Thug Threatens Lawyer for Free Speech
Calling a person’s workplace because of their criticism of a public figure. Frivolous attempts to seek State Bar sanctions due to public speech. Threats to sue the speaker and his employer.
Gee, where have I seen these tactics before?
Let me hand the microphone to Alan Dershowitz:
Alan M. Dershowitz’s Perspective: State Attorney Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case, recently called the Dean of Harvard Law School to complain about my criticism of some of her actions.
She was transferred to the Office of Communications and proceeded to engage in a 40-minute rant, during which she threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disciplined by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander.
She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard.
When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand.
She persisted in her nonstop whining, claiming that she is prohibited from responding to my attacks by the rules of professional responsibility — without mentioning that she has repeatedly held her own press conferences and made public statements throughout her career.
It makes no difference to me who the personalities are here. Democrat, Republican, annoying (but principled!) Harvard Law Professor — everyone deserves the right to speak out publicly without being retaliated against in a thuggish fashion.
It is a nonpartisan issue.
Thanks to JD.
Remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism?
AZ Bob (1c9631) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:41 pmIsn’t Corey supposed to be an “R”? Can we petition somewhere to have her ex-communicated or something? (even though many of us really don’t identify with repubs, we do more with them than the dems, usually).
Maybe if she had spent 40 minutes (more?) on the affidavit in the first place she wouldn’t need to be so offended.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:44 pmIt’s Guerrilla warfare out there for these people. Unfortunately the victims follow the rules while the ants swarm over their prey.
Harrison (975823) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:52 pmMoved, seconded.
IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (8e2a3d) — 6/8/2012 @ 12:12 amIt still is. And it’s just as dangerous as it ever has been.
IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (8e2a3d) — 6/8/2012 @ 12:13 amShe does not appear to have very much confidence in her case against Zimmerman. Why else would she bother to respond to Dershowitz’s accusations?
Icy (521935) — 6/8/2012 @ 2:00 amR.I.P. BOB WELCH
Icy (521935) — 6/8/2012 @ 2:32 am“Rules of Professional Responsibility?” I doubt that her copy has ever been opened much less read. Yes, the prosecution is “hollering a lot and pounding the table.” Seems significant to me.
Michael M. Keohane (f99b05) — 6/8/2012 @ 3:51 amIsn’t the left “anti-bullying.”
Oh wait, this useless POS was appointed by a Republican governor.
We apparently have some Republican governors in need of some remedial education in how the left uses Alinsky tactics.
He should now remove her from the case, since her emotions have been compromised, and appoint a new prosecutor (who should drop the charges to eliminate this travesty of justice.)
someguy (912dca) — 6/8/2012 @ 5:56 am“” Isn’t Corey supposed to be an “R”? “”
Corey is not “D” or “R”, she is “G” – government, a special class of people who get their jobs forever and ever and must not be criticized or have their pay or benefits reduced ever.
Ronchris (8068d7) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:08 amDo you think she’s associated with kimberlin?
Jim (bd60ff) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:16 amNo, it’s not. Informed criticism where it’s warranted, and informed praise where it’s warranted is the highest form of patriotism.
Simple “dissent” is the Monty Python Argument Clinic made real, and some people “dissent” from the society of the United States by supporting those who would destroy it.
Rob Crawford (c55962) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:24 amBetter question: Is she associated with Benjamin Crump?
Mark (ba2332) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:25 amTO: Pattrico, et al.
RE: Heh
It makes no difference to me who the personalities are here. Democrat, Republican, annoying (but principled!) Harvard Law Professor — everyone deserves the right to speak out publicly without being retaliated against in a thuggish fashion. — Patterico
Tell that one to the masters of PJM, where if you mention your wife knows Charlie Martin and isn’t impressed by him, you get ‘banned’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Chuck Pelto (73cfe4) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:25 am[The Truth will out….you find thugs everywhere….]
thanks Ronchris
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:26 amChuckles never fails to bring Da Stupid.
JD (c543e6) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:43 amAdolescent comment alert aisle 16.
tye (eaf692) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:49 amWhat the . . . I don’t even . . . .
Ken (2e87a6) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:49 amWriting to her to request an interview now.
Ken (2e87a6) — 6/8/2012 @ 6:50 amKen, see Legal Insurrection for more.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:08 amWhat is instructive about the Zimmerman case is that it is revealing how the criminal justice system actually works to a wide audience.
The charging document as a silly narrative, happens every day.
Bully prosecutors issuing threats, happens every day.
When you give people almost unlimited power & immunity, they’re going to be corrupted.
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:18 amWhy am I reminded of Mike Nifong of Duke infamy?
RebeccaH (23af65) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:22 amThat’s how I’m seeing this story and Aaron Worthing’s story. I hope this isn’t how things work where I live too.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:23 amI had a link about the way the Stevens case, was handled, and how they drove the one who blew the whistle, out of the Bureau,
narciso (494474) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:26 amThe open assertion that its Aok to hand the court a false charging document (major salient facts withheld) is reason enough to boot this person far from the legal system.
I wrote at Ace’s it seems impossible that she didn’t know Harvard could not be sued for Dershowitz’ statements. She did want to make a big stink and mess and hassle, though. and hoped D. would be reined in.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:44 amTO: Jay, et al.
RE: Indeed
When you give people almost unlimited power & immunity, they’re going to be corrupted. — Jay
In my 60+ year sojourn on this ball-o-dirt, I’ve seen it in just about every arena; government, military, corporate, political party apparatus, private clubs, NGOs, blogging, etc., etc., etc.
Give someone power to ‘kill’ you and they will. Even by committee, if need be.
All because you don’t go-with-the-flow. Especially if you’re (1) correct and (2) effective in pointing out the ‘problems’.
The interesting part is that people like Pattrico and others of that kind of intellect are (1) catching on and (2) speaking out.
May they be prepared for the de rigor ‘slings and arrows of outrageous power mongers’ (Hamlet, paraphrased).
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Chuck Pelto (73cfe4) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:46 am[If you can’t beat them, kick/ban/kill them.]
I don’t get it. In my experience, lawyers make threatening phone calls, send spurious legal threats, use the calendar as a weapon, manipulate the truth, bribe, harass, intimidate, and abuse the public – and all of this they consider part of their sacred public duty.
How is this event so egregious? Is it that she would use these tactics against a fellow lawyer? Is it that they are trying to shut down their opponents, as if that’s something new and unique?
It seems to me that her problem is merely a lack of finesse. If she wasn’t so ham-handed, there would be no problem.
To people like Dershowitz, what she did may be more embarrassing than unacceptable.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:48 amI mentioned how Fitz, didn’t want his record, in the precursor cases to 9/11, where he let Ali Mohammed go, who later served as a source for at least one of the PDB’s so he tried to prevent Lance’s publication.
narciso (494474) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:52 amIt is embarrassing, but more to the point it’s unreasonable.
It’s whacky to threaten to sue Harvard because of the opinion of a professor.
I really don’t think there’s a smooth way to threaten to sue a school over someone’s freedom of speech. And I don’t think you do either. You’re saying she should have let it slide entirely.
This is the lens we’re reading that charging instrument through… the one that omits important aspects of the case.
The more I read over the past grumbles, the more I wonder if her earlier zeal with the 12 year old has forced her to show zeal in another case, in order to prove she isn’t racist. But this is overthinking things. All I know is that she’s not very good at this.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/8/2012 @ 7:54 amAmphi, nope. zealous advocacy is great, but there are rules. Prosecutors have the highest duty to the court and the law and the people they represent. Deliberately crafting a charging document false in essentials is unethical.
And either she is incompetent or unprofessional or both in her call to Harvard
Sarahw (03c476) — 6/8/2012 @ 8:32 amThe kind of person who reacts that poorly to scholarly or professional criticism is usually incompetent.
Going after critics that zealously… to a censorious asshat degree… that’s not normal.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/8/2012 @ 9:00 amOnce is accident, twice is coincident;
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/zimmerman-prosecutor-has-history-of-going-after-critics/
narciso (494474) — 6/8/2012 @ 9:09 amSeveral weird and silly comments on this thread.
[Not you, “tye”. We know that you are just being you.]
Icy (f2a23b) — 6/8/2012 @ 9:13 amI don’t mean to imply that it’s not unethical. Not at all.
What I’m saying is that the behavior I mentioned above is typical. No – it is expected, from what I have seen in my capacity on separate cases as a witness for the defense, for the prosecution, as an expert witness, and in helping others with spurious ambulance-chaser threats.
Just doing my job, is what they say.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 6/8/2012 @ 9:18 amThe abuse of the legal profession has led this country down an unreasonably litigous path for generations for their own benefit and at incalculable cost to society. Think of that every time you read an unreasonable warning label.
Oh, but this woman acted unethically! For shame!
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 6/8/2012 @ 9:25 amA state-government prosecutor going on adolescent tirades in an attempt to quell freedom of expression in the court of public opinion is standard operating procedure?
Perhaps after he returns from his self-imposed silence our host could comment upon this.
Icy (f2a23b) — 6/8/2012 @ 9:29 amOh wait — he already did comment, by posting this thread! (Sheesh!)
Icy (f2a23b) — 6/8/2012 @ 9:43 amContacting some of the people who have been threatened. Getting primary docs. My take next week. Thanks for the post, Patrick.
Ken (2e87a6) — 6/8/2012 @ 9:51 amThis is Angela Corey? The woman who started a press conference by talking about how she prayed with the “sweet parents” who raised their son to be a violent, drug-using hoodrat? She’s complaining about inappropriately expressing opinions?
This has flop-sweat written all over it. I think she needs to sip on some Lean and calm down.
CrustyB (69f730) — 6/8/2012 @ 10:03 amKen at Popehat,
Thank you for being such a stand-up guy. You’re a credit to your profession, although I have a feeling you would be the same person no matter what your line of work.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/8/2012 @ 10:10 amAny word on how Barcky is doing after making Michelle the punchline of an oral sex joke at an LGBT fundraiser?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/8/2012 @ 10:18 amI’m not familiar with that, daleyrocks. Do I need to Google or do you have a link?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/8/2012 @ 10:19 amI found it.
It sounds to me like the White House transcript is correct, but the crowd seems to have heard the risque version.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/8/2012 @ 10:22 amKen Popehat is one solid fellow.
JD (c543e6) — 6/8/2012 @ 10:40 amTO: All
RE: Humor In the Legal Profession
I saw a sign for an attorney at law the other day.
He dealt in Family Law
His name….
Hassler
How apropos.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Chuck Pelto (73cfe4) — 6/8/2012 @ 10:43 am[The Truth will out…..even inadvertantly….]
I loved Ken’s Learned Hand quote today (at popehat.com).
Seeing good people showing liberty lives in their hearts has been far more rewarding than seeing evil people trying to stomp liberty out has been discouraging.
The numbers of liberty loving people outnumbers the enemies of freedom at least 100 to 1, and that’s even if you pretend all the astroturf is legitimate.
This is what democracy looks like.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/8/2012 @ 10:44 amI found it.
It sounds to me like the White House transcript is correct, but the crowd seems to have heard the risque version.
Comment by DRJ — 6/8/2012 @ 10:22 am
Firstly, who is that aggravatingly earnest commentator and why does she feel the need to talk as if her guest (and audience) were first graders? I didn’t notice which station she was on…
Secondly, the transcript doesn’t seem all that suggestive, however, the president’s delivery (pauses, attempts to appear serious) seem scripted. If he weren’t going for the double-entendre or didn’t know it was there, wouldn’t you have a bit of a puzzled expression on your face as if questioning why the laughter???
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/8/2012 @ 10:58 am“Secondly, the transcript doesn’t seem all that suggestive, however, the president’s delivery (pauses, attempts to appear serious) seem scripted.”
Dana – It’s the delivery and pause, given the venue, that gave rise to the commentary for some unknown reason.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/8/2012 @ 11:06 am🙂
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/8/2012 @ 11:14 amEven Tommy Xtopher knows that Barack was NOT going for the double entendre. He is neither that clever nor that “hip”.
Perhaps he was reading off of Sloe Joe’s TOTUS by mistake.
Icy (f2a23b) — 6/8/2012 @ 11:45 amhttp://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/exclusive-prosecutor-angela-corey-letter-claiming-libel-by-florida-times-union/#comments
narciso (494474) — 6/8/2012 @ 12:17 pmMy respect for Dershowitz rose enormously when he spoke out against Corey and for Zimmerman. He might be a Harvard leftist, but at least he is an honest lawyer, capable of recognizing plain facts and law.
richard40 (19a56d) — 6/8/2012 @ 12:26 pmComment by MD in Philly — 6/7/2012 @ 9:44 pm
Isn’t Corey supposed to be an “R”?
Yes.
http://www.angelacorey.com/sections/information/corey_family.php
Political advertisement paid for and approved by Angela Corey, Republican for State Attorney
Can we petition somewhere to have her ex-communicated or something? (even though many of us really don’t identify with repubs, we do more with them than the dems, usually).
Don’t forget Florida governor Rick Scott who appointed her, as Alan Dershowitz says, to “get” George Zimmerman and calm the situation down, not to act impartially. He picked Angela Corey on the advice of independently elected Florida Attyorney General Pam Bondi, also a Republican. Of course with all the publicity Scott and Bondi may not have realized there’s another side to this story. They were also probably influenced by people on their staff.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/8/2012 @ 12:51 pmAngela Coreey is from Jacksonville, Florida, where the Democratic Party cost Al Gore the presidency.
Gerrymandering did not decide all or most races there in Jacksonville. So, in the year 2000, they distributed all kinds of things telling peoplle to vote on all pages (of the election booklet) intending to get people to vote for the minor offices too.
Now there were so many third party candidates for president that there were two separate pages for president.
Some of the people they urged to vote (probably mostly fiorst timers) voted for the Democrartic candidate for President, Al Gore, on the first page – and then they chose among some of the minor party candidates for president on the next page!
That invalidated their votes. There was nothing Al Gore could do about that. He tried other kinds of things, like partial recounts, but he couldn’t do anything about what had actually cost him the presidency.
It wasn’t just the “butterfly ballot” in Palm Beach County (which caused some would-be Democratic voters to cast a vote for Pat Buchanan)
In both cases, Democrats were at fault.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/8/2012 @ 1:00 pmI thought of the move as kind of just plain stupid, to use the vernacular. It is a bit like “pulling on Superman’s cape”. Anyone paying attention knows who Dershowitz is, and unless a person is of near equal public stature, getting into a public peeing match with him over a negative comment he made shows about the maturity and wisdom of a second grader.
As far as the generally litigious climate, there are not enough independently wealthy lawyers around to take on worthy cases, or not broad enough laws permitting dueling, or a high enough standard of legal ethics, or a philosophy of legal practice that is misled, or something, as I have seen first hand the absolutely ^%(%^$^&$*&$% ridiculous and unjust SLAPP suit, enabled by inept or corrupt (or both) state officials, and pro-bono “help” that had significant unforeseen secondary gain at stake. It definitely is NOT a justice system, but a legal system, and the one who can manipulate it best wins.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/8/2012 @ 1:09 pmComment by Icy — 6/8/2012 @ 2:32 am
R.I.P. BOB WELCH
A musician who committed suicide. I don’t know why peoiple are so stupid. He was said to have health issues and left a suicide note. He belonmged to a band called Fleetwood Mac, whatever that is.
This sort of looked like, but I knew it couldn’t be, a tribute to John Birch Society Founder Robert C. Welch (1899–1985)
I think the John Birch Society may have been secretly funded at the start by Joseph P. Kennedy (because it attacked Eisenhower, a Republican, and his son was a Democrat) and because he knew Welch.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/8/2012 @ 1:10 pmHe belonged to Fleetwood Mac before it became the Fleetwood Mac that the majority of people know. I’m sure someone else knows whether he quit the band, was asked to leave, or got pushed out by Buckingham/Nicks.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/8/2012 @ 1:28 pmThe only song of his I can remember was a remake of a previously released Fleetwood Mac song which I guess he wrote. I remember the original with Christine McVie singing background (I think).
Well, it could also have been about the Bob Welch who pitched for the Dodgers c. 1978
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 6/8/2012 @ 1:42 pm“Even Tommy Xtopher knows that Barack was NOT going for the double entendre.”
Icy – I guess that settles it then. We all know how authoritative Tommy Xtopher’s post’s are. I just remind myself never to get in between Michelle and a Mexican buffet in case I find myself in such a position.
I don’t even understand the double entendre people are talking about becausde I am such an innocent and delicate flower. I depend upon people such as Mr. Feets and elissa to explain such worldly matters to me.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/8/2012 @ 2:15 pmThe best “excommunication” for an elected official is defeat at the polls.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/8/2012 @ 2:35 pmHuh? She’s throwing the book at one Hispanic to show that she wasn’t racist in throwing the book at another Hispanic? Is there some subtle racial difference between George Zimmerman and Cristian Fernandez that I’m missing?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/8/2012 @ 4:37 pmRelax, all is well;
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/08/154614551/attorney-general-holder-assigns-prosecutors-to-leaks-probe?ft=1&f=
narciso (494474) — 6/8/2012 @ 4:43 pmThis would be more amusing if it weren’t so deadly serious.
David (c45e99) — 6/8/2012 @ 9:24 pmWe’re both missing the difference. But there is a difference in the way these people were described, particularly leading up to charges.
Anyway, you do seem to be missing my musing here. The Cristian case was ‘throwing the book’ at a person of color, to use the MSM way of describing people. And prosecuting George is actually about showing ‘sensitivity’ to the victim, Trayvon, also a person of color. I wonder if her recent book throwing is partly to show parity to the prior.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/8/2012 @ 11:44 pmI don’t even understand the double entendre people are talking about becausde I am such an innocent and delicate flower. I depend upon people such as Mr. Feets and elissa to explain such worldly matters to me.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/8/2012 @ 2:15 pm
— I didn’t know, either, until Mr Tyler explained it to me:
Icy (f2a23b) — 6/9/2012 @ 1:44 amhe said “you ain’t seen nothin’ till you’re down on a muffin
then you’re sure to be a-changin’ your ways”
He belonged to Fleetwood Mac before it became the Fleetwood Mac that the majority of people know. I’m sure someone else knows whether he quit the band, was asked to leave, or got pushed out by Buckingham/Nicks.
Comment by MD in Philly — 6/8/2012 @ 1:28 pm
— Welch quit the band. There’s a painful video (it’s on YouTube) of his appearance at Cal Jam 2 in 1978. Right in front of Mick Fleetwood and Stevie Nicks (onstage she sings backup on the performance of his hit “Ebony Eyes”) the clueless interviewer (Jeff Conaway, the now-dead pretty boy drug addict star of “Taxi”) asks Welch if he regrets quitting Fleetwood Mac right before they became the biggest band in the world. Awk
Icy (f2a23b) — 6/9/2012 @ 2:08 amHe belonged to Fleetwood Mac before it became the Fleetwood Mac that the majority of people know. I’m sure someone else knows whether he quit the band, was asked to leave, or got pushed out by Buckingham/Nicks.
Comment by MD in Philly — 6/8/2012 @ 1:28 pm
— Welch quit the band. There’s a painful video (it’s on YouTube) of his appearance at Cal Jam 2 in 1978. Right in front of Mick Fleetwood and Stevie Nicks (onstage she sings backup on the performance of his hit “Ebony Eyes”) the clueless interviewer (Jeff Conaway, the now-dead pretty boy drug addict star of “Taxi”) asks Welch if he regrets quitting Fleetwood Mac right before they became the biggest band in the world. Awk•ward!
Icy (f2a23b) — 6/9/2012 @ 2:09 am“Gee, where have I seen these tactics before?”
When James O’Keefe threatened to sue Olbermann, Shuster and their employer (which he then proceeded to do)?
Funny, you guys seemed to approve of that wholeheartedly (me too).
As far as Dershowitz’ tale goes. It’s 100% hearsay, and I wouldn’t trust the source as far as I could toss it, even if it wasn’t hearsay.
That being said, IMO, Ms. Corey does have grounds to sue for libel, though I wouldn’t bother if I was her.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 4:09 amComment by Icy — 6/9/2012 @ 2:09 am
Thanks for the info. (Oh yeah, I remember that one too, now that you mention it.)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 5:48 amNow, Dave, hadn’t Keef and co, accused O’Keefe, of
narciso (494474) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:00 amrape as the tale went.
67 Fleetwood Mac was a great band, Cream territory, before Welch quit, two genius lead guitars on stage.
gary gulrud (93851b) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:07 amYikes!
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/329985.php
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:25 amGary… I actually saw Cream in the Spring of ’68, with Spirit opening for them. And I saw Fleetwood Mac back in December of ’75 right after Buckingham/Nicks joined them at the fabulous Forum in L.A. when they and Little Feat opened for Dave Mason.
As for Welch, here’s what I always thought was his best with teh Mac…
http://youtu.be/_O8ejbrJPk4
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:30 amWelch wasn’t with them in the Peter “Genius” Green days. it was Green and Danny Kirwan.
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:31 amTeh Mac with Green and Kirwan…
http://youtu.be/KE4HGlmtOcg
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:34 amso many great memories… seeing the Box Tops and Country Joe and the Fish on one show, Love and Canned Heat all in the Spring of ’68 at the Anaheim Convention Center for $2 a show…
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:40 amGot to talk to Alex Chilton… what a voice!
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:41 amTo me, rock music was never more creative than the mid-60’s to mid-70’s period. Never will be. But old fart, I am.
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:43 amanother Mac gem…
http://youtu.be/mtYfKe1-0Pw
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:48 amand another…
http://youtu.be/Viqr6KHwJjc
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:54 amKinda fun trying to remember all the bands we saw back in Teh Day… the aforementioned, Yes (several times), Eagles, Bowie (several times), Jackson Browne, Allman Bros., Marshall Tucker Band, Boz Scaggs, Elton John, Joe Walsh, Led Zeppelin, Humble Pie, ZZ Top, Aerosmith, Pretty Things, Jethro Tull, Leon Russell… know I’m leaving many out.
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:31 amcaught a good Traffic concert at the Santa Monica Civic in ’73, I think. Oh… and John “Mahavishnu” McLaughlin and Carlos Santana at the Civic…
That. Was. Awesome.
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:35 amHaiku,
Why did Ace close comments? I read the post and it sounds like a problem with some commenters, but I wondered if you know the rest of the story.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:36 amokay, I ran the table. Anyone else care to share?
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:36 amI don’t know, DRJ. Haven’t looked but he sure appears to be upset about something that went on there.
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:37 amMight be something to do with Timmah’s evil twin Jimmah.
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:39 amSounds like you are a few years older than me, Colonel- I didn’t go to many, but overlap with Yes and Jackson Browne, I also saw Neil Young, and Dan Fogelberg, a little later and certainly not as well known but I thought gifted. He died a few years ago of prostate cancer. Dylan’s over 70, the Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, and Beatles came on the scene 50 years ago.
Some classical composers have been remembered centuries after their death. If we’re here, I wonder who will be remembered and how in 2062. Today TV announcers will talk about how so-and-so team hasn’t been in the Super Bowl since 2007 or such as if that was a long time ago and everything seems so “now” focused. I wonder if life has always been this way for humans, or was there a time, ever, where the flow of history through the centuries was in bigger perspective.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:03 amI remember a friend in high school saying this guy Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band was going to make it big one day, kind of like seeing Fleetwood Mac open for somebody.
I think I remember nk saying they had Styx as the band at his high school prom, the had signed the contract for it right before they hit it big and were already rising to the top, I think.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:07 amMD… I saw Springsteen in ’81 at the L.A. Sports Arena… loudest show I ever saw, my ears actually hurt/rang for 3 days afterward… always thought Styx and REO Speedwagon sucked… saw Cheap Trick New Year’s Eve in Long Beach and they were superb.
And, how could I forget… I saw Steely Dan at UC Irvine in ’74… wonderful.
And then came the 80’s… Devo (way, way fun, many times)… Talking Heads (twice on their ’83 tour, once in Costa Mesa and once at the Pantages, when they were filming “Stop Making Sense” they were absolutely incredible… Teh Clash (worst show I’ve ever seen, they had visible contempt for their audience, so disappointed) at the Hollywood Palladium in ’82… Squeeze (many times, great band)… Sparks (fun!)… Motels… Missing Persons… Oingo Boingo (fun)… B-52’s (couple of times, fun)… Neville Bros… Supertramp… could (and have?) go on and on…
Colonel Haiku (822f69) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:37 amJimmah promised to keep using his ‘unlimited ip addresses’ to continue leaving comments that were violating Ace’s demand that people not leave Internet Tough Guy comments about Kimberlin that create problems. Ace was unable to ban him (he tried, apparently repeatedly).
Ace also had a touching and saddening talk in the comments about how he can’t accept the Breitbart Award (he won) because he is afraid of Brett Kimberlin and thus finds it unsafe to expose himself to the awards ceremony. Ace then explained that Breitbart wouldn’t have been afraid. I find Ace’s prudence wise and this chapter of the story very sad.
This Jimmah guy (perhaps a Neal Rauhauser sockpuppet… but frankly I tend to assume ‘Moby’ of awful folks when there really are some legitimately insane jerks out there).
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:46 amI didn’t complete that sentence! Suffice to say I had something unkind to say about Jimmah, but he doesn’t deserve the effort.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:48 amThanks, Dustin.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:53 amEven though I obviously love commenting, I am not sure comment sections are all that useful. I’ve only seen someone change their mind about something substantial a handful of times in comment sections. They are usually flamewars and comment police moaning about other commenters. I’m as guilty as anyone else as far as that goes.
I’ve seen better dialogues from actual blog posts fisking eachother.
And it’s got to be stressful for bloggers to deal with the same slew of attacks repeatedly, or opt to give up and leave them unanswered.
I hate to say it, but I think Neal’s behavior probably tips the scales to the point where comment sections aren’t really worth it. Blog posts are. Twitter is good, too, for facilitating the exchange (like telling someone you responded to their argument at your blog).
Alternatively, make people register in order to comment.
On a largely unrelated tangent, I’m amazed at how high the price of commenting can be. I’m not sure folks would pay the admission price in advance.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 9:15 amI like commenting sections because they flesh out topics and different points of view. And while I have seen people change their mind, what we don’t see Is how it impacts the views of people who read but don’t comment. I think that could include a lot of people.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 9:28 amso many great memories… seeing the Box Tops and Country Joe and the Fish on one show, Love and Canned Heat all in the Spring of ’68 at the Anaheim Convention Center for $2 a show…
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 6/9/2012 @ 6:40 am
— Colonel lucky guy
Icy (c12780) — 6/9/2012 @ 9:30 amIcy three years old back then
Saw Romper Room “live”!
The comment section is a great resource for free expression. But I agree with Dustin that they maybe more trouble than they’re worth. Especially with asshats like jimmeh using “multiple ips” just trying to cause problems. I think ace handled that pretty well. When the FBI asks for the info, which they almost assuredly will, ace will hand it over, no questions asked.
Don’t eff with people’s lives. We’re better than that.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/9/2012 @ 9:31 amSurls, your considered opinion that Corey has a case for libel is of a nature of your opinions of the criminal case itself. That is to so, fact free, baseless, and incomprehensible.
SPQR (dcb33b) — 6/9/2012 @ 9:43 am_________________________________________________
I am not sure comment sections are all that useful.
Patterico’s board has been helpful to me because on many occasions it has made me look up the background or details on some person, topic or controversy.
I recall when a discussion on this forum prompted me to get the history of Herbert Hoover, who I previously had stereotyped as being a laissez-faire, “survival of the fittest” conservative instead of what he actually was, or an ideological predecessor to Franklin Roosevelt.
My main problem with this board is that it has the worst graphic interface, by far, of any forum I’ve ever come across on the internet. As punishment, Patterico’s web designer should have his (or her) eyes poked out. That person is why unless I’m in the middle of an active discussion and therefore don’t have to return and wade through dozens of new postings, I find myself breezing through lots of the messages. Almost no other message forum — particularly the ones linked to a story posted to the drudgereport — makes me want to do that.
Mark (23717c) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:08 amOkay, I’ll ‘fess up: first concert was Pablo Cruise in ’78
The second show I saw was a bit better: Boston w/ Sammy Hagar opening (March ’79)
Icy (c12780) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:08 amI like comment sections, and I like that this site doesn’t make you register through some other network. It is enjoyable interacting with (some) other people and one can often learn additional things that the primary host doesn’t have time, energy, or interest to cover.
That said, I’m also eager to see some mechanism that helps put flame wars to a sideline that people don’t have to waste time over.
I was a few years late to see Steve Miller, Boz Scaggs, and Cheap Trick when they would have been on the way up in Madison.
I was in med school and residency in the 80’s, was there music then? I could have gotten free admission to Live Aid as a volunteer, took the day off instead… Time After Time is the main song that is from the 80’s that somehow crept into my consciousness.
Icy, did you know Katy Perry was censored off of Sesame Street? She was wearing something appropriate only if she wanted to help the Count demonstrate counting to two using female anatomy… She still gets played on radio disney, in spite of a song Friday Night or some such that ought to get her charged with several hundred thousands of counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:17 amA good point.
What I would really love to see is Web2.0 type site that somehow produces a readable exchange between multiple bloggers (who agree to be quoted beyond Fair Use levels… actually in entirety). That way folks can enjoy intelligent debates.
Something like Twitchy, only with pages of text instead of tweets.
And if someone wants to debate, they can blog a post up. If someone wants to have a flamewar or be an internet tough guy, they can go to 4chan.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:19 am_______________________________________________
Today TV announcers will talk about how so-and-so team hasn’t been in the Super Bowl since 2007 or such as if that was a long time ago and everything seems so “now” focused. I wonder if life has always been this way for humans,
And yet I think modern culture and technology are causing time to become seemingly more and more compressed. Take a look at images from the 1950s compared with the late 1960s — or a span of 15 to 20 years — and there seems to be a bigger gap between those two eras, compared with the difference between the late 1960s and today, or a span of over 40 years.
Things like the style of dress (dowdy), bulky automobiles (tail fins), and the technological level of photography (mainly black and white) in the 1950s makes that period seem intrinsically old-fashioned. Move forward only a bit more than 12 years, to the anti-war, hippy, “groovy” period of the late 1960s, and in some ways the look of that time seems less distant from today, 2012, compared with the space between the 50s and late 60s.
Oh, and the arrival of Daylight Saving Time to just about year-round has also heightened the sense of each day becoming more and more compressed and moving more and more quickly: “It seems like it’s only 9:00 in the morning—damn, it’s already 10:00 and I’m late for my meeting!!”
Mark (23717c) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:24 amKaty Perry HAS contributed to the delinquency of a minor . . .
But enough about her ex-husband.
Icy (c12780) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:24 amOne problem with my idea is that the best exchanges cross ideological lines.
And there is just so much animus (latin for soul, I believe, but I mean hostility) between left and right.
Most folks feel out a site to see if it’s biased. I read Wonkette and Kos… actually every day, but I can’t bring myself to take them seriously because I just cannot understand some of their basic views and assumptions and even recollections of facts. And I know many on the left think the exact same thing about Instapundit or Patterico, folks I find quite reasonable even when I don’t agree with them (which is much more often than I let on… my recent commentary has been focused on issues that transcend my political views).
So this back and forth site… is it even possible? Would its cherry picking of choice arguments be possible without whichever side wins the debates (the conservatives, of course! LOL) defining the site as ‘ridiculously partisan’, no matter how fair it is?
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:27 amTHE COUNT: One, two; two boobies! Ha ha!
Icy (c12780) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:32 am[Looks at Katy. She glances at him, smiling.]
THE COUNT: I think I want to suck something other than your blood.
______________________________________________
in spite of a song Friday Night
Whose lyrics mention about getting wasted and ending up in a menage a trois. BTW, Perry told Barbara Walters without any hesitation or embarrassment that she’s had affairs with women. Interviews like that one help shape my political outlook and make me realize that free choice and free will are more significant than even I realized many years ago.
Mark (23717c) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:37 amWhy do clearly intelligent people care about celebrity news? What is interesting about the same dull story with a new face?
I am so fortunate that I don’t even know who Katy Perry is.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:40 amI’m sorry, Dustin wonkette is too much ‘a den of scum and villainy, for me, to stay there more than a few moments, tere’s no point to it
narciso (494474) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:45 am107. Amen.
mg (44de53) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:47 amI think a commentator at Ace hit the nail on the head: Some people simply cannot handle the responsibility of pure free speech.
I like the comments section because there is the ability to express oneself and discover where, if, and how one might be wrong (or have their view affirmed), but mostly I appreciate seeing how others arrive at the conclusions they do. IOW, what process in thinking took place to get them to their conclusion. Also, everyone coming from such different walks in life adds a richness to the convos. It’s fascinating.
(Of course, there are those that I wish would be quiet once in a while and remember that not everything that goes on upstairs needs to be said out loud.)
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:50 amHi Mark–
Again today, as you have in the past, you’ve made a comment here about disliking the thread format or graphic interface. I’ve never seen you actually say specifically what it is you object to, though. I think the site is fine (more than fine, actually) and have no problem reading it or following the comment entries. I don’t recall anyone else bitching about it, either. Is it possible that different browsers or settings or some other aspect makes the site “look” different to different people? What are you seeing that bothers you so much? I don’t think you’re crazy or anything, but how can people “fix it” or respond to the criticism if they don’t know what you mean? Maybe this is something that can be adjusted at your end?
elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:52 amthe IceMan cometh
Colonel Haiku (837e3e) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:53 ammuch too late to teh show
for Engineer Bill?
_________________________________________________
I am so fortunate that I don’t even know who Katy Perry is.
Actually, Dustin, that person is worth observing if only because she reflects the interesting contradictions and ironies in people, socially and politically. I’m referring to both her parents and her own personal background:
Modern culture and politics in microcosm
This calls to mind the phrase of there not necessarily being goodness in the heart of the larcenous, but there always being a bit of larceny in the heart of the good—(Katy has a great rack!).
Mark (23717c) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:59 amHe thinks there should be some kind of prominent mark between comments. Like a large line, or an outline around comments.
I think Patterico is clearly too busy to bother with this. But he’s obviously informed about the complaint and there’s no use repeating it.
I noticed that using the ignore plug in, there’s more blue text between each comment, so perhaps that would be a good solution for the time being?
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:07 am_______________________________________________
What are you seeing that bothers you so much?
Elissa, I’m surprised you don’t notice my always including this…
______________________________
…above, if not also below, my postings. It’s the only way I can more easily and quickly detect my previous posting, or any of them overall. Otherwise, all the postings end up like one big blur.
No other message forum that I’m aware of dispenses with the inclusion of graphic dividers between each posting. So the lack of that format to me is like hundreds of sentences strung together without the use of paragraph breaks. Or what’s sometimes called monster blocks of text. But when it comes to the different ways that each person’s eyes perceive things, YMMV.
Mark (23717c) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:08 am_______________________________________________
In addition to the aforementioned trolls and mobys I think Ace was also dealing with some well intentioned but “overserved” loyal morons on that comment thread late last night who were not being as prudent in their comments as Ace had repeatedly asked them to be. And they seemed to get progressively less prudent as the night wore on–all the while in their own minds thinking they were supporting Ace. Ace was clearly hurt that they were not respecting his wishes to tone it down and he was spending a lot of energy deleting comments which he felt would play into the hands of the bad guys. I am guessing that he couldn’t let those comments stand under current conditions, could not stay awake all night to monitor and delete the crazy ones, and didn’t want to be forced to permanently ban his regulars who were temporarily drunk. He made the right call to close comments, I believe.
elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:10 amCelebrity news is around us, whether we like it or not.
“What’s worse”, if the phrase applies to that song, is not only is she too intoxicated/high to remember where/who’s bed she is waking up in on Sat am, but she plans next Friday night to…do it again!!!
You are fortunate Dustin. She was once a teen “Christian” recording star with I believe a pastor father who went to the dark side, recorded a song about how she couldn’t resist the beat of the devil’s rock and roll, and there she was…
To continue to boor you, that song was on an early CD by Selena Gomez, then a Disney star, with the album dedicated to “Jesus her Lord and Savior”, if I remember correctly…Selena Gomez is also still played on Disney radio, though at 18 she was on the cover of Cosmopolitan.
Revisiting Britney Spears, who reportedly was the paragon of virtue for many years, in spite of her song lyrics and dance moves…
It would seem a bit extreme to many to forbid radio disney, but I would have been happy for my daughter to never have learned about it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:10 amI am totally unfamiliar with Selena Gomez as well.
Brittney Spears I’ve heard of, mainly from a South Park episode that explored how destructive celebrity status can be.
I don’t watch television other than Netflix and online accessible programs like South Park. I can’t recall the last time I saw a television commercial except at my gymnasium (where I don’t hear the commercial).
My understanding is that TV watchers experience thousands of product placements and commercials, and the last time I watched it at a friend’s house, it felt like the home was constantly being invaded by shouting.
I think folks should cancel their cable TV and sat TV. It’s obsolete for news. It’s obsolete for entertainment. It also crams crap into our heads rather desperately.
Even folks who are 60+ should really consider video games for entertainment, because it’s far more stimulating and immersive, and I think the creativity in that field is far superior.
That + Books will keep the brain sharp instead of mushy from watching the latest reality drama on TV.
Just my .02. I still love a few shows (Breaking Bad and South Park), but I get ’em from Netflix.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:17 amAnd I’m not trying to be a snob about culture or anything. That’s why I mentioned South Park, which is intelligent but not exactly high-horse worthy.
And they have plenty of product placement (though I think they mock the concept).
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:19 amMark, yes we all see your black lines and we always know that’s you. You say that otherwise you only see a big blur. I don’t think most of us do see one big blur. At least I don’t see a big blur. I do see a distinct number to the left of each and every comment and comments which are clearly indented into the page. I see at least a double space of clear page between each comment and also between each commenter’s name, date and time. Is that what you see? Nobody else seems to need the lines to function. Please accept that I’m interested in resolving the problem– not being critical of you.
elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:22 amWe don’t have cable and watch little TV as well, other than things on Netflix.
But one would have to put the wall very high around a child in terms of what friends they can make and where can they go, unless one is in a very tight-knit more or less closed community, like I suppose conservative Mennonite or Orthodox Judaism.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:22 amelissa,
It looks like it was one or two, perhaps, but that was one or two too many.
Whether drunk or reckless, it was completely disrespectful to Ace and to the wide berth of freedom he gives his commentators. Again, some simply cannot handle the responsibilities of free speech.
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:23 amI would like color coding of comments to easily ID frequent trolls and people whose comments are generally of considerable worth (different colors, of course), such as shipwreckedcrew and many others who I will not make a complete list of.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:25 amYes, people focus on “rights” more than responsibilities to great harm.
I guess the Founding Fathers assumed people learned about responsibilities elsewhere.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:32 am“Again, some simply cannot handle the responsibilities of free speech.”
Dana – Thick people mostly.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:37 amTrue. It’s all around us. It’s in our schools and every line at the grocery store.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:40 amDana–
I don’t know how many there were of Ace’s own regular peeps that he was dealing with, but he and several other commenters mentioned the alcohol scenario. And the way the numbering system kept changing due to individual comment deletions–just over the space of an hour or so–suggests he had a big problem on his hands. He kept explaining why he had to insist on different and higher standards for that particular type of thread than on a normal weekend “anything goes” moron-fest.
The late night commenters here at Patterico seem to do a pretty good job of monitoring their own intake before and while blogging. Only rarely when I catch up the next day do I think, “OK, he (and it’s always a he) probably wouldn’t have shared that if he were sober.” 🙂
elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:41 am______________________________________________
Is that what you see? Nobody else seems to need the lines to function.
Elissa, I guess my eyes just need the presence of a visual handrail, if you will. I recall when I first came across this forum a few years ago, I automatically hesitated, rubbed my eyes, and backed away from it because of its interface. But since I like Patterico and many of his commentators — and since I admit to using this board mainly to allow myself to mull things over personally and then use that to help me in face-to-face conversations — I do visit it more than any other forum.
But I regret that because of this board’s format, I tend to be lazy about tracking many users’ comments and often will be like a latecomer coming into the middle of an ongoing discussion and trying to make heads or tails of it. Maybe that’s one reason why various flammers or trolls to patterico.com don’t stand out to me or bother me as much as they do others.
Mark (23717c) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:43 amone would have to put the wall very high around a child in terms of what friends they can make and where can they go,
True. It’s all around us. It’s in our schools and every line at the grocery store.
It’s not just children who are under the subtle attack to wrest their minds and focus: I have always maintained the real war on women takes place at every line in the grocery store. That women are failing and falling short of, screams at us from every *womens* mag on the stands. There is *nothing* we are not lacking in. I’m not sure who’s more idiotic: women are push the lie or women who fall for it.
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:45 amI like commenting sections because they flesh out topics and different points of view. And while I have seen people change their mind, what we don’t see Is how it impacts the views of people who read but don’t comment. I think that could include a lot of people.
Comment by DRJ — 6/9/2012 @ 9:28 am
Totally agreed. *back to read-only lurk mode* 😉
no one you know (325a59) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:47 amdaley @ 125,
Didn’t you say 15 lbs off on the internet???? I’m counting on that… no more “thick” here!
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:50 am____________________________________________
She was once a teen “Christian” recording star with I believe a pastor father who went to the dark side,
She does have the word “Christ” tattooed on her arm, but the pathway that her father took apparently is reversed. So he went from the dark side and then later became almost overly rigid in his Christian theology. I guess he’s therefore like certain ex-smokers, or the ones who are said to be among the sternest, most committed, vocal anti-smokers around. IOW, from one extreme to the other.
The story of such people illustrates the concept of everyone being “born sinners.” I used to take that phrase rather casually or indifferently, but I realize it’s a far more accurate assessment of human nature than what comes out of the typical psychology department of many universities. Or experts who downplay the need or importance of self-control and personal discipline and responsibility.
Mark (23717c) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:53 amThis is great news,
…he discussed the recent letters sent by Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss and Texas Congressman Kenny Marchant calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the SWATting incidents, Erickson announced a breaking development regarding Congressional actions:
I have been told that Monday, the House of Representatives will engage on this and seventy or more members will formally be sending a letter to Eric Holder, asking him on behalf of these members of the house to also get the FBI involved.
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:59 am“Didn’t you say 15 lbs off on the internet???? I’m counting on that… no more “thick” here!”
Dana – I am celebrating Speedo season, on the internet.
Plus I would not know anything if I did not read those wymmins mags in the checkout line in the supermarket.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 12:17 pmThere are plenty of sites where I read the blog posts and ignore the comments.
Patterico is clearly not one of those sites. I get a lot out of the commentary of the people here. I even gain something from the trolls, if only an appreciation of the wit and patience displayed by the regulars.
Ace is another site where I enjoy the comments, but for quite a different reason. The morons and ‘ettes there display low and vulgar humor, but it is very much like the (half-)witted sparring on display in a raucous but friendly pub. Ace regularly has to throw everybody out, it seems. But at this time, Ace and others are under attack.
And some people just want a place to drink and tell dirty jokes. When the house is on fire, grab a water bucket. Drink later.
Pious Agnostic (ee2c24) — 6/9/2012 @ 12:17 pm“Surls, your considered opinion that Corey has a case for libel is of a nature of your opinions of the criminal case itself…”
True. My opinion, expressed months ago, was that this was a case of murder, and that Zimmerman ought to be charged and tried…and that’s what, in fact, has happened. He has been charged, and it looks like this case is going to trial.
That’s why my considered opinions actually have some value (unlike the opinions of some other people I could name).
Mr. Dershowitz made one claim in an article that appeared in the New York Daily News, namely this one, that’s looks actionable to me:
“There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.”
If I was her, I wouldn’t make a big deal about it (because Dershowitz is a fatuous ass, who’s been wrong about pretty much everything he’s said in regard to this case, and nobody with a brain takes what he says seriously, anyway), but I think she has reason to claim that she’s been defamed, if she wants to get fussy about it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 12:59 pmBTW, Perry told Barbara Walters without any hesitation or embarrassment that she’s had affairs with women.
— She told us all, with the lyrics to her breakout hit. Not exactly hard-hitting journalism on the part of Ms. Wawa.
Icy (c12780) — 6/9/2012 @ 1:01 pmthe IceMan cometh
much too late to teh show
for Engineer Bill?
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 6/9/2012 @ 10:53 am
— Much too late, Colonel. I do remember the first color broadcast of Captain Kangaroo, though.
Icy (c12780) — 6/9/2012 @ 1:07 pmDave Surls, you are only showing your ignorance of defamation law – of the same order as your ignorance of self-defense law. His opinions are not actionable, and anyone who actually knows something of defamation law thinks she is a fatuous clown.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 1:20 pmSPQR: “Surls, your considered opinion that Corey has a case for libel is of a nature of your opinions of the criminal case itself…”
True.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/9/2012 @ 12:59 pm
— I didn’t bother to quote the rest of Surls’ post because (in the case of this subject, anyway) that one word response is all you really need to know.
To tie this in with the discussion Pious and others are having about whether to read or skip comments, I recommend skimming them for fresh angles and insights (they ARE there, if you look for them) but I’m just as “guilty” as I suspect some others are of skipping over some comments based on the name of the commenter — and all of the delineating lines in the world will not change that.
Icy (c12780) — 6/9/2012 @ 1:22 pmDave, even if she did (and she doesn’t) have a case to make against Dershowitz, she could not have one against Harvard, as they have no liability for his speech.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 6/9/2012 @ 1:24 pm“I didn’t bother to quote the rest of Surls’ post”
No reason why you should. The rest of my post is available right on this webpage.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 1:32 pmIcy, why quote all of Surls’ comment? Its his practice to omit the substance of any comment that he quotes so as to create a strawman argument for his great wit.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 1:34 pmHave you all read about the latest known unfortunate innocent victim of the “justice for Trayvon” crowd? Some poor soul got assigned Zimmerman’s old cellphone number. It’s covered over at Treacher’s Trawler site.
elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 1:38 pm…and every line at the grocery store.
Comment by Dustin — 6/9/2012 @ 11:40 am
Forgive me and tell me if I’ve said this before…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 2:15 pmOur oldest was about 18 when he told us about the time when he was 5 or so (and could already read) and saw a headline on the National Enquirer about the end of the world coming on a particular day. This caused an intellectual and moral crisis for him. On one hand, he knew he was supposed to ignore, not read, the magazines at the checkout lane, so didn’t want to admit that he had, for fear of getting into trouble. OTOH, he didn’t know whether to be more upset about the impending end of the world, or the fact that he had two seemingly clueless parents who didn’t care if the world ended or not…
“Dave Surls, you are only showing your ignorance of defamation law – of the same order as your ignorance of self-defense law…”
And, yet your hero has been charged with murder, just like I said he ought to be from day one.
Go figure.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 2:19 pmAnd OJ was found innocent of murder, just like some said from day one.
So what.
If it was that clear Z did wrong, why wasn’t he charged in the first place?
and if he wasn’t charged in the first place,
was all of the secondary action justified or the result of PC race baiting no one gives a d*** about the truth play it for the politics BS?
My desire is that full and truthful information be given, and whether Dershowitz is just looking for more publicity or not, I have confidence in our own shipwreckedcrew (as well as Andy McCarthy) that if he/they say they would be embarrassed to turn over something that looked like the affidavit in question, I believe them.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 2:31 pm“And OJ was found innocent of murder, just like some said from day one.”
This is true, thanks in large part to the efforts of Alan Dershowitz, and also to the bungling incompetence of the state.
If Zimmerman is real lucky, it might work out that way for him as well.
I wouldn’t wager serious money on it though.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 2:46 pm“If it was that clear Z did wrong, why wasn’t he charged in the first place?”
Incompetence, racism, Zimmerman’s daddy is a former judge?
Who knows?
I don’t read minds.
And, I don’t especially care why, because whatever cause the error has been remedied.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 3:10 pmThat is funny. I hope you meant it to be.
Dianna (f12db5) — 6/9/2012 @ 3:21 pm“Dave, even if she did (and she doesn’t) have a case to make against Dershowitz…”
Actually, she does.
Mr. Dershowitz possibly imputed criminal conduct on the part of Ms. Corey when he stated that her actions have been anything but lawful.
In addition, Dershowitz has stated that Ms. Corey has engaged in actions that are not only unlawful, but are unprofessional and unethical, and any or all of those accusations could possibly damage her in her profession.
As far as I can tell, Dershowitz’ statements are false, published, unprivileged and possibly injurious (depending on whether anyone takes Dershowitz’ babbling nonsense seriously)…in short libelous.
If I was her, I’d just blow it off, but she has good reason to complain if she wants to, and she might very well prevail in a defamation lawsuit.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 4:25 pm118-Dustin- Could not agree more. I love sports, but have gone back to the radio. Brings back grand memories of days past.
mg (44de53) — 6/9/2012 @ 5:34 pmAnd, I don’t especially care why, because whatever cause the error has been remedied.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/9/2012 @ 3:10 pm
Mr. Surls-
One last comment from me (hopefully it will indeed be my last to you on this, I keep telling myself it will be).
If Z committed a crime, I want him prosecuted and found guilty, but as far as I can see, the original case in the press was composed of outright lies, dishonest editing, and presumption of guilt until proven innocent. When I see actual evidence of his guilt of a crime, that it was not a justifiable homicide, I will be happy to concede such.
I do not know if it is your aim, but you have made yourself much disliked in the discussion of this matter. In fact, I have had to rewrite this multiple times to make it civil while trying to communicate the extent of disgust you have provoked. You may otherwise be a wonderful person, “practically perfect in every way”, but the attitude you have projected in this matter has been quite a pain in multiple parts of anatomy.
You claim that we put up Z as a hero, which we don’t, and act as if you are in possession of the definitive evidence that proves he is guilty, and that we should all bow to your judgement. You say you do not read minds, but it is of little consequence if you otherwise claim infallible knowledge.
You have not won any friends, and you will not have won any argument even if Z is found guilty, whether there is evidence for it or not. IMO, all you have accomplished is to show it is possible to say, “Hey, the racist is guilty” without any evidence. But we already knew that from the MSM.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:10 pm“I do not know if it is your aim, but you have made yourself much disliked in the discussion of this matter.”
That’s often the case when one strays from orthodoxy.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:24 pmIt had nothing to do with straying from the orthodoxy.
JD (395555) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:31 pmlike watching version
elissa (6096e1) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:42 pmof movie “groundhog day” but
not very good one
I can’t stop laughing. What a great story.
😉
Dustin (330eed) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:46 pmDustin- on one hand it is a hilarious story, and related as so by our son- but my oh my, too much for a poor 5 yo to deal with, end of the world or clueless parents would be enough, but both at the same time…
It had nothing to do with straying from the orthodoxy.
Comment by JD
Thank you, JD
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:57 pmtrue that, elissa
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 6:58 pm“It had nothing to do with straying from the orthodoxy.”
I was popular enough up until the point I took a contrary view in regard to the George Zimmerman case, thus defying conservative/right wing dogma.
Now, I’m about as popular as Typhoid Mary.
Such is life, when you refuse to go along with the crowd.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:05 pmIt has nothing to do with the act of disagreeing. Nothing. It is the manner in which it was done.
JD (395555) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:08 pmdisagreeable
Colonel Haiku (912b0b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:19 pmteh smelly pirate h00kers
over on teh Left
Surls, your ignorance of the law of defamation appears to be complete.
And you are wrong, you did not become unpopular for believing that Zimmerman’s shooting is a crime. You became unpopular by being completely unwilling and unable to defend your opinion with actual facts but instead only defending it with gratuitous and unoriginal insults.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:23 pmA chicken crossing
Colonel Haiku (912b0b) — 6/9/2012 @ 7:36 pmroad can be described as
poultry in motion
“Surls, your ignorance of the law of defamation appears to be complete.”
Vintage SPQr…all assertions…no facts to back them up.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:07 pmSurls, an opinion isn’t defamation. The only thing that can be defamatory is a false assertion of a factual matter. Couple this with the NYT vs. Sullivan case standards for public figures, and Dershowitz can say that he thinks Corey’s actions are unethical without it constituting defamation, so long as he does not assert that as a factual matter, she did something that he actually knows she did not do.
He can even say that her actions are unlawful in his opinion without it being defamatory so long as he does not knowingly make false statements about the factual acts that underlie his opinion – which again he hasn’t done.
Your conclusion that Dershowitz is liable for defamation is exactly like your statements about Zimmerman – completely without any factual basis and utterly ignorant of the legal principles.
You are very consistent in your clown hood.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:18 pm…no facts to back them up.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/9/2012 @ 8:07 pm
Gang, did he really say that?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:18 pmYes, MD, Surls actually claims that I had no facts to back up my statements. When he’s been seen to refuse time after time to produce a “fact” to back up his own clown opinions.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2012 @ 8:20 pm“Surls, an opinion isn’t defamation.”
Try expressing the “opinion” that I’m a child molestor on this website…and, I’ll sue your ass for libel.
And, I’ll win too.
Same thing for expressing the “opinion” that someone has engaged in unlawful acts, which is what Dershowitz has suggested.
It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of it’s true or it’s not true, and I very much doubt that Dershowitz could support his allegation by proving in court that Ms. Corey’s acts have been unlawful, should she bring a lawsuit against him (which I very much doubt she’ll do, for a number of reasons).
“Yes, MD, Surls actually claims that I had no facts to back up my statements.”
That’s because you didn’t, and you usually don’t.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 9:55 pm“When he’s been seen to refuse time after time to produce a “fact” to back up his own clown opinions.”
And, yet…your hero has been charged with murder, and it looks like it’s going to go to trial, just like I said he ought to.
Must be a bitter pill for you to swallow.
I understand your rage, and frustration.
Look on the bright side, maybe they’ll empanel a jury of KKK members and Zimmerman walks…that ought to cheer you up.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:05 pm“I do not know if it is your aim, but you have made yourself much disliked in the discussion of this matter.”
That’s often the case when one strays from orthodoxy.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/9/2012 @ 6:24 pm
— It’s also the case when one strays from reality.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/9/2012 @ 7:05 pm
Now, I’m about as popular as Typhoid Mary.
— You flatter yourself. [At least she was a girl.]
Such is life, when you
refuse togo along with the MSNBC crowd.— FTFY
Try expressing the “opinion” that I’m a child molestor on this website…and, I’ll sue your ass for libel.
— There are children on this website? Egad, man! Quick, tell them to hide!
Same thing for expressing the “opinion” that someone has engaged in unlawful acts, which is what Dershowitz has suggested.
Icy (c12780) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:31 pm— By that logic, the first thing Zimmerman does after his acquittal is sue YOU.
And, yet…your hero has been charged with murder, and it looks like it’s going to go to trial, just like I said he ought to.
— Dave, did you know that you are my hero?
You break like the wind beneath my wings.
Look on the bright side, maybe they’ll empanel a jury of KKK members and Zimmerman walks…that ought to cheer you up.
Icy (c12780) — 6/9/2012 @ 10:52 pm— Predictably, you will follow up this comment with a stern denial that you label Zimmerman a “skinhead” because you believe him to be racist.
“That’s often the case when one strays from orthodoxy.”
Dave – That’s often also the case when one sucks on the liberal media crack pipe for one’s misinformation.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:01 pmBut Fernandez’s victims were also people of colour, since they were his half brothers.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:06 pmShe hasn’t been libeled. Every word Dershowitz wrote about her is the obvious truth, and even if it weren’t he clearly believes it to be the truth, which is more than enough to make a defamation suit impossible.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:11 pm“Surls, an opinion isn’t defamation”
Baloney.
Depends on the nature of the opinion expressed.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:11 pmThere was the time Patterico and Beldar were attacking Boehner for something (I no longer remember what) and I stubbornly insisted they were misreading his words, and after several rounds of them telling me to shut up and listen they finally paid attention to what I was saying and realised that I was right. (At least I think it was Boehner.)
Milhouse (312124) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:20 pmMe too, but if I ever have to know I’m sure Wikipedia will tell me. But I managed to remain ignorant of Lady Gaga for at least a year after everyone else knew of her. And I had never heard of Drake until tonight.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:24 pmWhat the terminally ignorant SPQR means to say is that pure opinions (an opinion that can’t be demonstrated to be true or false) aren’t defamation.
Well, that’s probably what he would mean to say if he knew what he was talking about.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:29 pmThat seems reasonably easy to do in Greasemonkey. The hardest part would be creating an inteface letting people pick which users and colours they want, so I think the easiest way to handle that is to hardcode the list in the script and let people edit it as they like. Let me think about that for a bit. Are you comfortable editing a Greasemonkey script just to change the list of usernames and colours to suit your preferences?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:36 pmAnd AW was arrested, just as BK said he should.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/9/2012 @ 11:43 pm“Surls, an opinion isn’t defamation. Couple this with the NYT vs. Sullivan case standards for public figures, and Dershowitz can say that he thinks Corey’s actions are unethical without it constituting defamation, so long as he does not assert that as a factual matter, she did something that he actually knows she did not do.”
Wrong, on almost every point.
1.) It matters not a lick whether he “asserts” it as fact or not. All that matters is the truth or falsity of the statement. IOW, it doesn’t make any difference whether you say “It’s a fact that…” or “It’s my opinion that…” when it comes to defamation.
2.) That isn’t the standard set in Sullivan. The standard is actual malice, which constitutes more than just knowingly making false statements.
“The only thing that can be defamatory is a false assertion of a factual matter.”
That part is correct. If the statement isn’t false, then it isn’t defamatory. Or, at least I haven’t heard of any place in America where that isn’t the case.
Very good. You actually got one thing right. I didn’t know you had it in you.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 1:01 amActually, that’s what you are.
This is what you seem not to understand: what Corey did is a question of fact, and can therefore be the subject of defamation. Whether what she did is unethical or illegal or unprofessional is by definition a matter of opinion, and therefore cannot be the subject of a defamation suit, even if she were not a public figure.
Wrong again. That is exactly what it constitutes. Well, that or making them with reckless disregard for whether they’re true or false.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/10/2012 @ 3:17 am“Wrong again.”
No, what I said is exactly correct.
Unlike what SPQR said.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 4:49 amLook on the bright side, maybe they’ll empanel a jury of KKK members and Zimmerman walks…that ought to cheer you up.
This is a good example.
JD (395555) — 6/10/2012 @ 5:14 amAnd, yet…your hero has been charged with murder
And another
JD (395555) — 6/10/2012 @ 5:15 amWhat the terminally ignorant SPQR
And another
JD (395555) — 6/10/2012 @ 5:18 am“This is a good example.”
Yeah, a good example of what I always do. You start in with the personal attacks on me…I respond in kind.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 5:29 amWe should all take the sentiments expressed here to heart. A very useful read…
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/329994.php
Colonel Haiku (d9a3bf) — 6/10/2012 @ 6:36 amI agree about Ace’s post, Haiku. I hope major bloggers on the right read that post and reflect on it in their own posts.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/10/2012 @ 7:08 amWell speaking truth to power, is indeed dangerous,
narciso (494474) — 6/10/2012 @ 7:16 ambut that doesn’t change the fact, that they have impunity about any charge they make.
Surls, you did a fine job of demonstrating that you don’t know what defamation is.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 7:54 amDefamation requires that one have a reputation for integrity and authenticity above common degree.
Corey has worse than an uphill battle.
She has the grab your ankles and, contorting oneself as strenuously as possible, kiss your mudflaps ‘Good Bye’.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/10/2012 @ 8:19 amJen Rubin is doing just fine today.
Unfortunately, President Obama isn’t: The economy isn’t doing fine (after all), the recovery isn’t doing fine, it’s not going fine with the Jewish voters, nor with Syria, nor with his re-election campaign…and hey, not too fine about those WH leaks of national security, and let’s not even talk about Iran…
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/10/2012 @ 8:22 amAce is utterly blind to hypocrisy. Failing, without exception, to allow your critics a point ups the ante. Ace shoots the moon regularly.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/10/2012 @ 8:22 am194. Obysmal wants to take an Incomplete notifying the Prof finals week, without showing up for class, submitting work or taking a test.
Noonan had it to the effect, “If he wants to be President so much, why doesn’t he just do it”?
Choombaracka jes wants to play all day.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/10/2012 @ 8:29 am= = = = = = = = = = =
htom (412a17) — 6/10/2012 @ 8:47 amMark, I find my previous comment place by using my browser’s search function. Go to the bottom of the page, control-F, type my user name there, click “search upwards”. I prefer (or used to, haven’t seen one in at least a decade) discussion software that does nesting replies and allows for forking and merging of threads. Probably only appreciated by programmers.
196- Todd Rundgren- “Bang on the Drum All Day”
mg (44de53) — 6/10/2012 @ 8:55 amSurls,
Penn and Teller had a show called Bullshit, and in te opening segment of the fest episode: If I say “Dave Surls is a lying conartist,” you could sue me for that (If you haven’t been convicted of perjury or conning). But if I say, “Dave Surls is a bullshitter and a douchebag,” there’s no suing for that.
Corey made a number of public actions. Dershowitz is completely allowed to offer his opinion “I believe she should be disbarred, because shes a miserable prosecutor.” Seriously how are you not understanding this?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/10/2012 @ 8:58 am198. Yeah, quasi-Packer fan, I’d be a thief if I could get the line right.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/10/2012 @ 9:13 amin Australia
Colonel Haiku (d9a3bf) — 6/10/2012 @ 9:33 amLocal Area network
teh LAN Down Undah
Comment by MD in Philly:
OTOH, he didn’t know whether to be more upset about the impending end of the world, or the fact that he had two seemingly clueless parents who didn’t care if the world ended or not…
The thing was, it was highly likely either both were true, or neither. The cluelessness was an argument that the National Enquirer was wrong. (was that the National Enquirer or maybe something else?)
But he was afraid to ask, and get their opinion and evaluation and so assess it better. He had to try to guess:
Is it:
A) Clueless parents and world ending.
OR
B) Parents not clueless and world not ending.
C) World ending and parents care seemed to be ruled out.
Could it be possibly, maybe,
D) Parents clueless and world ending??
But if not, then it was also:
World not ending and newspaper not only printed but left on the stand by evil, stupid or crazy store. And everybody else not caring what it said.
Sammy Finkelman (50ecfc) — 6/10/2012 @ 9:42 amD is the same as A.
That’s anyway right, because he probably reasoned in circles.
But the correct D there would be:
D) Parents care but world not ending.
That’s also ruled out since his parents clearly didn’t care.
He watched. No sign of anything different.
Sammy Finkelman (50ecfc) — 6/10/2012 @ 9:49 amThe choices apparently were:
A) Parents not clueless and world not ending but
newspaper printed and left on the stand by evil, stupid or crazy people and nobody else caring about that.
or
B) Parents clueless and world ending??
If his parents aren’t clueless, what does that say about the people who put and left that newspaper on the stand? Dozens of other people clueless instead?
Sammy Finkelman (50ecfc) — 6/10/2012 @ 9:51 amIf only there was a way to trick Brett Kimberlin into going after Angela Corey…
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/10/2012 @ 10:03 amI thought his post was painfully self aware. And yes, much of it acknowledged he personally deals with the anger that he is arguing against.
But his recent behavior seems to suggests humility or even a self esteem problem (which I do not mean in the normal way, where everyone is supposed to be feeling grand and special… I mean he does not realize his worth).
Dustin (330eed) — 6/10/2012 @ 10:21 amLOL… a poke in teh eye?
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/banana1-75.jpg
Colonel Haiku (d9a3bf) — 6/10/2012 @ 11:02 ammake that…
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/330002.php
Colonel Haiku (d9a3bf) — 6/10/2012 @ 11:03 amOne thing that I did not appreciate well enough for too long, is that cognitive brilliance and emotional maturity are two very different things. IOW, just because a 5 year old can read like an adult and talk like an adult, expect them to act like a 5 year old, not like an adult. If it is in print, it must be true; if a teacher says it, even if it is about drowning polar bears, it must be true.
At the time I don’t think he would have appreciated the difference between the National Enquirer and the Wall Street Journal.
I would have wished that no child of mine would have had to deal with such an existential dilemma at so young an age, without parental guidance. At least suing for parental malpractice is an unusual occurrence.
Yes, the date came and went and the sun arose once again; of course, that didn’t mean that mom and dad weren’t clueless…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/10/2012 @ 11:07 amIf only there was a way to trick Brett Kimberlin into going after Angela Corey…
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/10/2012 @ 10:03 am
— Well, if a little bug were to whisper into his ear that she is looking into prosecuting him for something that he did in Florida . . .
Has he ever been to Florida? Because if he has, then it’s possible that he did something while he was there.
Icy (380bb8) — 6/10/2012 @ 11:15 am“Surls, you did a fine job of demonstrating that you don’t know what defamation is.”
I did a fine job of correcting your mistakes.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 12:13 pmMD:
That’s a charming story but it sounds like it affected you more than it did your son. Is it possible what bothers you is that your son had to face a tiny portion of the real world earlier than you wished?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 12:34 pm#72 Colonel, YIKES! Indeed.
I thought the following was well said:
“And also, you’re a bad person with a deep psychological problem, and no, merely being ‘conservative’ does not make up for your selfishness and arrogance. You might want to consider character-building exercises over reading about politics. Before one’s a good conservative, one ought to strive to first be a good human being.”
“Without the latter, the former isn’t worth shit.”
-Ace of Spades
felipe (3cc5df) — 6/10/2012 @ 12:59 pmSurls, since you don’t even understand “malice” as defined for defamation, you’ve not “corrected” anyone least of all me.
“Malice”as used in defamation law means knowingly or recklessly with respect to stating a false factual statement. And opinion is simply not defamatory.
Your belief that Corey has a case is simply laughable.
SPQR (31fbfb) — 6/10/2012 @ 1:19 pm“Surls, since you don’t even understand “malice” as defined for defamation”
Of course, I understand. That’s why I was able to correct your egregiously wrong claim that Dershowitz could make a defamatory statement about Ms. Corey as long as it he’s not doing it knowingly.
Your statement was incorrect, and I corrected it (along with the other mistakes you made in just one short passage).
And, the term is “actual malice”, not just “malice”.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 1:44 pmDave Surls, I didn’t say that. You can’t even read competently.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 2:22 pmNow that Surls has finally figured out that his original understanding of defamation law was false, we are all anxiously awaiting for Surls to quote the actual statements of Dershowitz that are defamatory …
tic toc tic toc tic toc ….
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 2:32 pm“Dave Surls, I didn’t say that.”
Yes, you did say exactly that, and you said it because you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
And, I was able to correct that false claim and others, because I do know what I’m talking about.
“…Dershowitz can say that he thinks Corey’s actions are unethical without it constituting defamation, so long as he does not assert that as a factual matter, she did something that he actually knows she did not do.”
Wrong.
Dershowitz can make a defamatory statement about Ms. Corey (who is a public official) as long as he doesn’t do so knowing that the statement is false AND as long as he isn’t making a defamatory statement with reckless disregard for the truth. Whether he asserts something as a fact is totally irrelevant.
Right.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 2:44 pmNope, not right. You still don’t understand the difference between factual statements and opinions. Dershowitz’s statements were all opinions, and by definition could be defamatory. The claim that whether or not something is asserted as a fact being irrelevant is utterly backwards – its the beginning of the question of defamation. Its important to determining defamation long before the status of the plaintiff as public figure becomes relevant and whether or not the falsity of the statement becomes relevant. Because opinion isn’t defamatory by definition.
You still can’t get anything correct.
And you still can’t quote a single defamatory statement.
Because you are incompetent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 3:06 pmTo repeat: You still can’t quote a single defamatory statement.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 3:06 pmThere’s another case where you can often get away with making a defamatory statement about someone, and that’s if you’re engaging in hyperbole or parody.
For example: Dershowitz could say: Angela Corey murdered 20,000,000,000,000 people yesterday, and it’s not going to be actionable, because, although it’s defamatory, it’s also so absurd no one is going to believe it, and it isn’t likely going to cause any damage to her.
That principle was established in the Flynt/Falwell case, with the SCOTUS, as per usual rewriting the law on the fly, with the rewrite being all about enforcing the political agenda held by a majority of the nine dolts in black.
Which is pretty much what the SCOTUS always does.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 3:07 pmCorrection of typo: “You still don’t understand the difference between factual statements and opinions. Dershowitz’s statements were all opinions, and by definition could not be defamatory.”
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 3:07 pmSurls, hyperbole is not defamatory because it is obvious to others that the statement was not intended to be taken as a factual claim.
And because you still don’t understand the difference between opinion and factual statements, you can’t understand this case.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 3:08 pmIts hilarious, I have 18 yr old high school dropout community college students who learn this stuff faster than Surls.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 3:15 pm“Dershowitz’s statements were all opinions”
Irrelevant, counselor.
What’s important is whether or not the opinions expressed can be demonstrated to be true or false.
If Dershowitz is going to claim that Corey is doing something unlawful…he better be able to prove it, because falsely claiming that somebody is breaking the law is actionable.
It’s a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 3:22 pmGod help us if SPQR is attempting to teach law.
It’s no wonder our legal system is a total clusterfuck.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 3:45 pmYou can’t demonstrate an opinion to be false. Sheesh, you are denser than a post.
And no, claiming that something is unlawful is not actionable. Because its his opinion that her actions are unlawful.
You still can’t figure out the basics.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 3:57 pm“You can’t demonstrate an opinion to be false.”
Sure you can.
SPQR: In my opinion, Dave Surls is a skinflint who has never donated a cent to a charity
DAVE SURLS: Here’s the check I wrote to the Special Olympics.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 4:09 pm“Sheesh, you are denser than a post.”
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
You just made yourself look even dumber than you usually do.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 4:11 pmComment by DRJ — 6/10/2012 @ 12:34 pm
I think what really bothered me the most was that he was more afraid of discipline/being found out than he was of facing the end of the world; whether he thought his parents were so mean to not risk it or that he wanted that bad to keep up appearances. Of course, one could write it off to a confused precocious 5 year old and forget about it…
and forget about it is what I suggest SPQR should do at this time. Mr. Surls is like a black hole of rationality on this, anything rational is just sucked into the darkness and has no effect. Of course, the next time I get pulled into the vortex I expect SPQR to tell me when it’s time to get out.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/10/2012 @ 5:26 pmThis is like the last libel verdict I can recall successfully
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/burnett.html
narciso (494474) — 6/10/2012 @ 5:43 pmOn policy grounds, there is this;
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1344153.html
narciso (494474) — 6/10/2012 @ 5:50 pmSurls, your stupid attempt at an “example” mixes opinion and fact. But never the less fails to create a defamatory statement.
Here’s how I explain it to my students, but since they seem to be brighter than you on average, it probably won’t help you:
Statement: “I think Dave is a thief.” Opinion and not defamatory.
Statement: “I saw Dave pull two twenties out of the cash register.” A statement of a factual nature that if false is defamatory.
Now quit making a fool of yourself even more than you normally do, Surls.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 7:46 pmMD in Philly, you are right but I do this so long as it amuses me.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2012 @ 7:47 pmas long as it amuses you, SPQR, keep at it. I would like to ignore this and let it go away, but then something pops up that draws me back in. As long as I’m not setting a bad example and you’re enjoying it be my guest.
In my very limited experience, the threat of a libel/slander suit or the filing of an unwarranted libel/slander suit is most effective when the party being threatened can’t afford a lawyer to deal with the nonsense.
I think there should be a legal honor society for those who refuse to file SLAPP suits and those who defend against them at some degree of personal cost.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/10/2012 @ 8:25 pmIf Surls is SOOOOO sure that Zimmerman is guilty, why does he feel the need to defend the prosecutor’s intimidation tactics against Dershowitz?
Dave’s view:
She’s a jerk — Zimmerman is guilty.
She’s not a jerk — Zimmerman is still guilty.
So, why become an apologist for her jerkiness?
Icy (380bb8) — 6/10/2012 @ 8:48 pmIs it because she’s on ‘your’ side, and you’re experiencing a knee-jerk reaction where you simply must defend her honor?
“Statement: “I think Dave is a thief.” Opinion and not defamatory.”
LOL.
Tell you what, partner. You start going around saying that to third parties, and I’ll sue your sorry ass for libel, and teach you a lesson the hard way.
Now, get your butt into a law library, and read what Sullivan actually says, so you won’t make an idiot out of yourself, the next you start pontifictaing about it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 9:20 pm“Surls, your stupid attempt at an “example” mixes opinion and fact. But never the less fails to create a defamatory statement.”
Very good, Simple Simon. It’s not pure opinion, which is an opinion that cannot be demonstrated to be true or false (and therefore isn’t actionable, since for something to be defamatory, it must be false…at least In American law).
And I wasn’t attemptng to provide an example of a defamatory statement, only showing how it is possible to prove that an opinion can be falsified…like I said.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 9:29 pm“I would like to ignore this and let it go away…”
That’s okay by me. I pretty much made my points a long time ago.
The one under dispute being, that I think Ms. Corey has a reasonable claim for defamation. Maybe she could convince a jury, maybe not, but she does have a legitimate basis for a defamation claim.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 9:33 pm“Dave Surls is a skinflint” is an opinion. It can never be defamation. “Who has never donated a cent to a charity” is a statement of fact, which can be true or false; if you can prove it false and you are not a public figure you can recover for defamation. If you are a public figure, then SPQR can get away with it if he beleived it to be true, and had some plausible basis for that belief, e.g. he read it on a blog he had (until then) found generally reliable.
But if all he said was “Dave Surls is a skinflint” then it makes no difference who you are or how many charity receipts you produce, you cannot even begin an action for defamation, because there is no factual statement. Sullivan is irrelevant; this was the law before either L.B. Sullivan or the New York Times existed.
Since Dershowitz’s claims against Corey are opinions, not factual claims, he wouldn’t even need to reach Sullivan. If he had made false factual claims against Corey, then Sullivan would undoubtedly protect him.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/10/2012 @ 11:41 pmExcept that you didn’t. You merely mixed two different kinds of statement into the same sentence.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/10/2012 @ 11:43 pm‘“Dave Surls is a skinflint” is an opinion. It can never be defamation.’
Never said it was defamation.
The statements were just an example of an opinion that can be falsified.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/10/2012 @ 11:49 pmIt can’t be falsified, because it’s an opinion. That’s why it not only isn’t defamation but can’t be.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/11/2012 @ 1:24 am“It can’t be falsified”
I just did falsify it (the whole opinion) when I showed you the check I wrote to the Special Olympics.
You probably didn’t see it because we’re on the internet.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/11/2012 @ 1:31 amDing! ^^^
Icy (380bb8) — 6/11/2012 @ 1:43 amNo you didn’t. All that falsified was the factual statement that you “never donated a cent to a charity”. It did nothing to the opinion that you are a “skinflint”.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/11/2012 @ 1:47 am‘All that falsified was the factual statement that you “never donated a cent to a charity”.’
Yup.
In my opinion, Dave Surls has never donated a cent to a charity.
Change it to that, if it makes it easier to understand.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/11/2012 @ 2:03 amBlame Darwin:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/what_the_media_choose_not_to_know_about_trayvon.html
Survival requires looking both ways before crossing on bus routes.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/11/2012 @ 2:40 amThat’s okay by me. I pretty much made my points a long time ago.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/10/2012 @ 9:33 pm
Sigh. Yeah, you did.
Monday morning waiting for school to start among 3rd grade boys.
Z is a skinhead racist murderer because we said so… and Corey is great ’cause I said so… and Dershowitz is a bum and everybody knows it so he can’t sue me… and “Joltin’ Joe” is gonna leave that fancy talker mumblin back in the ‘Alley’ again…and my Mac is better than your PC
Oh, no. Here comes gg trying to prove somethin’ with real information again…stupid 4th graders…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/11/2012 @ 5:53 amThat’s the equivalent of “I don’t believe…” or “To the best of my knowledge…”. It’s not an opinion, it’s a factual statement, hedged by an acknowledgement of uncertainty.
Though it could be an opinion, if what the speaker means is that the organisations Surls gives to are not really charities.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/11/2012 @ 9:07 amIf I were a betting man, I’d put my money on the Z man.
The only way the state is going to “win” is if they manage to get George shanked in the day room.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/11/2012 @ 1:54 pm205. “I thought his post was painfully self aware.”
I’ll take your word for it, TLDR.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/11/2012 @ 2:31 pm“Is it because she’s on ‘your’ side, and you’re experiencing a knee-jerk reaction where you simply must defend her honor?”
No, it’s because she has a reasonable case if she wanted to sue for defamation (note: I doubt if she will, and I’m skeptical that she has threatened to do so).
IMO, Shirley Sherrod had a legitimate basis for suing Andrew Breitbart for defamation (because he screwed up and said one thing about her that was defamatory).
And, she’s not one bit on my side.
James O’Keefe had good reason to sue Olberdouche, Shuster and their employer.
Brett Kimberlin, OTOH, has no legitimate basis to sue anyone for defamation, no matter what they say about him…because he has no good reputation that could be damaged. His good reputation was erased thanks to his long history of criminal activity.
IMO, of course.
It’s not about sides.
Dave Surls (e97413) — 6/12/2012 @ 12:50 amAlthough, I suppose even Kimberlin’s reputation would be protected, under certain circumstances in places that have libel per se, but if I was sitting on a jury in a libel case he initiated, that involved libel per se, I think I might be tempted to nullify.
Dave Surls (e97413) — 6/12/2012 @ 1:06 am“The only way the state is going to “win” is if they manage to get George shanked in the day room.”
Yeah right, just like there’s no way a judge is going to accept the Affidavit of Probable Cause.
I’ve noticed that Zimmerman-lovers have a tendency to be over-optimistic about these matters.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/12/2012 @ 9:32 amThere is no way an honest judge will accept that affidavit.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/12/2012 @ 11:43 pmComment by MD in Philly — 6/10/2012 @ 11:07 am
One thing that I did not appreciate well enough for too long, is that cognitive brilliance and emotional maturity are two very different things.
A child won’t ask questions because that risks a bad result (also lose an information advantage)
It’s the most common thing for a child not to ask, but to watch and wait. A child may sometimes ask and will use the reaction when asked as a test and a precedent as to whether or not to assk a second time.
Cognitive brilliance: A child uses Occamn’;s Razor all the time but Occam’s Razor is often wrong!
The less you know the more likely that Occam’s Razor will give you the wrong answer. Most (humorous and otherwise) wrong conclusions by a child are the result of using Occam’s razor.
In the case of the newspaper reporting the end of the world (could that have been the Weekly World news rather tahn the National Enquirer?) your son just did not know what conclusion Occam’s razor should lead to.
IOW, just because a 5 year old can read like an adult and talk like an adult, expect them to act like a 5 year old, not like an adult. If it is in print, it must be true; if a teacher says it, even if it is about drowning polar bears, it must be true.
A little bit like that – in that case he probably considered the possibility of the newspaper being wrong, at least mistaken, but then there wa sthe question why was it just left there if most people thought it was wrong.
Emotionally actually he took it pretty good. If the world ended, well what could he do about it. he would expect however, you and your wife not to make plans for too long in the future. If the paper was wrong then theer wa snothing to worry about. Children that age are very practical.
At the time I don’t think he would have appreciated the difference between the National Enquirer and the Wall Street Journal.
I would have wished that no child of mine would have had to deal with such an existential dilemma at so young an age, without parental guidance. At least suing for parental malpractice is an unusual occurrence.
Yes, the date came and went and the sun arose once again; of course, that didn’t mean that mom and dad weren’t clueless…
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:03 pm>> if you can prove it false and you are not a public figure you can recover for defamation. I
It has to be defamatory – a serious charge.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:05 pmBrett Kimberlin sued Socartes not only for defamation but for interfering with his business – at least the inunction he got seems to have included that. And he was of course…trying to stop people from donating. This is a bad tort. he hada right to, but it should not be a tort in the first place unless he’s doing something illegal.
In the most famous case, Pennzoil sued Texaco over that.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/texaco-pennzoil.html
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:08 pmFantastic post, very informative. I’m wondering why the other specialists of this sector do not realize this. You should proceed your writing. I am sure, you’ve a huge readers’ base already!|What’s Taking place i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I have found It absolutely useful and it has helped me out loads. I hope to give a contribution & aid other users like its helped me. Good job.
benefits (b930b3) — 6/20/2012 @ 8:36 pm