This hilarious post from The Impolitic:
The “right’s” right to lie
I have to agree there’s no grounds for the DNC to sue either Powerline or Glenn Reynolds. Being morally bereft is not a crime unless it ends in actual violence. But they both deserve to be taken out behind the woodshed and soundly whipped for recklessly and worse yet, approvingly, promoting a vicious rumor they have to know is false.
“Being morally bereft is not a crime unless it ends in actual violence.” But actual violence is only a crime when one is morally bereft?
There’s not one shred of evidence beyond the rantings of some knuckle-dragging shock jock who’s looking for a ratings boost by spreading a malicious lie. They don’t have audio. They don’t have an eyewitness testimony. They have an ugly falsehood that makes the Democrats look bad and they run with it. And then they attempt to justify such irresponsible conduct as an exercise of the First Amendment.
This would never, ever happen from the other side, would it? Would Michael Moore, for example, knowingly publish falsehoods? If there’s not a shred of evidence, then how would one know that what he said was false? Shall we subpoena the phone records of Governor Sebelius? Shall we put her under oath?
I call BS on that. It’s exactly this sort of abuse of the FA that has diminished its standing in the eyes of the public. All they’re doing is pushing us down that slippery slope to censorship when they put up posts that in essence say, “Nyah, nyah – we can lie and get away with it.” And they can legally and gleefully pass on someone else’s lies. But Glenn is wrong, wrong, wrong when he declares the threshold of malice would be hard to reach against the jock. Unless that jerk can come up with some evidence to back up his smear, what possible reason can be proffered for disseminating it except to harm its target’s reputations – public figures or not?
Really? So, all of this Truther bullshit is covered, because it’s a matter of interpretation, despite the lack of facts to back up their interpretation, and yet this ought to be actionable? Hey, Impolitic–is your ox haemophilic?
I hope the DNC sues the pants off the bastard and his station. I’m all for unfettered speech when it comes to opinions but it’s about time we set some parameters on what lies the media is allowed to foist off as facts on an unsuspecting public.
Bwahahahahaha! Considering the lies being foisted on the public regarding the Bush administration, considering the immunity granted so far to Wilson-Plame, considering Tenet, considering the Katrina crap, considering all of that, you’re bent out of shape about something some nobody says about HoDe?
You suck.
Who the hell ever reads The Impolitic?
On second thought, maybe you should send the piece to Keith Overdone after changing some words around to make him think it’s a criticism of him.
The bottom line? You got nothin’. You guys are positvely marinated in the ugly. Take your AG; nodody else will.
Gee, cynn, you make me feel bad about leaving a comment over there. I’d hate to intrude on his solitude…
sorry, I saw the raw sexual references and got caught up in the moment. It’s all good now.
I mean, sorry, doesn’t the following cause vapors:
they both deserve to be taken out behind the woodshed and soundly whipped
But I know you guys are into it.
I want to know what the deal is with Democrat girl governors being unable to deal with the weather, first Landreaux, now this Sibelius chick. What gives?
SEXIST!!!
cause, Karl Rove was indicted!!!! no really!
I believe you mean Blanco.
And yeah, Michigan better watch out.
How many “business days” has it been now?
The libel suit won’t fly but I think a trademark infringement suit might do it. Lying is a trademark of the DNC, isn’t it?
There seem to be only 3 comments in response to “Impolitic’s” rant, all of them disagreeing with him and one (h/t B Moe) giving him a condign kicking. Has the man no friends?
Gotta love this. The threat of censorship doesn’t come from the DNC passing around C&D letters like beads at Mardis Gras, but from people discussing the original claim.
Hey! Let’s not measure a man’s friendships or popularity by how many comments his blog gets. Because I’ve got this blo–I mean, my friend has a blog, and it doesn’t get all that many comments, but it’s a totally cool blog anyway. I mean, his mom said it was cool, even if he doesn’t get that many comments. And besides, he says HaloScan has been kinda buggy lately…
“I have to agree there’s no grounds for the DNC to sue either Powerline or Glenn Reynolds. Being morally bereft is not a crime unless it ends in actual violence…I hope the DNC sues the pants off the bastard and his station.”
This is more an affront to competent writing than anything else.
Good point, Sean M. I withdraw;- I mean, my friend withdraws his insinuation
“Your name is TOBY!”
Discovery is a bitch pissants!!! Go ahead and sue, matter of fact “truthers” your time is coming…sue away. When truth comes out you will look awfully silly at best and at worst – treasonous. We already know that but, the majority of the sheeple don’t.
I’m not sure I’d try to whip a man who defends Second Amendment rights as strongly as the Blogfather does.
There’s a great story about George Armstrong Custer and one of his captains, Frederick Benteen. The two men strongly disliked one another, and after Custer left some men to their fate at the Washita in 1868, Benteen wrote an angry letter to a friend, who published it (without his permission) in a newspaper.
Custer called his officers together, and when they arrived, they found him slapping a riding crop on his boot, and he announced the intention of horsewhipping the man who wrote the letter. When he put what was no doubt an awkward question to the crowd, Benteen pulled out his revolver, spun the cylinder, and announced, “I wrote it.” Custer said, with some anger, “I’ll see you about this later, Captain Benteen.”
But he never did. There’s some merit in being physically prepared to stand up for yourself.
Nice catch, Nathan Hall. I laughed when I saw that. The guy forgot what he wrote only a few paragraphs before. Consistent much?
Also, beggin’ the Cap’n’s pardon, but why is this ‘tard pretending to get all up in the collective grilles of Instapundit‘s Glenn Reynolds and Power Line about a rumor started on an XM radio show and posted to Free Republic?
At least he’s demonstrating the same dedication to rigorous fact-checking as his ideological fellow-travelers.
Or the same fact-checking evidenced by Powerline and Instapundit when they passed on a lie based on a rumor?
Sort of cuts both ways…
Professor Reynolds did’t even address the rumor, timmy. Here is his post:
Major, we’ve told you before about using logic and evidence to refute timmah. It makes him a sad panda, and this community is all about good feelings. Why do you want to make timmah all confuzzled and sad?
Sibelius?
You mean… Finland’s greatest composer?
Well, that settles it for ME! If decomposing composers are agin it, so am I!
It’s a real simple concept Dan. It’s legal to be a bad human being as long as you don’t harm others. While the writer may have phrased that statement inelegantly, he is correct. For example, JeffyG may be a nut with some major psycho/sexual issues, but unless he actually slaps someone across the face with his cock or actually touches someone’s little sister in inappropriate places (lots), he’s not committing a crime.
Yes Dan, people lie in politics. I look forward to seeing your vacation photos from Mars, where you have evidently spent the last few years under rock, in a cave, with your fingers plugged in your ears. As for putting the Governor under oath, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. What evidence did the talk show host have when he stated that Dean and the Gov colluded to blame Bush? If that DJ has nothing, then can you come up with a reason for spreading that statement other than honest to God malice? My money says you can’t.
Wonderful! The oldest ConBlogger trick in the book. Putting a BWAHAHAHA in front of something automatically invalidates what the original poster said. So brilliant yet so simple. Bravo sir. As for the fact that some “nobody” (who incidentally has a potential audience of millions thanks to his chosen medium) made that statement, I was unaware that public stature was a metric that judges used to decide defamation. I was under the impression that veracity, malice, and potential to harm, financially or otherwise, was far more important. Well, if I ever go up on libel or slander charges, I’ll be sure to hire you as my lawyer (only if Curley, Moe, and Larry at Powerline are busy, of course).
As for the cheap shots over The Impolitic’s lack of traffic relative to this blog, I have to ask you guys something: If this blog claims one thing, and Kos claims the opposite, is he automatically right by virtue of the fact that his traffic stats stomp yours like a narc at a biker rally? Just curious.
Ian, this Impolitic post is self-contradictory and tedious. Do I think it’s bad practice for people to lie, or to publish information that they haven’t fact-checked, particularly when it’s prejudicial to someone’s reputation? Yes, I do. Do I think that therefore anyone pushing that information ought to be sued for defamation? No, I don’t.
For one thing, given the political climate, this would tie the courts in knots. Virgin Airlines was showing the Truther video Loose Change on its flights. Should they have been sued over it, despite the fact that the creators of that pile of shit ought to know that it’s untrue? No. By all means, bring public pressure.
But what, in this particular incident, makes it rise to the level of something that ought to be prosecutable, in the eyes of The Impolitic? Nothing, except that the target, in this case, is political allies.
Or do you see it differently? If so, why?
And yet you’re ignoring the status of the supposedly defamed. As public figures, they have to prove malice, and as long as the radio host maintains his source was reliable, he’s off the hook. Repeating something damaging is not “malice” with regards to public figures; the defamer must also know the statement is false.
And if the DNC wants to force the matter by exposing the name of the original source, then they’d better hold on to that tiger’s tail for all their life.
That’s an agree to disagree issue. If MM pushed a certain line of thought (one that could have been debunked with 30 seconds worth of Google searching) then I say let the victim of his particular lie sue the holy hell out of him until he’s reduced to blowing tourists for crack in downtown Detroit (I’ll pause to let that image sink in for a sec). Same for Coulter, same for Franken, same for Hannity, same for that crazy Rhodes biatch from AAmerica. Left or right, I don’t care. Let the chips fall where they may. I just detest the fact that anyone can say anything with no consequences. Rights have responsibilities. I’ve always been a fan of PJ O’Rourkes famous line: “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”
Just to clarify, I’m not normally a fan of lawsuits (the definition of negligence really needs to be fixed, for example). But if GWB (or Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Rice, or anyone else in this admin) wants to sue the shiat out of the Loose Change dudes, I say let them. If s/he’s in the right, I say good for him/her.
Public pressure is a valuable tool, but you can’t shame the shameless (Moore, Coulter, Limbaugh, Franken). Hit them squarely in the thing that makes them lie in the first place, the wallet. None of them would be pulling this crap if there wasn’t millions in book deals and speaking fees.
In my eyes, the DJ needs to prove that there was some evidence for his claim. If he had nothing but the fact that he detests the Dems, then he should be held liable. The claim basically calls both Dean and the Gov liars (in this one case). Regardless of past behaviour, this is a serious charge, one that should be made on evidence, not prejudice. An off the record source is not good enough. Tell me guys, when Ron Suskind writes stories based on numerous off the record sources, does that enhance or detract from his credibility?
I see no other way to make pundits tell the truth than to hit them where it hurts. The fact checking of the blogosphere helps, but only for one side (ie, a Moore distortion will only be corrected for the right, likewise Coulter for the left). The other side will blissfully continue on misinformed.
If you’re not harming anyone, why would you be a bad human being?
Aha! That explains the global warming. On Mars. I should have figured you had something to do with it, Mr. Collins!
He had a source, who remains unnamed, that described the details of a call between her and Brownback. This is the stuff the NYT front page is made of. OK or not OK?
Seriously. He’s a conservative! Those fuckers breathe malice! Prove me wrong!
There’s a book? WTF? Why didn’t I get a copy? Oh, and what’s a ConBlogger? Just for the record.
That’s billions.
Well, they do. You’d be amazed at the things you can learn by clicking through the links.
So….you think Karl Rove should sue Jason Leopold, Arianna Huffington, Markos Zuniga, Jane Hamsher, Glenns Greenwald and every other leftist blogger? Interesting. Unfortunately…
…Curly Moe and Larry seem to have a grasp of case law, which apparently escapes you. Really, I think you’d be better off with Dan than going it alone. Unless he’s off destroying Mars.
DKos is not a blog, it is a collection of diaries. As in “Dear Diary, today I totally spoke truth to power! About evil Republicans! Aren’t I bitchin’?” Now Instapundit? That’s a blog, with mad traffic.
Stay curious. You might learn something. Finally.
Expanding on that, Quinn didn’t claim it was true. He related what he’d heard from a source, and presented it as such, questioning repeatedly whether is was true.
The same would apply if I said “I heard that Karl Rove was indicted.” What I said is true. What I heard is not. But we do know that Sebelius made some entirely false statements regarding National Guard readiness and the war.
You could be a racist, a drunk, or drug addict. All things that would be what the majority of citizens would define as being a bad human being, yet it does not physically harm anyone else.
Not a Simpsons fan, huh?
I said in my follow up post that I didn’t think it was OK. Since that post preceded yours, I have to assume you deliberately ignored it to make a strawman point. Do try to keep current.
You went to a very crappy community college, didn’t you?
Powerline has a solid grip on the law, just not the facts. They’re hacks of the highest order. Seriously, Karl Rove will leave the Republican party and become a Democrat long before these guys ever would admit that a conservative was wrong about something. Showing me a link to Powerline and calling it the facts is a good laugh, but little else.
And again, as I said in my follow up post, I do think that Rove should be able to sue anyone who makes a libellous statement about him (I’ll allow you a minute to pick the pieces of your head off the floor and the walls).
Y’know, you could just say that you got nothin’ and leave it at that.
Really, that would surprise the administrators of the weblog awards, Brit Hume, and Michelle Malkin.
Now see how easy that was? All of 30 seconds on “the Google”.
And we’re back to the stupid burning us with it’s powerful rays. Real tour de force there, Pablo.
Oh, btw, if you want to see how libel laws with teeth work, the UK provides a good model.
If you’re a racist, you’re probably hurting other people. If you’re a drunk or a drug addict you have a disease, or so I’m told. Do you hate cancer patients too?
The question referred to the NYT practice, which I noted in the sentence directly previous to the question. Do try to keep up.
No, I didn’t. So, define ConBlogger, won’t you?
Case law, moron. New York Times v. Sullivan, SCOTUS decision. Right there in the Powerline post, with yet another link. Being a snarky dipshit may be good for a laugh, but it’s good for little else.
So, does that go for Bush as well? The Bush Lied!!1! crowd isn’t going to be happy with you.
Or you could actually read a little, and then you’d have a grip on the case law, instead of just making ignorant comments about the author of the post that cites it. I’ll keep mine, because yours is a loser. So sayeth the SCOTUS.
Great. Name the blogger/s at dKos. And tell me, how is it that you can’t be bothered to read the Powerline post, but you think Malkin, Hume and Wizbang are authoritative? Selective idiocy?
Just resist the dark side, Ian. You can tone it down. Really.
You realize that this isn’t the UK, right? And you realize that truth isn’t an absolute defense there, right? You think that works? Not with this pesky thing around.
That’s the country where writing something absolutely true can still be cause for damages? The country where people order books from the US so they can file a lawsuit against US authors that expose their terrorist ties?
No thanks.
One could despise a race without ever laying a finger on them or saying a single word to them. Secondly, some may believe alcoholism and drug abouse are diseases. Some also think Elvis is still alive. Both are fringe positions with little to no basis in reality. Strike one.
Jesus, are you really that dumb? Conservative blogger, OK? Conservative blogger. Honestly, did you really need me to define that? Strike two.
In order: 1. I’m not part of the “Bush Lied!!1!” crowd. Please point to one thing I’ve said that would indicate that I am. Quite honestly, I give as much of a shit about what they think as I do about what you think. 2. With a quick trip to the site: Kos, Mcjoan, meteor blades, etc. Blogs can be more than one or two posters. It can be one person, or many. As for the diaries thing, the overwhelming majority never see the main page, but are there if you choose to look. Say for example, you wanted to look up health care, there are 15 results, none of which are on the main page. I think you might just be operating out of your depth. I read the Powerline post, got a good laugh, and I’ll address that one down below.
Selective idiocy? Nope, just trying to appeal to your mindset. Let’s be honest. If I had named three liberal blogs that said that DK (that stands for Daily Kos, genius) is a blog, you would have dismissed them out of hand, so I named three sources that were either conservative or non-partisan. And where the hell do you see Wizbang in there? Selective idiocy? Jeez, you try to be nice to a guy….3. No shit genius. Strike 2 and a half.
I read the post, and it just reinforced my opinion of them. I mean seriously, even if you admire GWB (that’s George W. Bush, for the slow Pablos in the crowd), something like “It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice.” makes them a little hard to take seriously. In the actual post, like I said earlier, the got the law right but the facts wrong. Quinn is basing his claims on an “unnamed source” who may very well not exist and may simply be a fig leaf to hide behind (legally speaking) and has not stated that he made any follow up call. Not so much as a call to the offices of Dean or the Governor. Now Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it (malice) as “knowledge that the [published information] was false” or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Failing to confirm or check in with either of the interested parties sounds like “….a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.” Or as you would say, “Case law, moron”. Strike 3
Well that was fun. In the space of a few paragraphs, you’ve proved yourself ignorant of the law, dependent on the rantings of three hacktackular Minnesota lawyers, and a very selective and ignorant man (really, you honestly did not know what ConBlogger meant?! And where did you see Wizbang?!). So, about that clown college you went to…..(sorry, I shouldn’t refer to Princeton in that manner….)
Well, no basis except for the billions spent treating them. And the DSMIV Ball one.
Yes. Now I need you to show me where the Powerline guys or Michelle Malkin use “Bwaaahahaha!” as “the oldest trick in the book”. Ball two.
Bring some fucking heat, would ya? I’m looking for something to jack!
I didn’t say you were. I said they wouldn’t be happy with you. Do try to pay attention. Ball three.
So is Democratic Underground a blog? And is Fark is blog? Because your “etc…” is a cast of thousands. Let’s check the dictionary.
So, dkos is a collection of blogs, and not a blog. Base on balls.
They’re all conservative. And you assumed that this would mean I agree with them, because you also assumed that I am a conservative and we all believe the same things, and that conservatives never disagree. Ball one and two.
Try the left sidebar. The Wizbang folks, particularly Kevin Aylward, run the Weblog Awards. Ball three.
they cite the case, and link to the decsion and it reinforces tyour opinion that they don’t grasp the facts? Base on balls, runners at first and second.
But you haven’t pointed to any facts they’ve gotten wrong, you’ve only noted differences of opinion and dished out ad hominem. Ball one.
Right, and as I noted earlier, he claimed that he had a source that told him a story. Nothing more, nothing less. Ball two.
And if someone indeed told him that story, what he said was absolutely true. You seem incapable of discerning what was said. Ball three.
Quinn is a pundit, not a journalist. He also didn’t claim that the story was true, only that he had heard it from a reliable source. Base on balls, bases loaded.
Completely different set of facts and circumstances, dipshit. Quinn never claimed it was true, only that he had heard it. In fact, he called for people with more juice than he to dig into it for more information. Ball one.
Ball two.
Uh, no, I noted they’re citation of the NYT vs. Sullivan case. That was Justice Brennan ranting, asshat. And you just cited it yourself, so I guess that makes you hacktacular. Too bad you can’t pitch. Ball three.
AND HE WALKS IN THE RUN ON 13 STRAIGHT BALLS! THE CROWD IS GOING WILD!
You probably ought to hand the ball to your manager so he can get someone with some stuff in here.
It’s a bit dissonant, Ian, that you choose the three strikes template after taking me to task for the dismissive “Bwahaha . . .”. Fascinating, though, in that what you argue for is disclosure of source, in effect. Recall that in the case of reporters relying on anonymous sources, the MSM has decided that it ought to have an absolute bar to enforced legal disclosure, although there is no way to determine what a reporter was told off the record other than to go to the individual who is purported to have supplied the information.
Green Helmet Guy, for example: ought the people who were taking instructions from him to have known that any information provided to them by him was suspect, because of the way he went about directing the scene? Or was that the fault of the stringers? If it was the fault of the stringers, oughtn’t the folks who relied on them have questioned them more closely?
Having relied on that information, or adjudged it to have been worthy of publication, should those conveyors of information now be subject to prosecution on the grounds that they ought to have been more careful to have validated it? Do we need, in order to establish motive (which is what malice is about), to look into their hearts?
As for the Power Line guys, I believe that they’re absolutely correct in the legal sense. If I believed that libbloggers were as dedicated to defending the truth wherever it was obviously being violated as they are over this, on the Ownership of Gory Oxen Principle, I’d be right there with you. But you haven’t convinced me that this is the case at The Impolitic, or what you really have in mind.
Damn! That’s 16 balls.
tw; for76
I’m confused. Does this mean I can sue you over reintroducing the cockslapping thing?
Which, incidentally, most of you here will notice has been used very little recently—particularly after my conversation with the former Retardo, who, it seemed, hadn’t been aware that I was responding to the suggestion that I suckle my kid, supplying him with breast milk, and that a cock across the temple tends to correct such confusions over a person’s putative sex as my antagonist was clearly suffering.
I think part of the confusion comes from the ‘y’ people like Ian like to tack on my name.
If there really were a book, I would bet that the page that teaches people like Ian to turn Jeff into “Jeffy” is dogeared and filled with marginal notations on when best to use the device.
I think Ian kicked the living hell out of Pablo (to be fair I don’t think that was Pablo, because he’s a) usually more rabid and b) curses a lot more when I kick his ass.
Jeff, I know you don’t like direct questions from dissenters, but does the victim status re: the cock-slap thing EVER get old? You said it, you should own it. “I was pissed and I typed something I thought was funny, but was over-the-top.” Seems like the smart way to deal with it, rather than the defensive way. Sorry for directly addressing you, but I thought it needed saying. After all, you’re a writer and that is one hell of an evocative phrase.
How could you knowingly print false information if you hadn’t made any attempt to distinguish truth from lies?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That’s interesting. I think Pablo kicked the crap out of IanY77. Which is easy in the sense that he was full of it.
tw year77. Quite uncanny.
That’s because you’re a fucking moron, Timmah!
Damn! Must have done it again!
I love it when you and B Moe get all up in arms and start just calling people names or going the ol’ school yard taunt route. Makes me remember the times on the school bus when I would tell the bullies to leave the elementary school kids alone, kick their asses (rhetorically speaking), and watch them sputter for a retort….
The only difference is those junior high school kids were more articulate than either of you. otherwise, I’m pretty sure they grew up to be staunch Republicans too.
Damn twice in one thread! It’s okay Pablo, you’ll always have chowder and summer weekends in Nantucket to keep you warm.
Timmah, I don’t need to get worked up to call you a moron. All I have to do is read the twaddle you post, and it comes flying right out, almost by reflex. After all, you’ve worked so hard to display your idiocy, it would be a shame not to acknowledge it.
It is what it is, Timmah! And what I am not is a Republican, ya moron.