11 Answers for the Daily Dot

So since the spectacular crash and burn of the Gawker, we've had a rash of people "asking questions" in much the same way that the birthers have.  One particular article is that of the Daily Dot, which has posted its 11 questions to defend the spectacular shit show that was Gawker.  So, here are 11 answers to those questions:

1.  To paraphrase, "could" and "should" are not "is" and "are".  As to that federal court, they were ruling on the preliminary injunction issued and not the merits of the lawsuit itself.  Those get hashed out in a jury trial\, as we saw.
2.  Again, the author is confusing the issues of the preliminary injunction (which the federal court ruled on as an unconstitutional prior restraint) and the lawsuit itself.  As for the amount of the award itself, that's an issue to be decided on appeal. It certainly wasn't anything that Gawker helped itself in by flipping the court the bird and continuing to show the video rather than waiting for the appeal to overturn the injunction or by saying that porn videos of five year olds are "newsworthy".  Oh, and misrepresenting the value of stocks to the court, as Mr. Denton did in order to stave off asset forfeiture didn't help.
3.  Asking about the innocent reporters who had nothing to do with this story is a good question, but it would have been better if Gawker had asked it prior to publishing this story in the first place.  And the companies own actions contributed to the financial death penalty.  Show a little more respect for the court and this doesn't come down as hard as it did.  There were innocent employees of Enron and Arthur Andersen as well, but that does not shift any blame away. As for the New York Times, this may be a value judgement but I'd put the editorial judgement and discretion of the Times up against Gawker any day of the millennium even ignoring the distinction between invasion of privacy and defamation as the questioner has done.
4. See #3.  Don't lie to the court and this doesn't happen. Now even if  the lawsuit does get reversed it's the equivalent of apologizing to the corpse, but that's completely on Gawker for its behavior before the court.
5. Prior bad acts are always a part of any calculation of punitive damages. This is why National Enquirer cleaned its house after Carol Burnett won a defamation case against them.
6. We don't have to agree with the variety of other lawsuits, Peter Thiel, the price of tea in China, etc.  Those lawsuits didn't succeed, and there is no proof they were inflicting even a paper cut, much less a thousand.
7.  And there's a solution for that.  It's called anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and it works. It has no part of what happened here, though.
8.  The only blood those lawyers will smell is the blood coming out of their own noses if they try to sue for defamation based upon a person running for public office, particularly given Trump's own record. 
9.  And we're back to #3.  Denton doesn't lie to the court, he can secure the bond through his stocks and not have everything tied up in asset seizure.
10. Yes I believe in civil Gideon but not as an attempt to deflect away from Gawker's bad behavior.  Though not quite the chutzpah of a patricide throwing himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan, it certainly has some gall.
11. And the article ends with even more deflection by throwing in other publications who have somehow managed not to be sued to oblivion in the time before Gawker but are suddenly in mortal peril because a jackass got his comeuppance in court partly through his own behavior.  National Enquirer and the other publications have lawyers and editorial boards who know how to handle stories and not get the shit sued out of them.

The First Amendment is alive and well. It is no better or worse than when the Gawker verdict was returned. Celebrity sites will still publish titillating details  about celebrities because in the end it's instruments of financial transactions, bovine fecal matter, and lower appendages.  But if one or two of them review their legal (and ethical) standards of how they present that information, maybe it's a good thing after all.

Dorf needs to recharge the belltones.

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: The President's Disingenuous Arguments Against Expanding the Federal Hate Crime Law

In his column, and some parts were persuasive, Dorf has this to say about the libertarian argument against "hate crimes" legislation:

"But this brings us to the second reason why the libertarian objection to hate crimes is misplaced, if raised with respect to the current controversy: If you think hate crime legislation impermissibly interferes with freedom of thought, then you will object to all hate crime legislation--including the existing version of the hate-crime law (the one that does not list sexual orientation). Yet the Administration has not even hinted that it would like to see the current federal hate crime law repealed."

Apparantly, Dorf thinks that Bush has changed hats and become not only a libertarian, but all libertarians.  I would be surprised if Dorf could not go to a libertarian think tank and not find one person who objects to ANY sort of "hate crime" legislation, not just that for sexual orientation. 

But now onto the legislation itself, which Dorf claims is NOT a pork barrel project.  It may not be, but if there's cash, the pigs will come a oinking, count on that.  In our own little hamlet, we have recently had a charming group of fellows that thought another human being could be used as a punching bag.  If the suspects are found guilty, absolutely they should be sent away for a rather long time, not only for punishment but to ensure the rest of us who have found ways to express our thoughts outside of punches and kicks can be safer for it.  But the question now is, would those people who assaulted this teenager have not done it if some sort of "hate crime" status was in effect?

This is a hard game to play, since we are counting negatives.  How many people would NOT have engaged in a particular action based upon a presumed punishment.  This goes as well for the fellow in Chicago who was apparently assaulted because he was gay.  In order to believe this, you have to think that there was some line in the sand in terms of punishment that would have cut through their hate filled emotive states.  "I'd really like to pound that homosexual, but I can't.  I'd get an extra 5 years for it".

Part of the reason that I have abandoned advocacy of the death penalty is that I fail to see how anybody in a heated state of passion would get down and study the law books before offing somebody.   There are several reasons to off somebody, but three major groups are passion, insanity, or profit.  Passion and insanity are two groups of people who aren't thinking right in the first place.  So you're left with profit, and mostly I'd think they'd be more concerned about whether or not they got caught in the first place than what the punishment was.

 

 

Let Aussie rules prevail

Australia hands over man to US courts - National - theage.com.au

I think I can say, first and foremost, I am a patriot.  This is my country, right or wrong, but always my country.  I owe allegiance to it and to its laws, and if I break them, I am tried in their courts.

But I don't think the same can be said of Hew.  Hew was extradited to stand trial in the United States even though he had never set one foot within our borders.  He hasn't lived here, he hasn't voted here, yet somehow he can be tried here.  Were the situation reversed, and a US citizen were extradited, we'd be fit to be tied.

There are also a few other things that are just priceless in this story:  "But Drink or Die's activities did cost American companies money — an estimated $US50 million ($A60 million), if legal sales were substituted for illegal downloads undertaken through Drink or Die. It also raised the ire of US authorities."

That priceless word "if".  If legal sales were substituted for illegal downloads.  Doesn't that assume--and we all know what that does--that these people given the choice between not having the software and having it would pony up the cash?  And if they had the cash at that point, why wouldn't they have bought it in the first place?

 

Imus: the more you say about others. . .

In as cliched as it is and in as much as I hate living by cliches (*cough*AA*cough*), I truly believe that every finger you point at somebody else points four more fingers back at you, and this is what happened to Don Imus.

Here's what I think about the words, however: those words did not turn those Rutgers basketball players into nappy headed hos any more than the people who called MLK Jr into an ape turned him into an ape. What they did show is that they (the racists) were the ones down on the evolutionary scale. Same thing with Ann Coulter dropping a three-letter f bomb on Edwards. No matter how cute she tried to turn the insult, she marred her physical beauty with ugly that cute to the bone. And the same thing with Don Imus.

Now, do I think that he should be fired? I don't know. I'm not a fan of Don Imus and I don't watch his schnitck often enough to make an informed decision, but here's what I do know: I've seen him and his clowns use other insults against other people rather than arguments. If you are going to fire him just for this, what does that say about the other slams he has made against other people? Smack them for their religion, for their political beliefs in a way that doesn't open discussion, but the moment you step across race you are gone?

I don't think Imus is racist in the sense that he believes honestly that caucasians are superior to black people. But I do think it shows a bias and a stereotypical thinking about blacks. He has biases against other groups as well. Does that make them any better?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sometimes, you just gotta draw the line somewhere

Teen tried to hire hit man to kill ex-girlfriend's fetus - CNN.com

I caught wind of this story from an e-mail list, Legalize Choice 4 Men, under the subject line "Lack of C4M Leads to Another ruined life".  With all due respect to LC4M--and I believe that they have a lot to their arguments--this is one place that I will not go.

I am nearing 30 in my own life, and so the memories of being a teenager are fading fast, but I can remember the distant times where everything was a life or death situation.  Every choice, every thing that you do at that age threatens to elevate your life to pure bliss or slam it into the pits of hell.  If you don't go out with that girl, you're going to die.  If you don't make the sports team, you're going to die.  Well, I have news for you.  I'm still living, and I didn't make one team or make it to first base with a girl.

But through all of that I never contemplated murder to the point of asking around for a hitman about it.  And while we're at it, a word to all you would be assassins and godfathers; have you just been watching way too much gangland movies, or do you really think that everybody knows an assassin?  Do you think we all keep the number of "Joey V" down the street in case we have a leak that needs to be fixed?

The kid's lawyer said that his client was, "is an intelligent young man who got bad advice."  Apparently he wasn't smart enough to realize that this had no chance in hell of working, but if the lawyer is correct, who ever gave him that advice should be sitting in a cell next to this kid.

 

OT: Dobson questions another person's faith.

Dobson: Thompson must express faith - CNN.com

 

This, is what drove me from organized religion:  people questioning each others faith.  Unless Dobson has some sort of crystal ball, he really doesn't know what Fred Thompson believes or does not believe.  So, quite frankly, he should concern himself more with his faith than with that of another person.

Am I alone in thinking that one of the most hypocritical things in the world is somebody saying that another person doesn't believe enough, that somebody isn't spiritual enough.  Whether it's religion or "spirituality" (read, a bunch of ex-drunks at AA questioning each other over the "quality" of their sobriety), one man does not know what another man thinks, let alone what he believes.    Hell, claiming that you know what God wants is a little bit arrogant let alone you know it better than another man, don't you think?

And why is this on the NCP Revue?  Well, Dobson has set himself up as an enemy of shared custody, so any chance to examine the man is going to get on our board.

 

Talk about your slick new toys!

Downloaded a copy of xdetv and if you don't have it and you're on Linux, what are you waiting for? This is, to be blunt, "digital recording for dummies". One "R", and you're recording your favorite shows. Sweet!
Later on in the week, I hope to be telling you about another toy I've stumbled across.