But it is a gun, and it has a pack of cigarettes laying next to it.
Edit: Welcome Toby Harnden’s Telegraph readers! I should point out that this isn’t really “protein wisdom,” it’s like the Wiki-pw. But why not stop by the mothership and see what our hosts have cooked up lately.
Via a Facebook update from Michael in MI comes a post from Smash Mouth Politics, attempting to scour the net looking for a supposed Rush Limbaugh quote declaring that James Earl Ray deserved a Medal of Honor, presumably for assassinating Martin Luther King.
Smash Mouth’s google-fu turned up an internet bulletin-board devoted to, of all things, comic books, where a similar argument was raging in 2005. One poster there, “Loren,” did yeoman’s work trying to hunt down the source of this quote and found that most places that republished it attributed it to Wikiquote, a sister website to Wikipedia that shares the trait of being totally user-created. This means it’s ripe for abuse, since anyone can post anything and attribute a false quote — BUT the saving grace is that all edits, no matter how minor, are preserved.
And that’s where you’ll find this: a Wikiquote contributor who devotes basically his entire time on the website posting quotes from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, James Dobson, and other conservative boogeymen. At just after 6:00 AM GMT on July 20, 2005, he posted this to Rush Limbaugh’s Wikiquote page:
“You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.” [2/21/03]
Three minutes later, though, he fixed it:
“You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.” [4/23/98]
April 23, 1998 was the day James Earl Ray died, thus making “Godspeed” sound like a more accurate statement.
Now what does all this have to do with anything? Because eight minutes before uncorking that whopper and trying to tar it to Limbaugh, this vandal posted this quote and attributed it to Rush:
”I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” [3/14/03]
If this were an episode of Perry Mason, I would simply name a name at this point. Unfortunately, Wikiquote allows anonymity, so the best I can do is list his IP address: 69.64.213.146. Given that this is the earliest record anyone can find of Rush saying these despite the claim that he had said them several years before, and given that quotes such as these are offered as reasons why his consortium should not be allowed to purchase the St. Louis Rams, if you find 69.64.213.146, you find a slam-dunk libel case.
Comment by McGehee on 10/13 @ 10:06 pm #
Comment by McGehee on 10/13 @ 10:08 pm #
More here about electricfiber.net
Comment by Canard51 on 10/13 @ 10:08 pm #
69.64.213.146 – Whois Information
OrgName: RCN NEW YORK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
OrgID: RNYC
Address: 55 Broad Street
Address: 22nd Floor
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10004
Country: US
ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.electricfiber.net:4321
NetRange: 69.64.192.0 – 69.64.223.255
CIDR: 69.64.192.0/19
OriginAS: AS27506
NetName: RBS-NYC
NetHandle: NET-69-64-192-0-1
Parent: NET-69-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.ELECTRICFIBER.NET
NameServer: NS2.ELECTRICFIBER.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 2003-08-01
Updated: 2007-09-19
OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE92-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-718-752-7500
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@electricfiber.com
OrgNOCHandle: NOC2200-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Network Operations Center
OrgNOCPhone: +1-212-337-4060
OrgNOCEmail: noccontrolroom@rcn.net
OrgTechHandle: ARA86-ARIN
OrgTechName: Rana, Ahmad
OrgTechPhone: +1-212-631-8972
OrgTechEmail: ahmad.rana@rcnmetro.com
OrgTechHandle: AAS61-ARIN
OrgTechName: Asim, Aqeel
OrgTechPhone: +1-212-631-8971
OrgTechEmail: Aqeel.asim@rcnmetro.com
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2009-10-12 20:00
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN’s WHOIS database.
Comment by mojo on 10/14 @ 9:06 pm #
Fiber nets tend to be big pipes, usually ISP’s and the like. You can’t get a PTR return because it’s not published in the zone, so it’s somebody’s home, more than likely.
Comment by Timothy Usher on 10/14 @ 9:42 pm #
I’m hot on this fellow’s trail – drop me a line if you’d like to talk.
Comment by M. Thatcher on 10/15 @ 2:04 am #
timothy usher: pls elaborate
Comment by sdferr on 10/15 @ 2:58 am #
Hey, INCITEmarsh, just caught you getting linked here, well done.
Pingback by Rush Limbaugh’s NFL Ownership Mistake » The American Mind on 10/15 @ 5:25 am #
[...] controversy, but it can’t be avoided. I hope Rush goes after those MSM outlets who used fake quotes against him. They need to be held accountable for putting their political biases above the search [...]
Comment by INCITEmarsh on 10/15 @ 6:24 am #
Thanks. Mark Steyn just linked that one on The Corner.
Comment by Chris on 10/15 @ 6:54 am #
The author does a great job of digging up how these quotes were first falsely attributed to Rush, but unfortunately this is not a “slam dunk libel case.” In New York Times v. Sullivan, and later (Jerry) Falwell v. Huslter magazine, the Supreme Court established that there is no basis for a lawsuit if someone publishes material that they know to be false if the target is a public figure. However, that doesn’t mean that this story shouldn’t be reported by every news outlet who mistakenly attributed those quotes to Rush without fact-checking – it should. Rush can’t sue, but that doesn’t mean he can’t get justice in the media.
Comment by BA on 10/15 @ 9:16 am #
Comment by Chris
“In New York Times v. Sullivan, and later (Jerry) Falwell v. Huslter magazine, the Supreme Court established that there is no basis for a lawsuit if someone publishes material that they know to be false if the target is a public figure.”
Absence of malice is also part of the test from NYT v Sullivan. In this case, I think Limbaugh may actually be able to establish malice. Too many have said too many times how their desire to destroy him, get him off the air, and worse.
Or he may just go with a claim based on Tortious Interference with Business Relationship. He can show intent and damages.
Just some thoughts.
Comment by Carin on 10/15 @ 12:18 pm #
I can’t tell you how mad this made me yesterday (when I was away from the computer) so excellent job trying to uncover who started all this bullshit. You’d *think* this would be a job for the non-partisan MSM, but apparently they’re too busy uncovering the truth behind SNL skits.
Pingback by Barrett Brown and Robert Stacy McCain « POWIP on 10/15 @ 2:10 pm #
[...] defense for not retracting his libels regarding Limbaugh, even though they’re traceable to sources other than Limbaugh himself suggests that Charles has a rather casual association with truth these days. And in fact [...]
Pingback by Two--Four on 10/15 @ 2:45 pm #
[...] web project. Here’s a question for you: how can you sleep when your web-child is put to this sort of thing? You really should have seen this coming, man. Oct 15, 09 | 10:42 am AxeBitesVarious guitars I [...]
Pingback by DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Rush Limbaugh media lynch mob on 10/15 @ 3:09 pm #
[...] is, he didn’t say either of these outrageous things. And it wasn’t difficult to check, as protein wisdom shows here. They originated from, er, Wikipedia and Wikiquotes. Both quotes ended up in this book – a [...]
Comment by Eric on 10/15 @ 3:24 pm #
Although it’s a tough standard, Rush can win by demonstrating actual malice which means the quotes were published or broadcast by those who either knew the quotes were false/not his or they did so with a reckless disregard for the truth. Considering the questionable credibility of wikipedia entries and the like, I think he has a real chance of winning.
Comment by McGehee on 10/15 @ 3:42 pm #
That was my impression too. I don’t doubt though that this bird can and will be tracked down if Limbaugh does sue. Discovery: it’s what’s for dinner.
TW: fellow-players dogwoods — it’s like it reads minds. Not mine, but somebody’s.
Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Liberals Lies Lynch Limbaugh on 10/15 @ 4:32 pm #
[...] is, he didn’t say either of these outrageous things. And it wasn’t difficult to check, as protein wisdom shows here. They originated from, er, Wikipedia and Wikiquotes. Both quotes ended up in this book – a hit [...]
Comment by happyfeet on 10/15 @ 4:58 pm #
I found this post through some British guy’s blog. It was very disorienting.
Comment by bk on 10/15 @ 5:57 pm #
the only fear I have is that rush may not receive justice in the american justice system; if he gets some sotomayor or ginsburg type on the bench, everything possible will be done to ensure that he is denied satisfaction.
But he has to do it: some things are worth fighting for and this is one of them.
Comment by newsjunkie356 on 10/15 @ 6:14 pm #
BA is correct.
Though I’m not a lawyer, there’s nothing in the Sullivan decision that prevents Limbaugh from winning a slander/libel suit here. Malice can easily be established by a preponderence of the evidence (the standard in civil court, a much lower one than “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in criminal trials). So the “malice” hurdle in Sullivan can easily be cleared by Limbaugh. While few trials, of any kind, are slam dunks (look at the reverse verdicts in the OJ Simpson criminal/civil murder trials), this one comes pretty close. Rush is p****d. Whoever posted this garbage is going to paying punitive damages until the day they die (in most states you can’t bankrupt out of punitives).
Comment by newsjunkie356 on 10/15 @ 6:18 pm #
bk — I wouldn’t be so sure that a Liberal judge would go out of his or her way to sabotage Rush’s suit. for one thing, at the state level, active interference in a trial to favor one side can cost you your seat on the bench. (Without impeachment in many states, unlike Federal judges.) And a verdict against Rush would be sure to be overturned at the appellate (if not Federal level) if judicial inteference can be shown to have occured.
If it reaches SCOTUS, which I doubt, but if it does, I doubt that Sotomayor, in what would be one of her first high profile cases, would try to tank it via specious logic. Ditto for Ginsburg or Stevens. If Rush has the law on his side, he’ll win. Probably.
Comment by Skypilot on 10/15 @ 6:22 pm #
So…he doesn’t really have to sue for libel. He sues for monetary damages…preventing him from free commerce.
Comment by Choward on 10/15 @ 6:47 pm #
Except, of course, the New York statute of limitations is one year and the Florida one is 2 years. Given the supposition above that this is a private person, unless said person is Donald Trump, then the amount of monetary damages would be nil (for someone making roughly $30 million/year) and discovery cuts both ways. People shouldn’t lie about public figures, but the recourse is generally found in the public arena, not in the court room
Comment by EdSki on 10/15 @ 7:46 pm #
Nice work using ARIN to find the ISP. If the time frame is 2005, there’s a pretty good chance they were using DHCP, so the only way to find who was issued that IP at that time and date, is to consult the ISP’s records, and they’re protected by privacy laws.
Pingback by Dennis Prager: ‘You Can’t Be A Good Person And Oppose A Radio Broadcaster Buying Into A Sports Team’ on 10/15 @ 8:07 pm #
[...] he didn’t say either of these outrageous things. And it wasn’t difficult to check, as protein wisdom shows here. They originated from, er, Wikipedia and Wikiquotes. Both quotes ended up in this book – a [...]
Comment by mojo on 10/15 @ 8:57 pm #
Not from a subpoena, they ain’t. The ISP will give them up without a squawk.
SB: temporary resolute
Weird, man.
Comment by Reagan on 10/15 @ 9:16 pm #
Here is some more information regarding the IP of the orignal poster of the supposed slavery comments.
http://24ahead.com/wikiquotes-bogus-circular-smear-rush-limbaugh-jack-huberman-
Comment by Reagan on 10/15 @ 9:30 pm #
Doing a Maxmind.com search of the IP shows that it belongs to a law firm of PATTERSON, BELKNAPP, WEBB & TYLER http://www.pbwt.com
So, it appears that someone from this law firm (maybe an attorney?) lied and posted the slavery quote, attributing it to Rush. Imagine an attorney making up something about someone else. Who’da thunk it?
Doing a google search of the IP address 69.64.213.146 can provide some insight to internet postings from that IP, such as is listed on this page http://www.lsinews.com/cpreport/web_bug.dat
Searching down through the page gives the name and email address of each person using that IP address that visited the lsinews.com website.
Comment by CoughingFit on 10/16 @ 3:52 am #
Checking WikiWatcher, http://wikiwatcher.com/pmcu/all.html, on 69.64.213.146 it shows Eleemosynary as being the Wiki user. It also shows that user using the following IPs on the associated dates.
24.215.254.166 2006-10-28 00:34:24
69.64.213.146 2006-08-13 20:28:20
12.145.108.11 2005-08-22 02:28:15
213.86.213.196 2006-05-25 19:22:51
Using Maxmind.com you get the following for those IPs
From MaxMin.com
24.215.254.166 Location: New York ISP: Earthlink Organization: Earthlink
69.64.213.146 Location: New York ISP: RCN Organization: PATTERSON, BELKNAPP, WEBB & TYLER
12.145.108.11 Location: New York ISP: AT&T Organization: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae
213.86.213.196 Location: London, UK ISP: COLT Organization: Ernst and Young
So we know that person was at “LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae”’s office (a law firm) on August 22 2005, at the “Ernst and Young” office in London on May 25th 2006, at the “PATTERSON, BELKNAPP, WEBB & TYLER” office on August 13th 2006 then we can assume they were at home on October 28 2006.
Comment by Timothy Usher on 10/16 @ 5:27 am #
The Ernst and Young IP isn’t him; however the other IPs are, and he was definitely User:Eleemosynary, along with a number of sockpuppets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eleemosynary
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Eleemosynary
Pingback by A Rush to judgement on hearsay alone? « POWIP on 10/16 @ 5:32 am #
[...] on alleged statements to disqualify a person from owning an NFL franchise, they ought to at least make sure that those egregious remarks were actually made! And they need to use independent investigators, because as with the Breitbart/Acorn sting, this [...]
Comment by Timothy Usher on 10/16 @ 8:36 am #
There must be something wrong with the filters here – starting yesterday, I’ve attempted several times to post more evidence, but my posts disappear into the ether without explanation, and if I attempt them again, a bot tells me that it’s a duplicate. As it seems that only the posts with many links (in this instance, evidence) are blocked, I’ll include only one here, to this ongoing discussion on WikiQuote’s Administrators’ noticeboard:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:AN#Legal_threat
Anyone is free to register and voice his/her opinion (though I can’t guarantee that you won’t be blocked.) The regulars are rallying around a longtime WikiQuote administrator who repeatedly restored the fake quotes.
Comment by Timothy Usher on 10/16 @ 8:44 am #
Splitting up the links to avoid the filter, the period at which the perpetrator can be confirmed to have had access to the LeBoeuf Lamb IP, barring further evidence, is at least 22 August 2005 to 6 April 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cindy_Sheehan&diff=next&oldid=21542320
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newsmax_Media&diff=prev&oldid=47311499
There are a number of contributions from this individual throughout this time period (not linked due to aforementiond filter) which confirm that s/he had regular access to it.
Comment by Timothy Usher on 10/16 @ 8:49 am #
What’s odd here is that his/her access to the Patterson Belknap IP overlaps that of the Le Boeuf Lamb IP on either side – it might not be quite as simple as, perpetrator worked for Le Boeuf, then moved to Patterson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Levin&diff=next&oldid=69445290
http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=69.64.213.146
Comment by Tomas on 10/16 @ 12:37 pm #
Some think the internet has tools to let you hide… but it’s not so.
Even if this piece of pond scum used a proxy server to hide his tracks, the proxy will have time/date stamped records of the source IP. All that’s required is a court order…
Then we enjoy the show…
-
Comment by McGehee on 10/16 @ 12:39 pm #
Timothy: any chance of checking dockets to determine whether lawyers from both firms were ever working together on a major case during the dates of the overlapping access?
Comment by Alex on 10/16 @ 4:52 pm #
I think Rush might be able to get past the “reckless disregard” hurdle under NYT v. Sullivan, but he’d have to establish that fact-checking quotes by reference to Wikiquote was not just “negligent” but “reckless” (i.e. grossly negligent) — a factual inquiry that has a decent chance of withstanding a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.
The bigger hurdle, I think, would be establishing damages and causation. In other words, he’d have to show (a) that the two fabricated quotes were a “proximate” cause of his losing the deal (i.e., that they were a significant cause, and related to the harm); (b) that the two fabricated quotes were a “but-for” cause of his losing the deal (i.e. that he wouldn’t have lost the deal without those false quotes); and (c) that he’s been economically harmed by losing the deal.
(B) and (c) are the toughest to establish here. There are plenty of other true Limbaugh remarks that people have taken offense at (however wrongly or misguidedly) besides the two fabricated Wikiquotes — e.g., McNabb or Crips/Bloods — and plenty of people hate him just for who he is. If enough of the decisionmakers testify that they would have voted no even without those two fabricated quotes, he loses on causation. And he’s going to have a hard time establishing with any certainty what his expected financial return would have been on the deal — that element is not as hard as but-for causation to establish, but it’d involve a battle of the expert witness accountants.
Oh, and the defendant might just turn out to be a low-level Patterson Belknapp staffer who doesn’t have any money to pay damages or even his/her own lawyers.
It might still be worth his bringing the lawsuit, however — he could name Patterson Belknapp as a defendant to get the name of the poster in discovery; put a bunch of Patterson Belknapp and media people on the stand in discovery and embarrass the crap out of them, and the publicity might do some damage to Wikipedia’s public credibility.
Comment by Reagan on 10/16 @ 5:38 pm #
Let us not forget that the Post’s regarding slavery were made without Eleemosynary logging in to wikiquote.org. Eleemosynary posted from IP 69.64.213.146 without logging in to wikiquote.
Wikiquote saves all edits, so we can go to wikiquote and see the edit where the slavery entry was made, here:
http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=next&oldid=73744
And the 3 quick subsequent edits:
http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=next&oldid=90985
and also 90990 & 90991 (since I cannot post all the links in one post)
Those foregoing edits were made between 1:53am – 2:04am on July 20, 2005 from the IP 69.64.213.146 which is the IP number for the PATTERSON, BELKNAPP, WEBB & TYLER law firm.
Pingback by Friday October 16th on 10/16 @ 9:56 pm #
[...] It’s not quite a smoking gun . . . But it is a gun, and it has a pack of cigarettes laying next to it. Edit: Welcome Toby Harnden’s Telegraph readers! I should point out that this isn’t really “protein wisdom,” it’s like the Wiki-pw. But why not stop by the mothership and see what our hosts have cooked up lately. Via a Facebook update from Michael in MI comes a post from Smash Mouth Politics, attempting to scour the net looking for a supposed Rush Limbaugh quote declaring that James Earl Ray deserved a Medal of Honor, presumably for assassinating Martin Luther King. Smash Mouth’s google-fu turned up an internet bulletin-board devoted to, of all things, comic books, where a similar argument was raging in 2005. One poster there, “Loren,” did yeoman’s work trying to hunt down the source of this quote and found that most places that republished it attributed it to Wikiquote, a sister website to Wikipedia that shares the trait of being totally user-created. This means it’s ripe for abuse, since anyone can post anything and attribute a false quote — BUT the saving grace is that all edits, no matter how minor, are preserved. [More on the emerging "evidence" pointing to a specific law firm from which someone appears to have performed some alterations to wikipedia/wikiquote sites in order to slander Rush Limbaugh and scuttle his efforts to become a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams...ed] [...]
Comment by Timothy Usher on 10/17 @ 11:50 am #
I’ve ust been permanently blocked from Wikiquote…
http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1025286
…for saying this:
http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1025282
Pingback by PoliGazette » The Credentialed Media: Lazy and Reckless on 10/17 @ 2:39 pm #
[...] of these outrageous things. And it wasn’t difficult to check, as protein wisdom shows here protein wisdom shows here. They originated from, er, Wikipedia and Wikiquotes. Both quotes ended up in this book – a [...]
Comment by AgainstFacism on 10/18 @ 8:28 pm #
Even a quick review of the “talk” pages on Wikipedia and WikiQuotes shows that the place is infested with far left goons who seek to restrict free speech, and who seek to promote leftist and statists and bash anyone and anything conservative.
For example here, some leftie put fake quotes about Rush Limbaugh on WikiQuotes, leftie “administrators” and “bureaucrats” did more than leave them there…they FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL in an edit war with truth tellers like TheVidiot to keep them on Rush’s page.
Then, they “banned” the people who pointed out their flaws and mistakes!
This kind of thing happens in communist societies all the time…but here we have their ID’s and IP addresses, and we see them do it brazenly right in front of our faces.
We need to keep up the pressure on Wikipedia and WikiQuote to at least TRY to tell the truth, no matter how many times they promote leftism and ban us…
but we also need to spend time on Conservpedia and build up that site. The world needs a valid and honest source of truth, and Wikipedia and WikiQuotes have shown they are as corrupt as every other leftist organization.
Comment by AgainstFacism on 10/18 @ 8:42 pm #
Even a quick review of the “talk” pages on Wikipedia and WikiQuotes shows that the place is infested with far left goons who seek to restrict free speech, and who seek to promote leftists and statists and bash anyone and anything conservative.
For example here, some leftie put fake quotes about Rush Limbaugh on WikiQuotes, and leftie “administrators” and “bureaucrats” did more than leave them there…they FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL in an edit war with truth tellers like TheVidiot to keep them on Rush’s page.
Then, they “banned” the people who pointed out their flaws and mistakes!
This kind of thing happens in communist societies all the time…but here we have their ID’s and IP addresses, and we see them do it brazenly right in front of our faces.
We need to keep up the pressure on Wikipedia and WikiQuote to at least TRY to tell the truth, no matter how many times they promote leftism and ban us…
but we also need to spend time on Conservapedia.com and build up that site. The world needs a valid and honest source of truth, and Wikipedia and WikiQuotes have shown they are as corrupt as every other leftist organization.
Comment by Timothy Usher on 10/19 @ 3:31 am #
The folks at Patterson Beklnap and LeBoeuf Lamb aren’t the only attorneys involved here. User:BD2412, a WikiQuote administrator who has supported banning the whistleblowers, is Bruce D. Abramson of San Francisco, CA, an attorney specializing in intellectual property cases:
http://www.bdabramson.com/
On 8 July, 2008, he saved a version of the Rush Limbaugh article which included the fake quotes:
http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&oldid=774892
Comment by Timothy Usher on 10/19 @ 3:32 am #
Here, Mr. Abramson offers his professional opinion that WikiQuote has no legal liability for publishing the fake quotes, and argues for their inclusion:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Rush_Limbaugh/Archive_1