Patterico's Pontifications

10/16/2006

Tennessee Political Consultant Bill Fletcher Is A Contemptible Scumbag

Filed under: Blogging Matters,Buffoons,General,Morons — Justin Levine @ 2:00 pm



[posted by Justin Levine]

Why? For the same reasons Oklahoma Attorney Stephen Jones is. [Hat-tip: Instapundit]

Another fool who thinks that people need legal “permission” to reprint e-mails [Sigh]. Note to Bill Fletcher: “Be careful. You are in way over your head.”

[posted by Justin Levine]

 

23 Responses to “Tennessee Political Consultant Bill Fletcher Is A Contemptible Scumbag”

  1. The exchange on Fletcher’s site reminds me of a hilarious piece on the Daily Show regarding question-mark journalism — the kind where you can write a headline saying anything, and as long as you put a question mark after it, you’re somehow being “investigative” rather than just shilling for your own political view.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=QX5-YUVDgcg

    Here’s the quote that sparked Fletcher’s ire:

    “Did Bill Fletcher endanger children while waiting for just the right moment to break the story? It looks likely.”

    Of course, this isn’t a “fact,” because we have a question mark. Then again, we’ve got the words “It looks likely,” which seems to make it less of an opinion, and imply more facts support a “yes” answer to the question. Right? Er, maybe not. Who knows . . .

    Phil (88ab5b)

  2. You probably don’t need permission to reprint the email in totum, but you may need permission to reprint certain personally identifiable information within the emails under applicable privacy law.

    This wouldn’t be the person’s name only if common, but would include, perhaps, their telephone number, email address, and residential and postal addresses, and place of work.

    In general, though, I agree that if a person writes to me I don’t need his or her permission to reprint what they wrote me. In general. But not always.

    There certainly are legal openings to argue the issue which is why, once again, your “comtemptible scumbag” crack is overblown.

    He’s a lawyer. Lawyers advocate.

    Christoph (5ab65d)

  3. He’s a lawyer. Lawyers advocate.

    That doesn’t immunize him against charges of contemptible scumbaggery, though.

    Dan Collins (0e6733)

  4. Christoph –

    Bill Fletcher is not a lawyer (if that is who you were referring to).

    Yes, “lawyers advocate” as you say. But if they advocate in such a way as to be facially silly or unethical by making legal threats without any reasonable basis, then they should expect others to denounce them. It is not my comments that are overblown, it is instead the reverence that this society encourages within a legal profession that is largely corrupt and operates on “ethical principles” that simply aren’t.

    How about this – if you take issue with either an opinion or a factual allegation, why not just state that the speaker is wrong? If you ever think that there is genuine defamation involved, then you should categorically state as much and identify the specific factual allegation that you know to be false. Don’t waffle with hollow threats such as “Your rank and baseless speculation borders on slander and libel” or tell others that they might face criminal liability for relying on ABC news because they have made “mistakes” in the past.

    It is beyond me why you seem to be an apologist for those who would restrict free speech on the Internet.

    And incidentally, Fletcher is flat-out wrong about declaring himself to be a “private” figure for the purposes of libel law. Political consultants in active campaigns are by definition “limited purpose” public figures.

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  5. My apologies, Justin, for not reading thoroughly. I was on my break, rushed for time, etc., but my negligence. I understand that he’s not a lawyer.

    “How about this – if you take issue with either an opinion or a factual allegation, why not just state that the speaker is wrong?”

    In a general sense, that’s my thought too. I don’t defend the man per se because he could be a total bastard. What I don’t grasp is why you don’t do what Patterico would do and detail your points about why the guy doesn’t have a leg to stand on, then explain why you think his motives are suspect or flat-out wrong, then let me come to the conclusion that he’s a comtemptible scumbag.

    It’s once again form rather than substance that sticks in my craw. On the merits I probably agree with you, but you don’t let me see the merits until you’re challenged in the comments.

    You just say someone I don’t know is comtemptible and expect me to go along with that. I have an aversion to jumping on someone based on someone else’s opinion. If I dislike someone, I’ll tell them.

    I’m not in favour of restricting free speech on the Internet. I support free speech in general. But… if you tell me that someone is a “scumbag” well, I expect you to provide some solid reasons to back it up. And hopefully in advance rather than after the fact.

    I.e., “So and so did this. But the law is this. Because of X, he would know this. Therefore, he’s just dishonestly throwing his weight around. In my books, that makes him a scumbag.”

    Christoph (9824e6)

  6. Another fool who thinks that people need legal “permission” to reprint e-mails [Sigh].

    You mean, original works of authorship? what would make someone think you needed permission to reprint those?

    actus (10527e)

  7. actus, I don’t agree with you usually, but on the subject of original works of authorship, I do. I believe in intellectual property rights, which Justin doesn’t I gather.

    However, I don’t believe an instant message where you’re having cyber sex with someone quite qualifies.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  8. However, I don’t believe an instant message where you’re having cyber sex with someone quite qualifies.

    I think it does, but falls under the fair use exception. But it certainly fits under the definition in title 17.

    actus (10527e)

  9. I agree with you about fair use exception, although I have some questions about privacy law.

    In my jurisdiction, British Columbia, Canada, we have some very aggressive privacy law indeed, but it isn’t meant to cover “contact info”, i.e., the type of thing that would appear on a business card, just personal identifiers like IP addresses, social security numbers, etc. So who knows?

    Moving on, please educate me about title 17. I know nothing. I am from Barcelona.

    And a damn appeasing Spanish socialist! Kidding.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  10. Moving on, please educate me about title 17

    Thats the copyright law.

    As to privacy, you have very little in information you send out. A few common law torts. With big newsworthyness exceptions.

    actus (10527e)

  11. Direct correspondence becomes the property of the recipient. That’s pretty old law. I don’t see the difference between making a gift of paper and ink and a gift of electrons.

    nk (8214ee)

  12. Just to be clear, actus #6:

    My copyrighted submission of my poem to The New Yorker remains my property. My cover letter is theirs. (They turned me down, the insensitive indiscriminate clods.)

    nk (8214ee)

  13. My copyrighted submission of my poem to The New Yorker remains my property. My cover letter is theirs.

    Why does copyright not apply to your cover letter? Is it a rip-off?

    actus (10527e)

  14. It is a gift. Copyright may apply to the whole world except them and me. The best case scenario is that we are co-owners. It’s common-law. Please don’t make me look for cites.

    nk (8214ee)

  15. NK,

    My knowledge on this subject is so limited that I don’t even know what questions to ask, let alone the answers. But here’s a website that addresses the copyright issue and says it might apply to business correspondence in some cases. I don’t know if the result would be different if this is considered personal correspondence, plus there may be fair use issues.

    DRJ (ccb97e)

  16. Okay, Justin, now I’ve had an actual chance to read the email and do a modicum of research.

    I am going to defend Mr. Fletcher, who seems pretty dislikeable to me, and going to express my opinion that you’re way too quick to criticize others take you to task.

    Now Bill Fletcher’s email read like it was written by a bit of an ass and I disagree with him about Republicans, obviously. But his expressed purpose in writing the email was to defend his reputation and right or wrong, I can see a person being angry while doing this, quoting a supportive case, and mentioning their lawyer.

    You didn’t merely criticize him, however, you call him a contemptible scumbag for including the paragraph in his email:

    You do not have my permission to publish this email in whole or in part. This email is a private communication from me to you and I expect you to honor that. You do have my permission to share this with your lawyer. Perhaps he/she could give you some good advice about not to libel or slander a private citizen.

    I spent about a minute reading links I googled and found this on Email Etiquette* — Using Email Effectively:

    Sending email
    Is your message confidential?

    If it is, say so clearly at the start. When working at great speed, your intended reader may forward your email to others without noticing its sensitive content.

    Receiving email
    Forwarding a message to someone else

    When someone sends you email, are they giving you permission to publish it? In a sensitive situation, do not forward an email message unless the sender has explicitly said you may do so.

    Often, a message includes an automatic disclaimer to indicate that the content is for your eyes only, as the direct recipient.

    w
    w
    w
    .
    isd.salford.ac.uk/help/computing/emailetiq.pdf

    I work for a health insurance company.

    We routinely, as in always, place a disclaimer on outbound emails to the effect of this standard one:

    This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly prohibited.

    Except ours is a bit more scary looking, longer, and contains the term “must not”.

    We had similar language on emails when I worked for a cellular company, to wit AT&T Wireless and later Cingular Wireless. These disclaimers were not just for emails containing customer information, but all emails.

    I doubt this is legally worth the electrons it’s written on and I find it a bit silly.

    But is it contemptible? Does it make my managers scumbags?

    My defence of Fletcher isn’t that he’s a nice guy or that he is correct legally, but in terms of etiquette it’s common in the business world to request and/or demand that faxes, emails, etc., only be read by their intended recipient. There is no way that I am aware of that this can actually be enforced, but… it’s common to ask for it or insist on it.

    It’s even very very common etiquette in the blogosphere that a blogger has the (moral) “right” to publish all emails sent to him or her, but won’t if the writer requests otherwise. Many sites like MichelleMalkin.com make this their official policy. In any case, it’s common manners.

    In this case, I do not criticize her for publishing it as it is tantamount to a legal threat and if she doesn’t like the guy and wants to stand up to him, good for her.

    Yet it appears to me again that your test of “scumbag” is someone that does something you don’t agree with, not someone that does something actually comtemptible. Please point out something more that Bill Fletcher has done because this is pretty lame.

    Terry Frank at least took him properly to task.

    * emphasis mine

    Christoph (9824e6)

  17. It is contemptible because he clearly implies that the blogger engaged in libel and thus is now open to legal liability (which is simply incorrect). That is not the way to either “request or demand” that somebody take down a post. The way to do it is to simply ask politely and state your personal reasons for wanting it done.

    As you have noted – the legal threats routinely put on e-mails claiming that they are “confidential” are indeed worthless. Where wre differ is that you think that making legal threats without any solid basis in law is just the way people routinely do business. I think it is contemptible behavior from anyone under any circumstances – no matter how common it is.

    So my statements proudly stand – these people are scum.

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  18. I think that it is stupid and that he may well be scum.

    But if it is something that is common that people unthinkingly do, that he probably has seen on a gazillion emails he’s received and several he’s sent while working for various organizations… just like I have and for good organizations at that… the one I work for saves lives in a bureaucratic sense… it saved my life twice… and he modeled that language in an email he wrote to someone to try to protect himself from accusations of endangering children — accusations for which Terry Frank has offerred no proof — then including said language, which Terry Frank chose to ignore, does not rise to comtemptible scumbag. At all.

    And he’s not even a lawyer so you can’t credibly accuse him of being an expert in the law. And lawyers write these crummy statements so there’s obviously a genuine difference of opinion on this.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  19. . The best case scenario is that we are co-owners. It’s common-law. Please don’t make me look for cites.

    You think they can publish it for profit? I don’t think so. I think you’ve given them an implied license to do a lot with it — make all the copies and distrubitions that they do with applications like this. But I dont think you’re co-owners. There’s one author.

    actus (10527e)

  20. Update: After having read Terry Frank’s original post in again more detail, I am changing, “… took him properly to task,” to, “… made a bunch of wild allegations without proof.”

    [cross posted at terryfrank.net]

    Terry,

    Your post on Bill Fletcher is long on speculation and short on fact. If it is true, however, then he is a comtemptible scumbag.

    Which makes it doubly more important that you have something more than wild speculation.

    It appears someone had their hands on the emails long before the story broke. Did Bill Fletcher endanger children while waiting for just the right moment to break the story? It looks likely.

    The Tennessean makes this note about Fletcher:

    Bill is working on congressional races in several states, “but the Mahoney race has now become the center of the national political storm,” Bill says. “Our firm is working closely with national political strategists in Washington, and we are heavily involved in the effort to help Democrats take back Congress.

    “The only tough thing now is that about half of the work I’ve done for the last year was focused on creating a contrast between Tim Mahoney and Mark Foley.”

    This is your proof? That a known Democratic poltical consultant was trying to contrast his candidate with his opponent? Oh, the horror.

    It does seem an unlikely turn of events, unless of course, a political hitman like Bill Fletcher was endangering the very children democrats claim to be so worried about in order to maximize the political effect.

    And then you point out that the political consult’s stated goal is to win?

    And then you ask a bunch more leading questions without a shred of evidence tying him specifically to this about hurting children?

    I don’t know whether your words are actionable and since I support free speech broadly, I hope not. But I don’t blame him for getting mad at you, particularly if he didn’t do this. You’re all but accusing him of cynically exposing children to sexual exploitation in order to get his candidate elected.

    You only updated your post later to state the obvious that you don’t have a bit of evidence for your speculation.

    This comment brought to you by a staunch and hawkish conservative who believes your questions are worthwhile, but your highly suggestive way of asking them is offensive.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  21. DRJ, #15: I wonder if they were not talking about advertising type letters such as “apply for a credit card with our company, today, and you will get 1000% percent negative interest for 30 seconds as well as 72 virgins waiting for you in Paradise”. That’s creative writing and I suppose that an argument can be made that it’s protectible by copyright. In any case, it was a lawyer giving an opinion and a lawyer can never go wrong telling somebody “don’t do it because there might be a law against it”.

    Actus #19: You’ve made me want to research it. Still, I think Patterico and I are the indiputable co-owners of this comment and your implied license is so broad as to render it indistinguishable from ownership.

    nk (956ea1)

  22. Justin Levine, post No. 18
    “That is not the way to either “request or demand” that somebody take down a post. The way to do it is to simply ask politely and state your personal reasons for wanting it done.”

    “ask politely?” This coming from a blogger who posted publically for all to see “Bill Fletcher is a contemptable scumbag”? About a man who has just been accused of “endangering children?”

    Come on, Justin. Polite? Had he posted this e-mail on a blog of his own, for all to see, instead of simply e-mailing it privately to the person who had made these extremely serious-sounding accusations against him, well . . . he’d have sounded *just like you.* Don’t ask others to do what you can’t do yourself.

    Phil (88ab5b)

  23. Oops, sorry, above was a comment on post 17.

    Phil (88ab5b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0881 secs.