any activities that improve the health, well-being, education and culture of the community.
Being partners with our communities, we have a responsibility to support and share in the development of social and civic activities to enhance our quality of life.

When the Company elects to participate in a community project and utilize limited employee time and Company resources, management will communicate to affected employees in advance that the effort is a Company sponsored project. Be sure to separate your personal community activities from your work. Pursue community activities on your own time, with your own resources and as an individual private citizen, not as a representative of Wendy's. Do not claim to represent, or imply representation of, the Company to the public or in any public process or forum unless specifically requested to do so by management.

Code of Conduct | POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS | About Wendy's

Employees are encouraged to participate in the political process and vote for the candidates or issues of their choice. Active political participation is the personal choice of each employee and should be conducted on your own time in your role as a private citizen and not on behalf of the Company.

It is strictly prohibited for individual employees to use the funds of Wendy's or its name, assets or property for political purposes or endorsement, whether directly or indirectly. It is also against Company policy to include, directly or indirectly, any political contribution on your expense account or in any other way that causes the Company to reimburse you for that expense. In general, the cost of fund-raising tickets for political functions is considered a political contribution. Therefore, including the cost of any such fund-raising dinner on an expense account, even if business is in fact discussed, is against Company policy and in some cases illegal.

From time to time, Wendy's may, within the limits of the law and through the Wendy's Political Action Committee, support a particular candidate, or support or criticize proposed legislation, regulations or rulings that might impact the business environment in which the Company operates. Our employees are welcome, though not obligated or expected, to participate in such activities.

The political process has become highly regulated, and anyone who has any question about what is or is not proper should consult with the Legal Department before agreeing to do anything that could be construed as involving Wendy's in any political activity at either the federal, state or local level in the United States or in any foreign country.

If anyone can provide any more information, like the actual text from a franchisee agreement, perhaps, I really think they oughtta, whether via comment here or on their own blog. (This goes DOUBLE for "The Wendy's Company," which was so entirely too aggressive when this story began, but has since folded like a cheap suit. If all Wendy's did was adhere to company policy in the interest of remaining neutral as a company and making everyone who works for, is a customer of, or otherwise deals with them feel welcome--a policy that the franchisee who put up the signs should've been aware of--they really, really, REALLY ought to say so, and rebut this nonsense about their opposing free speech. Flame off.)

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 Recognition of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

I don't support either the restaurant or the reason some folks are eating there today, but their free speech--while wrong in content, in my humble, and in spite of whiners who only appreciate the free speech of those who agree with 'em--is just as valuable as mine.

So, with that in mind, a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day playlist, suitable for those eating at the place, and those protesting there, too...

Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens - The Stargazers
All Birds Look Like Chicken To Me - Sweet Papa Stovepipe
Back In The Chicken Shack (Live) - Phish
Betting Better Fake Chicken Meat Will Be As Good As The Real Thing - NPR Story of the Day Podcast
Chick Habit - April March
Chick Singers - Dan Bern - Fifty Eggs
Chick-A-Boom (Don't Ya Jes' Love It) - Daddy Dewdrop
The Chicken - Bill Williams
A Chicken Ain't Nothin' But a Bird - Cab Calloway
Chicken ain't nothing but a bird - Duck Baker
A Chicken Ain't Nothing But A Bird - Louis Jordan
Chicken And The Hawk - Cousin Joe, aka Joe Pleasant
Chicken blues - Mississippi John Hurt
Chicken Boy Polka - Those Darn Accordions! - Vongole Fisarmonica
The Chicken Dance - Lawrence Welk
Chicken Dog - John Scofield
Chicken Half - Sugarman 3
Chicken Heart - Arch Oboler - Drop Dead!
Chicken Heart - Bill Cosby
CHICKEN HUNTIN - FROGTHEDAWG - TEXAS CHAINSAW MASHACRE
Chicken In The Kitchen - The Robert Cray Band
Chicken Little - Push Down & Turn - H.O.R.D.E. Band To Band Combat
Chicken Outlaw - Wide Boy Awake
Chicken Roost Blues - Cliff Carlisle
Chicken Shack - Pinetop Perkins
Chicken Shack Boogie - Amos Milburn
Chicken Stuff - Hop Wilson
Chicken Stuff - Steve James
Chicken Town - James Mathus & His Knockdown Society
Chicken Wing Ft. The Demigodz [Explicit] - Eric Bobo
Chicken You Can Roost Behind The Moon - Stokes And Sane
Chickens - Junip
Chicklet Learns to Surf - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
Chicklet Meets Surfers - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
Chicklet Wipes Out - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
The Chicks I Pick Are Slender And Tender - Louis Jordan
Chicky-Mo, Craney-Cro - Louis Jordan
Chips - Chicken - Banana Split (From Jamaica To Toronto: Soul Funk & Reggae 1967-1974) - Jo Jo & The Fugitives
Coop D'Etat: Farmers, Humane Society Partner On Chicken-Cage Revolution - NPR Story of the Day Podcast
Cotton Pickin' Chicken (Lost in Paradise) - Angel Baby
Congress Passes Amendment Guaranteeing Right To Chicken Done Right - The Onion Radio News
Slate's Explainer Podcast - Funky Chicken: Do American birds taste funny because we chlorinate them? By Nina Shen Rastogi
In New Orleans, A Fried Chicken Institution Revived - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Kitty's Rambles/Dowd's 9 Lives/Jenny's Chickens - Marc Gunn - MarcSONGS Podcast
Pregnant Circus Geek Now Biting Heads Off Chicken For Two - The Onion Radio News
Savoring The Spice In Kung Pao Chicken - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Slate: The Chick-fil-A Church - Dale Willman, Slate Magazine Daily Podcast
Swinging Chicken Ritual Divides Orthodox Jews - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Dig That Crazy Chick - Sam Butera & The Witnesses
Dixie Chicken - Little Feat
Do These Frogs Really Taste Like Chicken - Budweiser Lizards
Fried Chicken - Steve Vai
Funky Chicken - Marcus Miller, Steve Gadd, Eric Clapton, David Sanborn & Joe Sample Funky Chicken - The New York Jets
The Funky Chicken - Rufus Thomas
Funky Chicken Song [Techno] - Fast Food Rockers
Funky Chicken Stew - The Dayton Sidewinders
The Ghost And Mr. Chicken - The Tiki Tones
Grab a Chicken (Put It Back) - Peter Frampton - Fingerprints
The Greasy Chicken - Andre Williams & The Don Juans
Hippie Chick - SoHo
Huddled Chickens - Phillips, U. Utah - I've Got To Know
CHICKENS & OTHER CLUCKERS... - Intoxica Radio w/Howie Pyro
Kicks & Chicks - The Zipps
Marque-son's Chicken - Frank Zappa
Mr. Chicken Shit (alternate take) - The Soul Seven
Quarter Chicken Dark - Stuart Duncan; Chris Thile; Edgar Meyer; Yo-Yo Ma - The Goat Rodeo Sessions
Refried Funky Chicken - The Dregs 1
Robot Chicken - Les Claypool
Run Chicken Run - The Felice Brothers
Running With Chicken - Garfunkel and Oates - All Over Your Face
The Sad Chicken - Leroy & The Drivers
Shoo That Chicken - Bo Carter
Stay Away From My Chicken House - Gene Autry
Superchicken - Sheldon Allman & Stan Worth - Television's Greatest Hits Vol. 5 - In Living Color
That Chick's Too Young To Fry - Louis Jordan
Thunder Chicken - The Mighty Imperials
VLR 04 - How to be a Chicken - Rev. Davdson Loehr - Voices of Liberal Religion
Wasted Chicks - Chicks On Speed vs Kings Of Leon
Y'all Chickenhawks to Me - Elmo and the Monsters
5-Piece Chicken Dinner - The Beastie Boys
Pepito Chickeeto - Woody Woodpecker Presents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The mayor's tweets are embedded at the report.

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

First Boston. Then Chicago.

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

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

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

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

Pretty straightforward, obviously.

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

There's a whole lot there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The despicable hater Repsac3 is lying again, no surprise.

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

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

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

I did not lie.

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

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

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

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

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

And he organizes his hate campaigns with others online:

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

Ready for the truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That, too...

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

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

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

I may never know...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

American Nihilist: Donald Douglas - Reading Comprehension

virginia v black - Google Search

VIRGINIA V. BLACK

Supreme Court opinion, Virginia v. Black
---

An American Nihilist X-post

In Reply: 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