Saturday, March 24, 2012

X-Post: When Hoodies Kill...


"Live never to be ashamed if anything you do or say is published around the world -- even if what is published is not true." - Richard Bach, Illusions


Geraldo Rivera - 8:10 PM - 22 Mar 12
Justice will come to Zimmerman the Fla shooter-but I'm trying to save lives like Trayvon's-Parents Alert: hoodies can get your kid killed

Its not blaming the victim Its common sense-look like a gangsta & some armed schmuck will take you at your word

Its sad that I have to be the one reminding minority parents of the risk that comes with being a kid of color in America--channel the rage
Geraldo in a Hoodie


I'm willing to give Geraldo a tiny bit of slack on this... I believe that in his own ham-fisted way, he's trying to say the same thing as Toure, in his TIME article "Trayvon Martin: Advice for Young Black Boys After Tragedy":
"You will have to make allowances for other people’s racism. That’s part of the burden of being black. We can be defiant and dead or smart and alive. I’m not saying you can’t wear what you want, but your clothes are a red herring. They’ll blame it on your hoodie or your jeans when the real reason they decided you were a criminal is that you’re black."
There is bigotry in this country and in this world, and it's not only young black boys who fall victim to the negative stereotypes and irrational fears that others hold about them, or the acts those stereotypes and fears engender. "Advice for Muslims..." "Advice for Jews..." "Advice for Young Gay Men and Women..." "Advice for Young Girls..."

People see others the way they choose--and the way they're taught--and sometimes what they see has little basis in objective reality. Your clothes, your color, your size, the way you walk or talk, speaks to people (and to their prejudices), and whether or not what they hear is the truth, they will treat you accordingly.

So, while I think it's probably smart for parents to warn their kids that there are bigots and other assholes who may try to harm them because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation--either based on those factors alone or together with the style or color of the clothes they wear, music they listen to, or other innocent and semi-innocent activities they pursue--nether the parents or their children should ever lose sight of the fact that it is the bigots and assholes who are the problem, not the demographics of the kids or the clothes that they wear.

Black kids in hoodies (women in sexy clothes) (men leaving gay bars) are not "just askin' for it," no matter what some seem to think.

Deepest pic I've seen yet, RIP Trayvon Martin. Hoods up! on Twitpic
--

Links:
Then he remembered he was on FOXNews and knew he needed to start digging. - Lawyers, Guns & Money (With special mention: "You might think it is a very appropriate quote for the situation, except in this case the “gun” is Trayvon Martin’s hoodie, not Zimmerman’s entirely too non-metaphorical gun." and "I’m going to slightly defend the sentiment behind the first quote ...", the latter of which likely inspired this whole post.)

Trayvon Martin: Advice for Young Black Boys After Tragedy | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

TheFactChannel's YouTube videos pretty fairly address the aspects incident and it's aftermath, and this video has about 35 minutes of 911 calls (and some commentary), which is the most comprehensive collection I've seen...

Trayvon Martin killing: When did hoods become associated with illicit activity? - Slate Magazine

Tragedy Gives The Hoodie A Whole New Meaning : NPR

The Associated Press: Trayvon Martin, my son, and the Black Male Code
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post

"New" Eye Witness in Trayvon Martin Murder

In reply to: Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman and Riehl World View: As Media Reports Conflict, Why Was Trayvon Martin Photo Altered?

Doesn't the timeline have Trayvon on the phone with a 16 year old girl and (according to the girl, anyway) trying to AVOID Zimmerman when he is confronted?

And under FL law, wouldn't Trayvon have the right to stand his ground / defend himself against this stranger who was following him around the neighborhood and more than likely confronted him on a dark rainy street, even though he didn't have a gun like Mr. Zimmerman did? If a stranger grabs you (or knocks your phone out of your hand, or otherwise lays hands on you or your personal property), are you not allowed to strike him to defend yourself (or is it only self-defense if your response is to fire your gun)?

Even assuming "John's" witness testimony is entirely accurate, there is no doubt that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon, and likely initiated both the verbal and physical contact between them. That the man Zimmerman was following bested him in the struggle--a struggle that may've been the result of Trayvon defending himself against the creepy guy following him, rather than the other way 'round--is not proof of who initiated what or whether the shot that killed Trayvon Martin was justified. If Mr Zimmerman had let the police do their job the way the 911 dispatcher told him to, the confrontation--and the gunshot that killed Trayvon--never would've taken place. It remains to be seen whether common sense has any place in FL law.
---

Posted: Saturday, March 24, 2012 at 04:06 PM

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

X-Post: St. Baldrick's Video - Taking It All Off In Support of Childhood Cancer Research

My nephew and his uncle get their heads shaved to benefit childhood cancer research.



Link

You can still donate, even if you're reading this 11 months after I posted it. (After that, you might want to search for our 2013 event page.) Please follow this link, and give as generously as you can: St. Baldrick's 2012
---

A Goodness and Goodwill X-post

Monday, February 13, 2012

X-Post: Beautiful Girl, Magnificent Car... But For Me, The Music...

First, for anyone who hasn't seen it, watch the commercial:



Now anybody who knows me well knows the first thing I did after seeing this was to rush to my computer, looking for... ...the song that for me, made this ad as hot as it was.

I found it, of course...


Amazon.com: Smokescreen: Willis: MP3 Download
Amazon.com: Come Get Some: Willis: MP3 Download

"Willis is the stage name of Hayley Willis, a female vocalist from London, England and is probably most famous for her cover of Cameo’s 80’s hit “Word Up”, used to great effect in the US television drama ‘CSI’ and subsequently followed by over 100,000 people on YouTube."


Amazon.com: Word Up (Willis): Various Artists: MP3 Download

The gal is beautiful, and the car is awesome, but the music... man, that music... is what does it for me...

More info:
2012 Fiat 500 Abarth Commercial: Sexy Seduction with Italian Model [Video] - autoevolution

CrippleCreek Music's YouTube Channel
---

A Goodness and Goodwill X-post

Sunday, February 12, 2012

X-Post: I Think Maybe Breitbart Was Saying "Stop RAPPING, People!!!"

You know, there's entirely too much of this in the world. Maybe that's what caused disgraced conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart to freak out:

The "rap" that probably set DCBAB off:


The "studio" version is almost as embarrassing:


To the list of items which are always excellent ideas… ...add conservative rapping - Lawyers, Guns & Money

How about some Young Cons:


More:


Wolverines?:


And the progressive rapper response to the Wolverines, by Satellite High (The best of the bunch...):


Et tu, Mr. Destructo?: ARE Y'ALL READY FOR SOME WHITE PEOPLE?

Is this where it all started? Tea Partay, Baybay:


And of course, the James O'Keefe, wingnut mac daddy theme song:

---

It's no wonder the crazy fuck was roaming around outside yelling "NO RAPPING, PEOPLE!!!"
Seeing the video(s), it all makes sense...
---

Also waxing poetic:
Sadly, No! - A Steaming Pile of Cracker Rap
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats x-post

X-Post: Disgraced Conservative Blogger Andrew Breitbart Loses Control - Campus Progress

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Blogger Andrew Breitbart to Occupiers: ‘Stop Raping People!’ - Campus Progress:
Disgraced "Conservative blogger-star Andrew Breitbart lashed out at Occupy protesters outside of CPAC, the mass annual gathering of conservatives, in Washington, DC on Friday night. Campus Progress reporter Emily Crockett was on the scene and captured video of Breitbart losing it, screaming at the protesters 'Behave yourselves!' and 'Stop raping people!'"

Follow the link to read the rest of her account.



I don't know about you, but all this video shows me is some nut lurking behind a bush who comes out screaming insanely at a bunch of kids and daring them to take a swing at his protruding chin, until he's dragged away by the police, still screaming wildly and hoping to provoke somethin'. (And right there at the end, his body posture almost looks like he's been placed in a straight jacket, adding to the overall "crazy man" effect.)

I'm sure this video makes him a hero to the CPACers inside, but out here in the real world, disgraced conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart just comes off like he's lost control of his faculties...

YMMV, but I think the crazy old boy ought to... what's the phrase?... "beHAAAAAVE himself," in future... (and stop raping the truth, while he's at it.)

And if you want to see something REALLY SCARY, click here. INSANE.
---

Also blogging:
Andrew Breitbart Confronts Occupy Crowd At CPAC, Demands They ‘Stop Raping People’ | Mediaite
Balloon Juice - Breitbartocalypse Is Nigh!
CPAC Video: Breitbart completely loses it at OWS demonstrators outside [Updated] | Rumproast
(I'd h/t, but I can't recall who I follow that RT: @emilycrockett's tweet, last night...)
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats x-post

X-Post: Have Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller ever met a currently practicing Muslim that meets their "all American" standards?

It seems like every practicing Muslim they talk about, even those born and bred here in America, is either an honor killer or has ties to terrorism... The only good Muslim is one who converted... or one who is dead.



You want to oppose extremists and terrorists?
Fine.

But a Bush administration official who's Muslim?

Mosques and prayer spaces for Muslims serving in the United States Military, including inside the Pentagon?

These two and their followers are bigots of the worst kind.
---

More info:
Rachel Maddow deconstructs "Ground Zero Mosque" hate festival Pt 1 - YouTube
Rachel Maddow deconstructs "Ground Zero Mosque" hate-festival Pt 2 - YouTube

Supposedly, there is a longer video of the full "conversation" between Spencer and Khan before Geller shows up (about 10 minutes). I'll add it when I see it's available...

UPDATE: The longer video, at just over 6 minutes (& oddly letterboxed, for some reason...):



It makes 'em all look kinda petty, if ya ask me... Lotta smoke, but virtually no flame. Hopefully if they ever do debate, they all find their way out of the third grade mentality, first.

That said, it doesn't acquit either Spencer or Geller on the bigotry of accusing virtually every Muslim they've ever spoken about of "ties to terrorism." I can't say for certain that they're wrong about Khan, in particular... ...though the guy was vetted by our government, under a Republican president. But that, and the fact that they seem to charge a whole lotta other Muslim Americans of the same sort of "ties," (or alternatively, support for, if not actual, honor killing) makes the charges kinda suspect... (It's almost as though they think Muslim Americans have divided loyalties... ...which is generally supposed to be some anti-Semitic attack on Jews...)
---

I can't vouch for the accuracy (any more than I can vouch for the accuracy of what Spencer/Geller have to say), but this is the allegation: Robert Spencer used to be a Communist | Spencer Watch
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats x-post

Saturday, February 11, 2012

X-Post: Simple Truth

wengler, in a comment at Lawyers, Guns and Money:
Republicans, circa 1960: ‘He’s going to be following orders from the pope!’

Republicans, circa 2012: ‘He’s not following orders from the pope!’
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats x-post

X-Post: Maureen Walsh Speaks For The Rights Of The Minority

Isn't that what America is all about?


---

A Goodness and Goodwill X-post

Thursday, February 09, 2012

In Reply: What It Was, Was Personal Conflict Disguised As Political Blogging

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment by The Griper at the SaberPoint blog post, "Strange Things Are Happening....Donald Douglas Annoyed by Leftwing Blogger"
"they have been at each other's throats for ages, stogie. and the professor is not the first to be the subject of repsac's posts."
---

Yeah, Griper, that "repsac" guy just stinks, dud'ne?

While I'm sure there must be some truth to what you say, Gripe, what happened in this case was different than the arguments I had with most folks, most times... Only speakin' for and about myself here, I kinda lost sight of the difference between arguing the point and arguing the man somewhere along the way... ...and I'm trying to fix it.

So, you can certainly pile on and denounce my bad behavior in this situation if you choose (I can't say as I disagree, even), but there was more to it than one blogger quoting another's post and debating ideas, which is pretty common all throughout the political blogosphere (and what happened betwixt you and I a few times, as I recall.) The situation Stogie wrote about became a "him against me" personality-driven, nasty-ass grudge match, which isn't so common--not even in my blogging, and not even when I was opposing others (and that includes you, Griper, my friend)--and I'm trying to jump on the wagon and not do that no more...

I can't undo the past... I can only go forward from here...
---

Submitted for SaberPoint moderator approval Posted 2/09/2012, 6:55 PM (SP blog time)

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

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

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

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

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

But even before that, there was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it wasn't just me thinkin' it... Folks online said so... Folks I spoke to offline said so, too, including some of the folks I consulted with about the laws that do and don't apply to the situation--folks who have more real-world experience with these kinda things than I do... Over and over, I heard essentially the same message... Only the wording would change:
Any guy crazy enough to think he's entitled to have police officers and the FBI enforce the rules of his blog is likely crazy enough to be dangerous when he discovers that they cannot. In any case, it's probably not a good idea to put yourself in the position of finding out.
---

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

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

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

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

Donald, there is much truth to the saying "Don't feed the trolls." You have been serving Casper a 16 oz steak on a daily basis. You have rewarded his efforts. Stop commenting about Respac3 aka Walter James Casper III. Stop reacting to him. Stop referring to him as "hate blogger Walter James Casper III." Is he a hate blogger? Who knows? Who cares, but why give him such a fearsome reputation?"
And in kinda the same vein, a few comments by (very) occasional nihilist Doctor Biobrain, attached to a post at his blog. ...And like Stogie's words above, they were addressed to Donald Douglas. Here's a representative sample, taken from several comments there:
Frankly, I've never understood why they bother with you. You're a boring clown who doesn't deserve to have a blog named American Nihilist dedicated to denouncing you. Exposing your hypocrisy, errors, and lies is like trying to count sand. After awhile, you realize it's pointless and just give up. - And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: 11:30 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"As I keep saying, there are scary people in this world and you shouldn't fuck with people you don't know. That's why you should be respectful to everyone, because you never know when someone might go crazy and kill you. And so if you go around insulting people all the time and making personal attacks, you don't DESERVE to be pummeled, but you wouldn't be entirely blameless for it either. And that's why we don't go around insulting people and making personal attacks, because we don't want to piss off the crazies." - And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: 12:21 AM
While I don't agree with every last word either of 'em said in their comments, both of 'em spoke to me, even though--coincidentally--they were both actually talking to Donald.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm done.

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

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

The. Blog. Stays. Up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Reply: A Quick Thanks to Stogie

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

X-Post: Criminalizing The Internet, Part 2

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

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

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

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

Even in today's post though, there's this, cited from HaltAbuse.org:
First, you need to determine whether or not what you're experiencing is truly harassment.

Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply. The legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is:
"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person."
This is of course a very broad definition, which state and federal legislation and common law have narrowed and refined in various ways. However, for our purposes, WHOA defines online harassment as any actions that meet the qualifications of the above definition after the harasser has been told to cease.

If someone simply disagrees with you, however strongly or unpleasantly, that isn't harassment. Someone who sends you a single email message that isn't overtly threatening probably hasn't harassed you. Spam, while very annoying, isn't harassment. And messages posted to any open venue, such as a newsgroup, a web-based board, an AOL discussion forum or a chat room, are seldom truly harassing unless they're forged to appear to come from you or contain direct threats or libelous statements. The same goes for things said on someone else's web site. Harassment usually involves repeated communications via email or some sort of instant messaging program after the harasser has clearly been told to go away.
My records indicate I sent three e-mails to Dr Douglas' blog e-mail address, all of which were more or less on topic, and only after reading this invitation: "Comments are closed. Readers who'd like to comment may reply to me by e-mail (at my Blogger profile) and I'll add comments in updates to this post." Everything else have been comments submitted to his "open venue" blog, intending that they be posted publicly, and did not contain any threats or libelous statements.
---

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

An American Nihilist x-post

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

X-Post: Criminalizing The Internet, Part 1

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

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

Federal statute 47 U.S.C. 223 prohibits anonymous harassment on the Internet and general harassment with the intent to annoy. As one writer indicates:
Ok, let me put this in plain English for you, using the language of section 223 itself:

Anybody who uses the Internet to post or email any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person has just committed a Federal crime, for which they can be imprisoned, fined, or both.
(Note: the terms "lewd", "lascivious", "filthy", and "indecent" were struck from the law subsequent to this blogger's opinion piece from 2006. Not that anything I submitted to Dr. Douglas' American Power blog was lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, either...)

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

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

(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
Nope, for what should be obvious reasons...
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
Nope... no anonymity, and no intent... (also read legal opinions that say a computer is not covered under "telecommunications device," unless one is using VOIP.)
(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or
Nope. (Do I need to explain?)
(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or
There has been no pattern or repetition, and no contact solely to harass. (And then there's that "telecommunications device" question, again...)
(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,
Again, no... (Whatever Donald Douglas' claims are, he most assuredly is making them about me...)

***

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

US Code 18 Section 2261A:

Whoever--

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

(2) with the intent--

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

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

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


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

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

ALSO:

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

Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person...
No obscenity or child pornography, and no intent...

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

September 22, 2011, 12:28 AM (EDST)
"And you might be careful about sponsoring your workplace attacks against me at this blog. You, as the admin, published calls to contact my employers, and that's called "tortious interference" with someone's work, and a judge recently ruled against a blogger in Minnesota. My lawyer raised the references, so we're on to you, and you are not on sound legal ground. And no, you haven't been contacted, because I never claimed I was going to contact you or have law enforcement contact you. The point is that you ARE on the radar and what you are doing is wrong. And you keep doing it, against your own interests. So, WISE UP, idiot ASFL. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMMENT AND HARASS ME IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY REPORTING ON YOUR PROGRESSIVE CAMPAIGNS OF HATE." - American Nihilist: Pizza and The Same Old Douglas Whine, September 22, 2011, 12:28 AM
"I read up on this "tortious interference" business... With all respect due your fine lawyer, I'm pretty sure you must suffer some visible harm (like for instance, being fired as a result of something I myself posted) before you can make any such claim against me.

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

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

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

An American Nihilist x-post

Saturday, February 04, 2012

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

Regarding all this...

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

...this...

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

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

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

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

An American Nihilist x-post

Monday, January 30, 2012

X-Post: Using American Exceptionalism as a Partisan Weapon

In reply to the Callista Gingrich video found at the following post: American Power: American Exceptionalism

(This reply is a revised and extended version of a comment originally posted at American Nihilist on January 23rd.)
---





Like too many Republicans, Mrs Newton #3 is trying to sell a meme about the left that is a lie. I agree with 99% of everything she says in the video. There is no "'great debate' about whether America is an exceptional nation, or just another country," except in a few folk's divisive, partisan, and seemingly fevered imaginations.


Whether one believes man was endowed with inalienable rights by a Christian God or by human nature, the end result--the form of government that makes America exceptional--is the same. It is our American ideals that make us unique in the world, and it is our desire and ability to sell our ideals to others--both immigrants who come here to seek a better life and become a part of this country, and to a lesser extent, those foreign nations who have incorporated some of our American ideals into their governments--that make we Americans unique.

Too often, however, there IS a certain degree of arrogance when talking about American exceptionalism. There are too many who believe that America was a nation chosen by God from among all (or most) others, and that we Americans are a chosen people above those of other nations. They are often nativists who don't want to share and expand American exceptionalism. Immigrants and other groups are demonized and deemed unworthy. "All men are created equal." Except Muslims (American or otherwise.) Except gay folks. Except liberals. That kind of American exceptionalism isn't worth the breath with which it's spoken...

I believe in American exceptionalism... But unlike too many on the right, I'm not particularly threatened if the citizens of some other country feel the same about their ideals and way of life (though I do think they're wrong.) I've no doubt that folks in Israel, England, Russia, and Egypt believe their country and way of life to be exceptional, that it in any way diminishes America or our exceptionalism because they do, or that there is any harm in recognizing that fact, either.

Ed Luce from the Financial Times.

Where's Ed? There he is.

U.S. Place in World Affairs

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. In the context of all the multilateral activity that's been going on this week--the G-20, here at NATO--and your evident enthusiasm for multilateral frameworks, to work through multilateral frameworks, could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy? And if so, would you be able to elaborate on it?

The President. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I am enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise, and that includes us.

And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity, and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent depends on our ability to create partnerships, because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.


-- Barack Obama: The President's News Conference in Strasbourg, April 4, 2009
Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu

And then there's this, FWIW: "Only one sitting president in the last 82 years has publicly uttered the magical phrase “American exceptionalism”--care to guess who it is?" - Obama Has Mentioned 'American Exceptionalism' More Than Bush - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post

Saturday, January 28, 2012

X-Post: Donald Douglas Abuses His Google

A comment (revised and extended) in reply to the following two lines at the American Power post Oops! MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Spews Hatred of American Exceptionalism: Racist Attack Blogger Walter James Casper III Caught Lying Again! (I have previously--and will again in more detail--address the main points of the post, regarding me, Rachel Maddow, and American exceptionalism, but first, this.):
"And racist hate-blogger Walter James Casper is now in likely violation of Google's terms of use. He is banned from commenting here and he is abusing his Google privileges. I am now approving all of hate-blogger Walter James Casper's comments and submitting them to Google as a record of the harassment."
---

There is no "term of use" that forbids anyone from submitting comments to any blogspot blog, and I find it awful hard to believe that anyone at Google is going to reprimand a person for one for one comments in response to posts where that person is called out by name, no matter how vociferously the blog owner asserts his right to malign a person at his blog without being called on it at that same blog. (I'm willing to bet I could submit a comment or two in response to every post at this blog, and Google still would not act--Dr. Douglas should consider himself lucky I only submit comments to some of the posts where he attacks me by name.)

That said, if Google does agree with Dr. Douglas, and contacts me pointing out the term I am violating, I will most certainly stop doing so. I suspect, however, that should Google respond to Dr. Douglas' specious "Mommy, he's making faces at me!! Make him STOP!!!" pleas at all, it will be to tell Dr. Douglas that he ought to grow up and stop whining. One cannot throw the first punch, and then scurry to hide behind his mother's skirt complaining about the return punch.

And seeing as he intends to approve of my comments, anyway, perhaps Dr. Douglas would be so brave as to not delete the comment sections on posts mentioning me--or maybe, just not moderate his blog in the first place. (though the latter'd prolly take more guts than Dr. D. has, anymore... Golly forbid folks actually disagree with him on his own blog...)

Say hi to our Google overlords for me... ...and thanks for approving my comments...
---

Submitted AND APPROVED January 27, 2012 5:53 PM (because Donald apparently intends to use the comments I submit to his blog and that he allows through moderation to "prove" to law enforcement that I am harassing him... I shit you not.)
---

Since this comment:

Donald Douglas: A man named Walter James Casper III used to be a commenter on my blog years ago. He became obsessed and abusive and started an entire blog to attack me personally and to threaten me with harassment. His co-bloggers at the blog, called "American Nihilist," have contacted my workplace to complain about my blogging, trying to get me fired. These attacks are violating my free speech rights and causing me and my family personal strife and emotional duress. Walter James Casper has also sent me personal emails of a threatening nature. These are completely unsolicited, as I have never exchanged emails with him at any time. I have written about the harassment and threats at my blog and Walter James Casper claims he has a right to respond in the comment section at my blog. While I have moderated comments, or even disabled comments, Casper continues to harass me with additional attempts to comment, with threats, and by email. I will also be filing police reports and contacting my attorney about these issues. My complaint is in no way an attempt to suppress Casper's free speech rights. This is only to notify Blogger of a terms of use violation, since Casper's threats are illegal under California state law, Penal Code Section 646.9, which makes cyberstalking and online harassment a crime. Casper's Blogger profile name is "Repsac3" and this is his Blogger profile URL: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
DarkUFO (Google/Blogger): Defamation (ridicule, slander, trash talk) is a civil offense. Hire a lawyer. Don't go after the blog, or Blogger, go after the person publishing the blog. 
The Real Blogger Status: InterPersonal Conflict - Defamation Vs Impersonation

From: How do I report harassment? I am being harassed in the comments to my blog. Can I talk with somone at Blogger, please? - Blogger Help

And, perhaps because he was rebuffed by the Google overlords, or perhaps because he's just gone a little crazy:

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

The full text is reposted below, but the gist is,"If you comment on my blog, I'm calling the police." (Oh, to be a fly on the wall if / when he sits down with an officer and shows him my 20-30 comments (no more than 40, surely) and three e-mails--after he instructed readers to use the e-mail, of course--addressed to his blog since the big banning on Apr 23, 2010... (Even if I submitted 40 comments in the last 21 months--which I kinda doubt--that averages out to 1.9 comments/month... That's some lame-ass harassment, if ya ask me.)Part of me thinks Dr. Douglas is smarter than to dare waste the time of law enforcement officers because I submit comments to his blog's moderation quoue against his wishes, but then there's a part of me that's pretty sure he isn't... ...or worse, that he thinks he's smart enough to try to fabricate evidence, since there is in fact, nothing legally actionable in anything I've done...) ((Stupid and pigheaded, perhaps--I know damned well that the "adult" move would be to ignore his nonsense the way pretty much everyone else does, so he left me alone the way he does the rest of his many "enemies," including the ones who actually did contact Long Beach City College about Professor Donald Kent Douglas' online antics--but surely not against any criminal or civil law...))

Remains to be seen, I guess...
---

ADDED: Saw this header on the Memeorandum list just after posting... Newt May Be Mad and Mental Enough to Fight On Long After Florida -- Daily Intel Donald Douglas and Newton Leroy... Still like two peas in a rotting pod... Mad and mental, indeed...
---

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

Okay, this has gone on long enough.

I am herewith setting out my policy on harassment and stalking and I'm affirming for the record that I'm playing for keeps.

For some reason racist hate-blogger Walter James Casper III thinks this is all fun and games. I warned him not to comment here and that if he does comment I will approve those as a record of harassment, which I will report to Google. Casper's contacts here at this blog are unwanted and unsolicited. I am within my free speech rights to post commentary and criticism on politics and ideology. And I am particularly within my rights to identify and highlight criminally derogatory and racist speech directed against me. And thus I will continue to monitor Casper's hate blog American Nihilist. Importantly, since Casper sponsored workplace attacks against me, and since he has contacted me personally by email with threatening statements, I ceased all direct contact with him at his blog or elsewhere online. And I have also repeatedly warned Walter James Casper III not to contact me or to comment at this blog. It's all on the record.

As is within my free speech rights, I highlighted Casper's dishonesty and stupidity in an essay today: "Oops! MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Spews Hatred of American Exceptionalism: Racist Attack Blogger Walter James Casper III Caught Lying Again!"

Comments are closed at that post to prevent harassment. Casper commented at an unrelated post, against my wishes, since he is banned from commenting here. After I updated the post, Casper ignored the admonitions yet again with another comment in violation of my rights:
repsac3 said...

"Walter James Casper is now in likely violation of Google's terms of use. He is banned from commenting here and he is abusing his Google privileges. I am now approving all of hate-blogger Walter James Casper's comments and submitting them to Google as a record of the harassment."

I'll get around to the rest of Dr. Douglas' nonsense if / when I have the time, but I did want to briefly comment on this bit...

There is no "term of use" that forbids anyone from submitting comments to any blogspot blog, and I find it awful hard to believe that anyone at Google is going to reprimand a person for one for one [sic] comments in response to posts where that person is called out by name, no matter how vociferously the blog owner asserts his right to malign a person at his blog without being called on it at that same blog. (I'm willing to bet I could submit a comment or two in response to every post at this blog, and Google still would not act -- Dr. Douglas should consider himself lucky I only submit comments to some of the posts where he attacks me by name.)

That said, if Google does agree with Dr. Douglas, and contacts me pointing out the term I am violating, I will most certainly stop doing so. I suspect, however, that should Google respond to Dr. Douglas' specious "Mommy, he's making faces at me!! Make him STOP!!!" pleas at all, it will be to tell Dr. Douglas that he ought to grow up and stop whining. One cannot throw the first punch, and then scurry to hide behind his mother's skirt complaining about the return punch.

And seeing as he intends to approve of my comments, anyway, perhaps Dr. Douglas would be so brave as to not delete the comment sections on posts mentioning me--or maybe, just not moderate his blog in the first place. (though the latter'd prolly take more guts than Dr. D. has, anymore... Golly forbid folks actually disagree with him on his own blog...)

Say hi to our Google overlords for me... ...and thanks for approving my comments...

January 27, 2012 5:53 PM
Actually, there are indeed "'terms of use' that forbid" Casper from harassing me in the comments. According to Blogger's "Terms of service":
2. Proper Use. You agree that you are responsible for your own use of the Service, for any posts you make, and for any consequences thereof. You agree that you will use the Service in compliance with all applicable local, state, national, and international laws, rules and regulations, including any laws regarding the transmission of technical data exported from your country of residence and all United States export control laws.
Walter James Casper is engaged in a malicious, persistent, and willful pattern of abuse that is prohibited under California state law (see below). As such, Casper's comments here are a violation of Blogger's terms of service. Moreover, here's the statement from Google's "Reporting abuse - Blogger Help" page:
We strongly believe in freedom of expression, even if a blog contains unappealing or distasteful content or presents unpopular viewpoints. We realize this may be frustrating, and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you. In cases where contact information for the author is listed on the page, we recommend that you work directly with this person to have the content in question removed or changed.
Here are some examples of content we will not remove unless provided with a court order:

Personal attacks or alleged defamation
Parody or satire of individuals
Distasteful imagery or language
Political or social commentary
Thus, this is to inform Walter James Casper III of my effort to "work directly with this person" to stop his comments on this blog. THIS IS A FORMAL LEGAL WARNING TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMENTING AT THIS BLOG. Hereafter, I will consider any new comment posted here a "personal attack" within the purview of the terms of service and I'll append the comment to this post and send it to Google as a legal complaint and report on abuse, harassment, and cyberstalking.

Here's California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking:
646.9.

(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

(b) Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(c) Every person who, having been convicted of a felony under this section, commits a second or subsequent violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three,
or four years.

(d) In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the sentencing court may order a person convicted of a felony under this section to register as a sex offender pursuant to subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290.

(e) For the purposes of this section, "harasses" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.

(f) For purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."

(g) For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section.

(h) For purposes of this section, the term "electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
See the full text here or here.

I will also report new instances of abuse and harassment to the Irvine Police Department and the Long Beach Police Department. Here is the record of harassment published previously, with one of Casper's emails warning me to "reconsider" or else: "Continuing Lies by Cowardly Hate-Blogger W. James Casper in Left's Demonic Workplace Intimidation Campaign." And American Nihilist's long pattern of abuse, intimidation, and workplace harassment is chronicled at this post as well.

The harassment stops now. Walter James Casper III has no right to comment on this blog. If he feels he has been maligned or libeled he can take proper legal recourse. I have legal representation and I am prepared to defend my free speech rights in a court of law.

And folks might weigh Ann Althouse's comments policy in relation to the policy I'm setting forth here. She writes:
I have started deleting all the comments of one of our most conspicuous commenters for reasons I am not going to discuss. I ask all of my commenters to take some extra care with your comments now. Don't be a troll and don't feed a troll. If you are a troll, I may target you for deletion next. If you feed a troll, you may soon find that your comment refers to a comment that has been deleted. Let's raise the level of discussion around here. I have many great commenters that I love having as my guests. Others are being destructive and need to stop. If you're someone I'm targeting for deletion -- and I'm deleting all your comments regardless of content -- you need to go away permanently. You are on notice that I consider you to be harassing me, and I will contact Blogger about your account if you do not desist.
Althouse is a professor of law, so she certainly knows something about harassment and stalking. And recall that Walter James Casper III has long been trolling my comments. Indeed, I went to comment moderation to help prevent his trolling. But comment moderation has not been effective, and I have had to disable comments to some posts on occasion to prevent malicious attacks. When I did that, Casper then started harassing me by email. These emails I consider personally threatening to me and my family. And as such they're considered criminal activity under California state law. Hereafter I will update this post with any comment here from Walter James Casper III, or with any other form of unwanted personal contact, and I will submit a complaint of abuse and criminal harassment to Google and to the proper legal authorities.

Walter James Casper III is hereby notified under the law.

Comments on this post are closed.

UPDATE: (1-28-12 8:20am PST) Walter Jamers Casper III is on record that he wants to be known as a criminal harasser. Here's is his comment in violation of this policy:
repsac3 said...

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

Sorry, Dr. Douglas, but I will not allow you to attempt to intimidate me with specious threats. My answer now is the same as it was the last time you made this kinda noise, back in September (and probably before that too, though it ain't worth the search):

If you really believe I am in violation of any federal or state law or ISP/Google/??? term of service because I submit a comment or two to your moderated blog against your expressed wishes, often in reply to American Power blog posts where you discuss me by name, I cordially invite you to make your reports to Google, the Irvine / Long Beach police department, Homeland Security, or whoever you feel you need to.

The time has come to fish or cut bait.

January 28, 2012 4:22 AM
UPDATE: (1-28-12 8:45am PST) Here's the complaint sent through the Blogger help page:
A man named Walter James Casper III used to be a commenter on my blog years ago. He became obsessed and abusive and started an entire blog to attack me personally and to threaten me with harassment. His co-bloggers at the blog, called "American Nihilist," have contacted my workplace to complain about my blogging, trying to get me fired. These attacks are violating my free speech rights and causing me and my family personal strife and emotional duress. Walter James Casper has also sent me personal emails of a threatening nature. These are completely unsolicited, as I have never exchanged emails with him at any time. I have written about the harassment and threats at my blog and Walter James Casper claims he has a right to respond in the comment section at my blog. While I have moderated comments, or even disabled comments, Casper continues to harass me with additional attempts to comment, with threats, and by email. I will also be filing police reports and contacting my attorney about these issues. My complaint is in no way an attempt to suppress Casper's free speech rights. This is only to notify Blogger of a terms of use violation, since Casper's threats are illegal under California state law, Penal Code Section 646.9, which makes cyberstalking and online harassment a crime. Casper's Blogger profile name is "Repsac3" and this is his Blogger profile URL: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I will also be notifying the police of Walter James Casper's harassment next week.
Posted by Donald Douglas at 9:45 PM
Labels: Communism, Communists, Democrats, Harassment, Progressives, Radical Left, Secular Demonology
An American Nihilist X-post

In Reply: Donald Douglas: Fish Or Cut Bait (Shit Or Get Off The Pot, Put Up Or Shut Up, ..., ...)

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

Sorry, Dr. Douglas, but I will not allow you to attempt to intimidate me with specious threats. My answer now is the same as it was the last time you made this kinda noise, back in September (and probably before that too, though it ain't worth the search):

If you really believe I am in violation of any federal or state law or ISP/Google/??? term of service because I submit a comment or two to your moderated blog against your expressed wishes, generally in reply to American Power blog posts where you discuss me by name, I cordially invite you to make your reports to Google, the Irvine / Long Beach police department, Homeland Security, or whoever you feel you need to.

The time has come to fish or cut bait.

Friday, January 27, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

*I later discovered that Rachel Maddow's intent was to question why so many refer to "a SHINING city on a hill," when the John Winthrop sermon from which the image was borrowed never referred to the city on a hill as shining.
"For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us."
Intentionally or not, Ronald Reagan recast the city on the hill as shining, perhaps in reference to the Sermon on the Mount, at Mathew 5, 14-16
14"You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.
---

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

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

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)