Many Words for Snow

by Charles Carreon
August 2, 2013

popehatguillotineflat2

Add eight inches to your height, at a stroke!

“[Charles Carreon] purports to be an internet lawyer and a defender of freedom, despite having no apparent grasp of the internet and an abiding hatred of freedom.” — Kenneth Popehat White

“Socrates proceeds penultimately, to discuss democracy.  It comes about when the rich become too rich and the poor too poor (555c-d).  Too much luxury makes the oligarchs soft and the poor revolt against them (556c-e).  In democracy most of the political offices are distributed by lot (557a).  The primary goal of the democratic regime is freedom or license (557b-c).  People will come to hold offices without having the necessary knowledge (557e) and everyone is treated as an equal in ability (equals and unequals alike, 558c). The democratic individual comes to pursue all sorts of bodily desires excessively (558d-559d) and allows his appetitive part to rule his soul.  He comes about when his bad education allows him to transition from desiring money to desiring bodily and material goods (559d-e).  The democratic individual has no shame and no self-discipline (560d). Tyranny arises out of democracy when the desire for freedom to do what one wants becomes extreme (562b-c).  The freedom or license aimed at in the democracy becomes so extreme that any limitations on anyone’s freedom seem unfair.  Socrates points out that when freedom is taken to such an extreme it produces its opposite, slavery (563e-564a).  The tyrant comes about by presenting himself as a champion of the people against the class of the few people who are wealthy (565d-566a).  The tyrant is forced to commit a number of acts to gain and retain power: accuse people falsely, attack his kinsmen, bring people to trial under false pretenses, kill many people, exile many people, and purport to cancel the debts of the poor to gain their support (565e-566a).  The tyrant eliminates the rich, brave, and wise people in the city since he perceives them as threats to his power (567c).  Socrates indicates that the tyrant faces the dilemma to either live with worthless people or with good people who may eventually depose him and chooses to live with worthless people (567d).  The tyrant ends up using mercenaries as his guards since he cannot trust any of the citizens (567d-e).  The tyrant also needs a very large army and will spend the city’s money (568d-e), and will not hesitate to kill members of his own family if they resist his ways (569b-c).” — Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Plato: The Republic,” by Antonis Couymoundouros [1]

We’ve all heard that the Eskimo have many words for what we call “snow.”  Seems there are subtle distinctions among various different types of water in the solid precipitate form, important enough to merit separate words.  This tells us that the Eskimo really care about snow, kind of like Ken Popehat White cares about hating people.  He has a vast vocabulary of insulting names for people he doesn’t like.

I have almost none.  Really just one, quite pedestrian noun that starts with an “a”.  It seems to fit everyone who invokes my dislike, and I have no call to stock more insulting names in my writing cabinet.  Even when I don’t like people, I don’t rail at them. Frankly, I’m biased against hate as a mental modality, and don’t believe much in retribution as a moral justification for treating people cruelly.  I don’t believe in punishment as a good way to change behavior.  It’s simply the modality that sells more Tasers and Glocks.

Popehat believes in punishment, though.  I heard he was some kind of religious nut, actually was like some kind of church official for that church that displays the Roman torture device on top of a steeple so everyone will know where the torture goes down.  Now that sounds right.  I knew that Popehat symbol meant something.  Poor guy, I think that shape is bad for wrapping around your brain.  It’s turned so many Catholic bishops into  coddlers of pedophiles!  But people like their symbols, you know.  Ken Popehat White enjoys associating himself with the irrational power commanded by the clergy.  It’s kind of magical, and people are receptive to that type of symbol, even without knowing it.

From the bully pulpit he has arrogated to himself, Ken Popehat White pontificates with the zeal of a witch-prosecutor.  And that thought provokes an insight.  The witch prosecutors, too, had vast vocabularies that described all manner of imaginary evils, of which suspicious persons could be accused. How many men and women were executed for having sex with incubi and succubi?  How many admitted to acts of withcraft they’d never committed, exactly as defined by the books from which the prosecutors cited chapter and verse?

Additionally, anything you’re gonna do a lot of, you gotta mix it up or you’ll lose listeners.  By hurling a variety of nasty epithets at his victims, Popehat varies the diet of his readers.  Hate becomes pretty dull fare pretty quickly if the purveyors lack imagination.  I, for example, would run a poor hate site.  Everyone would be an asshole this and an asshole that, and pretty soon people would just get bored and figure out that I was an asshole.  But Ken Popehat White is a smart hate marketer, so he mixes it up.  He is really inventive.  He’s like the Jack In The Box of hate.  Just when you think there’s nothing more you can do with six ingredients, pow, they came up with the Aztec Potato Chili Omelet on a Stick.  The most imaginative of Popehat’s epithets that I’ve read so far has gotta be “twat-waffle.”  I mean, that just stopped me.  I try to visualize a twat-waffle, and all I can imagine is that Kid Rock would wanna eat it.

So some might wonder, is Ken Popehat White a misanthrope, venting his hatred for all humanity by inciting Internet crowds to enter the zombie state, crying “Havoc!” and letting slip the dogs of war?  Surely the spectacle that greets his eyes when he sees his zombies at their work could only please a person with a bizarre appetite for destruction.  Anyone else would be disgusted by the alacrity with which people shed their civility and fall to the task of savaging their fellow humans on slight, often utterly trivial provocation.  Ken Popehat White is only a leader of so many because he tells them what they want to hear, and they want to hear someone hurling invective, giving them a target to spit bile at.

These DIRAs are quite reminiscent of the hate sessions in 1984, where good party members showed their loyalty to Big Brother by screaming invective at the image of the guy who is supposedly anti-Big-Brother, throwing books at the screen, demonstrating their fevered hatred as an emblem of loyalty.  Online lynchings are inherently political.  Political operatives use social media to test hot-button issues, and the resulting DIRAs have the added benefit of suppressing fire from the objects of DIRA hatred.  The fact that I would hesitate to cite Glenn Beck’s Rapeutation of ex-congressman Weiner tells you something about the powerful effect of a successful Rapeutation.

Ken Popehat White is driving a political vehicle here.  It’s sort of a Zamboni machine to keep the ice-skating rink of the Internet nice and flat and open so that the social media hordes can skate around in blissfull crowds, all skating in the same direction, renting virtual skates so they can forget about being unemployed.  The First Amendment is the blade on this Zamboni machine, and it always cuts in a direction that will benefit the social-networking business paradigm that currently holds both the money guys and the PR guys in total thrall.  The Obama administration thinks it’s got the edge in social media, so they want it as open as possible so they can buy data, read the tea leaves, and tilt the roulette wheel.  Republicans don’t want to change the rules until they catch up.  And Zuckerman and company are going to keep blowing smoke up everybody’s keester until it comes out our ears.

The courts, as usual, are near senescent in their manner of dealing with the information age, that has gone through three iterations since Y2K, one being the Googleization of the Internet, the other being the rise of social media, and the third being the integration of social media as the domestic surveillance ear for the national security state.  You can see what judges left to run secret surveillance courts will do – let the NSA track the location and user data of all the phones in the country!  Meanwhile the workaday trial judges still haven’t realized that digital business is awash in fraud, and people need to start studying the science of digital evidence preservation and analysis in law school or we are going to drown in forgeries.  Most judges are not even rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  They are on an entirely different ship that is safely docked in port, rearranging deck chairs and advising the captain of the Titanic by radio on their preferred arrangement of deckchairs for a ship that has been hit by an iceberg.

Ken Popehat White champions hate speech at least in part because he himself has a knack for it.  That impulse to hurt people that he shares with Mr. Oxycontin himself, Rush Limbaugh.  But would anyone actually seek to master epithet-hurling as a career-enhancement option?  I believe you have hit the nail on the head.  He is an achiever, always raising the bar on himself, and just like someone bench pressing a little more every day, finally gets up to some impressive lifts. Ken Popehat White pushes himself to pop out a completely new insult every now and then, and the rest of the time, he deals all the old ones with such style that it’s as if his readers hadn’t heard them all dozens of times before.

Of course Ken Popehat White will say that inciting people to hate others isn’t hate speech, because it doesn’t target them for what they are, but for who they are.  This is a specious distinction, especially when viewed from the position of the person targeted.  It’s no comfort to them that the color of their skin or the sound of their last name wasn’t the cause of their Rapeutation, but rather the nature of their purported offense against the sensibilities of the new, self-respecting, free-to-talk-shit-about-everybody social media “consensus” being fomented by the Free Speech Mafia.

The Free Speech Mafia lawyers don’t need to be taught which side their bread is buttered upon.  They know that the world must be made safe for anonymous, outrageous speech without financial consequences for the social networking and media companies, because this model of revenue generation is working, and nobody wants to upset the goose that is laying some nice golden eggs.  The guys who interpret social media metrics for a living don’t want to “discover” that the usage stats of all social networking platforms are inflated by the practice of encouraging the use of anonymous screen names.  In some forums, ridden with widespread sock-puppeting, the posting statistics are obviously skewed by people pretending to be multiple identities.  As we know, many folks can be quite prolific in managing an online army, such that a split personality can possibly earn a good living flogging products, feeding flames, and getting those hyperlinks posted.

The anarchic conduct that now arises on the Internet, releasing vicious, damaging flares of hateful speech due to zombies rampaging without any restraint, reminds one of Plato’s description of the decay of democracy into license, as each citizen demands full, unrestricted liberty to act as they please.  Plato explains that this results from the loss, in democratic society, of the stolid, hardy virtue that is found among elites in the oligarchical style of government.  As the elites become accustomed to the freedom of democracy, they marinate ever more in pleasure, and they develop the desire to indulge every whim, without regard to the social costs that others must bear.  Ken Popehat White’s secret boyfriend James O’Keefe is a poster boy for this kind of inane overvaluation of “freedom” to the point where it crosses over into license.

As Plato explains, when everyone’s enjoying their freedom (which in our money-regulated social architecture equates to times of loose credit and/or rising incomes), then the merchants feed the flame of “freedom,” urging people to spend too much, mortgage their property, party, travel and shop, and end up forfeiting their wealth to the merchants.  Similarly, Ken Popehat White is pushing people to act like zombies and engage in conduct that is going to cause them problems in the future, if only the trouble of running around trying to delete the evidence that, at some point in their life, they became zombies.

Ken Popehat White will not be able to make heads or tails out of the foregoing discussion.  He will be stumped.  His mind, and those of his true followers, will just lock up and decline to process the information.  Popehat has explained why this happens in his post identifying attorney Evan S. Cohen and his daughter J.C. of LA as people you can’t censor, but it’s okay to hate.  The reason it’s okay to hate Evan S. Cohen is because he “deliberately keeps his daughter’s video – in which she gleefully describes another teen classmate as an ugly slut and encourages friends to bash her – posted on the internet, to show what a free speech hero he is.”  That’s really rather odd, since that’s exactly what Popehat has been doing for the last four years – claiming to be a free speech hero and exhibiting, as the fruits of his triumph, the nasty blogs and websites that he has helped to keep on the Internet.  I think he’s just jealous of Evan S. Cohen because he’s an entertainment lawyer and makes more money.  But you can always drink the Kool-Aid that Ken uses to salve his own conscience:  “Embrace the cognitive dissonance.  It’s perfectly all right to believe simultaneously [in the free speech rights of students] and that Evan S. Cohen is a smug and unlikeable douche raising a child to be a sociopath.”  Yes, Cohen’s conduct is so much more blameworthy than tutoring an Internet mob in how to mount a DIRA.

Yes, the Eskimos have many words for snow, and Ken Popehat White has hateful words for every circumstance. His devotees emulate him with some success.  With Popehat’s encouragement, here’s just a few tidbits that were offered to Evan S. Cohen when he dared to post on his own behalf:

Doug  •  Jul 6, 2010 @2:14 pm: The First Amendment allows many unpopular ideas and thoughts to be said, but it doesn’t prevent me from thin[kin]g the girl who made the video to be a #$% and a little sh$#.

Scott Jacobs  •  Jul 6, 2010 @5:23 pm: … The lesson we learned is that your daughter is a complete and utter bitch, and you raised her to be an insufferable little shit…You obviously raised a shitty kid there, Mister.

Mike  •  Jul 7, 2010 @5:01 am: I love when the douchey perp subject of your ridicule shows up in person to instigate more ridicule.

SPQR  •  Jul 7, 2010 @8:25 am: And it is our duty, Mike, to see that he gets that ridicule. Nice job, Ken.

Dennis  •  Jul 7, 2010 @9:41 am: This case is a good example of why violence can be a good thing. The Cohen girl should have her gface ground into the horse manure in the gutter, by the victim and her friends. Then the victim should take her detention and move on.

DensityDuck  •  Sep 9, 2010 @3:55 pm: Well, Angela, you see, when you’re daughter’s such a cunt, it’s very important that you maintain a strict sense of legality, because you know that the vile little bitch is going to be involved in any number of disciplinary actions.

VICTIMS OF KEN POPEHAT WHITE’S REIGN OF TERROR (2008-PRESENT) 

(Ken’s Name-Calling in Parentheses and Italics)

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Lawyers/Law Enforcement [2] Non-Lawyers
Howard Ray Schechter — C&D Letter (he violated Cal. Rule of Prof. Conduct 5-100(A); probably intractably mentally ill; his letter was preposterous, ridiculous, unethical,  unprofessional, bumptious, full of misspellings, bizarre malaproprisms, misstatements of law, gibberish, and vague, empty thuggery; threats were meritless and freakishly unprofessional.) Mariana Schechter, owner of Ecologica Malibu, had featured seller spot on Etsy. [Regretsy]: “When it was discovered that the Schechters are actually distributors for Balinese wholesale furniture company All From Boats, the handmade turd hit the upcycled fan. Etsy is currently promoting their latest crackdown on resellers, aggressively trying to change their growing reputation as purveyors of mass-produced goods from China and India.” (Raper: April Winchell, Regretsy)
Maeghan Maloney — C&D letter (violated her oath to the Constitution; made incorrect statements of the law; letter was utterly insipid, unprincipled, incomplete, calculated to terrify, and utterly frivolous; invoked the word ‘bullying’, she’s a censor with butthurt in the first degree; appalling and contemptible; un-American; freakishly censorious; thuggish; cowardly; goes after easy targets) Dr. Christopher Maloney, licensed naturopath in Maine — “quack” (Rapers: Michael Hawkins @ forthesakeofscience.com, PZ Meyers)
Rep. Charles Curtiss, Tennessee — cyberbully law (Constitutional oathbreaker; frankly ridiculous)
Vicki Roberts — C&D letter (ludicrous; freakish; unbelievable; loathsome; bottom-feeding thug; bully; frivolous; vexatious; stupid; shakedown; reckless; bumptious; malicious prosecution) Thedala Magee of TSA — search (sexual assault; forcible groping; violation; humiliation; gratuitous and inappropriate touching; inhuman indifference; deliberate humiliation; sense of entitlement; meritless; contemptible; privileged; degrader; the Thedala Magees of the nation should be subject to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, should have their reputations damaged, and deserve to experience emotional distress; they are doing vile things to their fellow citizens for money) (Rapers: Amy Alkon; Marc Randazza)
Joseph Rakofsky — in his first trial as a new lawyer he defended a man of murder (incompetent; irresponsible; hubris; dishonest; doubled-down; should have slunk away; belongs to the ages; will never live this down; censorious thuggery; cowardly; unprincipled; spectacularly pathetic; frivolous; claims are utterly baseless; malicious; he’s a moral and ethical outrage; technically a lawyer; is back offering the ass-damp tort of “internet mobbing”; filed a gigantic motion seeking a dog’s breakfast of court orders; wants his former lawyer sanctioned and may want a pony and a pat on the head; his motion is a freakish mess, of a quality I would normally associate with mid-range pro se work, not as bad as a homeless psychotic pro se, but not as good as a reasonably articulate and experienced pro se, like a tax protester or something; he adds a cause of action for “internet mobbing,” even though there is no such cause of action in New York law or anywhere else; Rakofsky is more clever than you; he might take the lives of helpless men into his hands when he is manifestly not qualified to do so, but he has a certain low craftiness; he knows that the din of insipid anti-bullying rhetoric is growing louder and that some people are willing to turn their concerns about bullied children into broad and unprincipled doctrines that allow anyone to lash out at critics; it is the assertion that we need to revisit our dusty old notions of freedom of speech and come to the progressive viewpoint that expression is a privilege not a right) University of St. Thomas School of Law — settled with Joseph Rakofsky (contemptuous; caved in a heartbeat; gave in to extortion; rewarded a frivolous censorious twit; handed him money that he will use to attempt to censor others; encouraged, empowered, and emboldened litigious thugs everywhere; St. Thomas sends $50 to make his dick bigger, ensuring that we all get spammed; cowardly; lack of character; employs a faith-based appeal to the sentiments of the slackoisie; ridiculous; dropped to its knees; shameful; yielded to censorious thuggery; unprincipled; encouraged vexatious and speech-chilling litigation; cringing suckitude)
Richard Borzouye — represented Joseph Rakofsky (primary qualification is the capacity to turn chicken shit into chicken salad; Emo Butthurt in the First Degree; patently ridiculous; vexatious; harassing; incompetent; abandoned ship) (Raper: Marc Randazza) Deborah Hackerson, University of St. Thomas School of Law — settled with Joseph Rakofsky (contemptuous)
Devin Sreecharania of May, Potenza, Baran & Gillespie, P.C. — C&D letter for client Battlefoam (extravagant language and demands; blustery; demanding; purple prose) Romeo Filip of Battle Foam [Bloodofkittens.com]: “ruthless tactics to corner the foam market; a pattern has developed that would make anyone squeamish dealing with them; threw a tantrum at NovaOpen because they couldn’t deliver biggest event ever; made the TO’s mother cry; threw another tantrum because a podcast tried to give foam as a prize; tried to change his prize support after agreeing to a set amount; changed the rules of the game by giving memberships instead of foam; tried to fire a 50/50 partner; is at it again demanding Adepticon give him an entire ballroom; went psychotic tirade on the Infinity forums; complained about being shitty at Infinity; trash-talker; threatened to come out and beat the shit out of Corvus Belli forum members; then there is the foam wars with Sabol and KR Multicase; always a catch to his prize support, like bags without foam; this is a warning because once bitten by Battlefoam there is no going back” (Romeo Filip did a podcast yesterday demonstrating he doesn’t understand dec. relief, attorneys fees. or the law; joked about punching critics in the face when he’s claiming Blood of Kittens said he physically assaults critics, which is sheer genius; making his attorney’s job so much harder and reducing his chance of winning) (Rapers: TastyTaste @ bloodofkittens.com; Nicolas Hayden @ Blood of Kittens; Marc Randazza; Gil Sperlein (filed dec. relief action in No. Cal.))
David Blade III/Craig Brittain/Chance Trahan — post naked pictures and personal contact info for men and women, and advertisements by David Blade, an imaginary lawyer who will represent the victims and get the posts taken down (gravel-knuckled troglodyte; sleazy; disturbed; subnormal; felon; losers; insane; con men; mail and wire fraudsters; abused the DMCA; national douchebag; incompetent; infamous; ugly; remarkably stupid; vermin; extortion scam is an effort to monetize humiliation of women for the pleasure of sick freaks; encourage their verminous audience to harass the women, then chortle when the women beg or threaten to get the pictures down; classic mewling sociopaths; wantonly cruel; a meathead; able to separate into different categories his little girl and mother from the women being humiliated and abused on his website)
Federal Trade Commission — civil suits (the most grotesque parody of due process; no criminal clients are screwed the way people targeted by the FTC get screwed; typical consequences include issuing draconian preliminary injunctions based on half-assed government requests, global asset freezes, and offensively perfunctory proceedings)
Cody Saltzman and parents — rape case (repulsive social media coverage of his classmates mauling a drunk child) (Rapers: Alexandria Goddard at Prinnifield; Jeffrey M. Nye; Thomas G. Haren; Marc Randazza; Paul Levy; Scott Greenwood; ACLU)
RMPI Solicitors — attorneys for Robert Alistair McAlpine (lowlife bully-boys; issued Maoist self-criticism forms to tweeters) Robert Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green — unfairly accused of child molestation (thug; entitled; narcissistic; threatening) (Rapers: BBC; Alan Davis; Sally Bercow, the wife of John Bercow, the speaker of the House of Commons; George Monbiot, a Guardian columnist)
Matt Overstreet, Sales Manager of Casey Movers — C&D letter for bad Yelp review (vague threats; frivolous legal thuggery; bogus; malicious; marginally literate; eviscerated their brand; sent out a vague, error-ridden, legally incorrect, bumptious legal threat; very stupid; amateurish; foolish; splenetic; immolated their company’s brand; braggart; should shut his damnfool mouth and apologize profusely; doubled-down; obscure; pitiful; retreated) (Rapers: Kristen Buckley; Phil Buckley; The Consumerist)
The Reading University Student Union and its leaders Kara Swift, Kath Davey, Richard Silcock, and Ceri Jones — pursued disciplinary proceedings against the University of Reading Atheist, Humanist & Secularist Society for displaying a pineapple named Mohammed on the grounds it caused offense (betrayed a proud heritage; contributed substantively to the decline of Western Civilization; jackasses; lunatics; pusillanimous and unprincipled attitude; sad ilk; petty bureaucrats; insipid; infantilizingly civil; intolerant; overly sensitive; weak; dull-witted; crabbed; pointless; censorious twatwaffles; idiots; petty; wicked; silencers) (Rapers: The University of Reading Atheist, Humanist & Secularist Society)
Larry Bodine of Lawyers.com — [Bodine]: “Tannenbaum was disrupting a conference he wasn’t even attending; 20 people reported & blocked him; he’s a troll who has nothing else to do but stalk people and disrupt events.” [Greg Lambert, geeklawblog.com]: “It looks very similar to having hecklers in the audience. Ken, from Popehat says that he and others are simply dissenters voicing their honest opinion about what they think of the LMATech conference; however, it is heckling, and not just dissent. It’s pretty clear that the dissent is out to discredit the message and the messengers, and when it becomes personal, it takes on a mudslinging effect that suddenly gets very nasty… you would think that respected lawyers would find more adult ways to discuss the topic.” (He and his ilk are making the legal profession measurably more awful; he has a tragic irony deficit; spammer; irresponsible; unethical; lends his name to junk merchant spammers; abused Twitter’s spam reporting system; he’s a censorious tool who would like to suppress messages he doesn’t like; doubled-down) (Rapers: Scott Greenfield; Brian Tannebaum)
Martindale-Hubble — attorney directory (Subscription only gets you calls from deadbeats, yahoos and crazies of every stripe)
The University of California’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, and Inclusion — Recommended a “Hate Speech” policy (Censorship of even of so-called ‘hate speech’ is unconstitutional, ineffective, wrongheaded, and contrary to academic tradition; they are imperial hand-wavers; teaching university students to be stupider and more censorious) (Rapers: William Creeley, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)
WND/John Rocker — [John Rocker]: “Over the past decades, media, in their infinite wisdom, have declared themselves judge, jury and executioner regarding what is acceptable and not in the realm of exchanging ideas, thoughts and opinions. They also seem to be the ones who have created the rule book we all must follow, which over the years has gotten extremely complex with a tremendous array of double standards and finite logic regarding those to whom true freedom of speech actually applies. There is without a doubt an unwritten but staunchly understood pecking order when considering who has the right to freely voice thought without the fear of public scorn, and who must tread very lightly on certain obvious topics of socially sensitive subject matter. Media, along with a brainwashed segment of the American populace, grant asylum to different degrees according to what segment of society one belongs. The seemingly more oppressed an individual and his group the better. Let’s face it, some have the ability to wage verbal holocaust and go virtually unscathed in the court of public opinion, while similar thoughts or opinions voiced by one whose existence does not grant them immunity will most likely be subjected to scorn and public rebuke from all sides until penance has supposedly been paid.” (Ridiculous; being a dick about people being a dick about people being a dick; can’t stoop any lower; incompetent; runs his mouth about people who irritate him; disrespectful; self-indulgent; invokes soldiers’ sacrifice to launch an unrelated screed and insulate himself from criticism; overly sensitive; completely fucking stupid; spewing cliches; weakling; coward; fool; moronic trope; subnormal; hideous; puts out lit cigarettes on the exposed tender flesh of the English language; whiner; needs to put on his big-boy pants and speak his mind; nobody promised him a marketplace of ideas run by aggressive kindergarten teachers making sure that everyone shares and shares alike and plays nice; it’s a brawl; different speech gets valued differently; different media outlets, motivated by their own values, and by making money, are no more neutral than any other participant)
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino — threatened to bar Chick-Fil-A from Boston because of its views on gay marriage (speaks disingenuously and ass-dampy; he’s a lowlife thug; wants to punish on a whim; thinks he is our master, wants to dictate what we think and do and say if we want to do business in his fiefdom; totalitarian; threatened abuse of government power; doesn’t mean anything he says; lacks the ability to govern his words and actions.)
Berkeley Police Chief Michael Meehan — sent police officer to Doug Oakley’s house at 12:45 a.m. to change error in story (egregious error of judgment; unsuited for the position; cannot be trusted; should have his ass fired now; he should resign; his instincts and inclinations are utterly incompatible with wielding police power; apologizes too little, too late; did something we expect in Syria or Egypt or Iran which we shouldn’t tolerate for a nanosecond; threatened force; official suppression; censorship; he has weak self-control; lacks judgment and discipline; stone-cold thuggery)
Sgt. Mary Kusmiss, public relations officer for Berkeley Police Chief Michael Meehan — went to Doug Oakley’s house at 12:45 am. to ask him to change error in story (knew she was asked to do wrong but did it anyway; just following orders is not a defense; incapable of leadership and command judgment)
Judge C.J. Vaughey — judge in Brett Kimberlin case [Judge Vaughey]: “All I’ve learned here is one guy hides behind the sheets while the other guy suffers; I don’t care what (Kimberlin’s) background is; a prostitute can also be raped; he’s an individual, he’s entitled to his own privacy and can’t be threatened; what I didn’t like is these death threats that are coming and his children are reading it; that is nasty and wrong”  (his order was shockingly conclusory and vague; unprincipled; limp; uncritically acquiescent; he’s asleep at the wheel; didn’t take his role seriously; his hearing was a farce; no grasp of technology; a rubber-stamper; doesn’t care what the law is; doesn’t give a shit; suspicious of new-fangled stuff; will impose any damn standard he wants; hostile to free expression and modern technology; has black-robe fever; he’s a lawless Luddite indifferent and scornful to the most fundamental rights of Americans; his 6-month injunction against writing about Kimberlin is freakishly unconstitutional and patently lawless; he’s unable to provide a coherent, grammatical sentence; he violated his oath to the Constitution; he’s a censorious thug; ruling is a legal atrocity)______________________________Kevin Zees, attorney for Velvet Revolution, charity associated with Kimberlin (bumptious threats are calculated to chill speech; ambiguous legal threat is empty thuggery and bad faith censoriousness) Brett Kimberlin — obtained peace order prohibiting blogger Aaron Walker (Worthing) from writing about him (convicted domestic terrorist, bomber, perjurer; wounded a man so badly he later took his own life; laughed off the judgment; made vague and undocumented claims that he suffered threats from unidentified people; astoundingly vile; terrifyingly sociopathic; leads a contemptible life; crazy; quite evil; victimizer; malevolent; outrageous; despicable; remorseless and amoral psycho; crazy stalker; scary censorious psychopath; jailhouse snitch; unrepentantly defied a civil judgment against him due to the death of one of his bombing victims; it’s hard to imagine him doing something that doesn’t directly profit himself legally, financially or possibly through underaged girls, according to his wife; I’d like to see leftists condemn this scary, censorious psychopath, and realize they can do so without endorsing the politics of those he pursues in a recognition of mutual humanity, like encountering crazy douchebags and censors on the internet) (Rapers: Aaron Walker, Patterico’s Pontifications; Eugene Volokh; Ali A. Akbar of the National Bloggers Club; Elizabeth Kingsley of Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP; Robert Stacy McCain)
Crystal Cox — got angry at Marc Randazza and registered domains in his and his wife and child’s name (vomited forth a series of blogs accusing Kevin D. Padrick, bankruptcy trustee for Summit Accommodators Inc., a decent and trustworthy lawyer, of bribery, tax fraud, money laundering, payoffs and theft; dominated the search results for Padrick’s name; extortion; freakish, incoherent, meandering ranter and raver; twisted a charming story about engagement and pregnancy into something vile; sick; disturbing; odd capitalizer; twitches, babbles and meanders in video reports; unhinged; too bad she’s the standard-bearer for the case defended by Volokh and EFF; bizarre; vengeful; floridly ill and evil; she launched a domain attacking David Carr at the New York Times for a critical piece on her; started sites attacking the Forbes reporter for his article on her) [U.S. Dist. Judge Marco Hernandez]: “Based on the evidence presented at the time of trial, I conclude that plaintiffs are not public figures, defendant is not ‘media’, and the statements at issue were not made on an issue of public concern. Thus, there are not First Amendment implications.”
The Legislatures of Arizona — drafted a cyberbullly law: “It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person” (fuck you, Arizona; you’re a pack of morons who ought to be voted out of office; you were swept up in the moronic and thoughtless anti-bullying craze and passed a bill that is ridiculous on its face; you violated the 1st Amendment; violated your oaths of office; you should be ashamed of yourselves; you passed fashionable rubbish; snort my taint, go to hell; go fuck yourselves; you toyed with trend-humping, foolish, overbroad, and badly drafted cyberbullying legislation in an effort to prevent people from being mean on the internet)
The Legislature of Connecticut — drafted Connecticut Senate Bill 456 (a): “A person commits electronic harassment when such person, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, transmits, posts, displays or disseminates, by or through an electronic communication device, radio, computer, Internet web site or similar means, to any person, a communication, image or information, which is based on the actual or perceived traits or characteristics of that person, which: (1) Places that person in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person or property; (2) Has a substantial and detrimental effect on that person’s physical or mental health; (3) Has the effect of substantially interfering with that person’s academic performance, employment or other community activities or responsibilities; (4) Has the effect of substantially interfering with that person’s ability to participate in or benefit from any academic, professional or community-based services, activities or privileges; or (5) Has the effect of causing substantial embarrassment or humiliation to that person within an academic or professional community” (stupendously ridiculous; turd; unconstitutional; venal; subnormal intelligence, droolers, poor hygiene, regrettable oafishness, indifferent to their oaths of office under their state’s constitution; civil, legal and constitutionally illiterate; poor upbringing, bad pruning on the sad Charlie-Brown-Christmas tree that is their genetic heritage; pure evil; I spit upon your traits and characteristics; oathbreaking censorious twunts; it is my sincere hope that my message will have a substantial and detrimental effect on your mental health and help you realize you are an embarrassment to responsible self-governance, that you have clawed and bit and scrambled and fought to become dim, petty tyrants; I hope that my message will interfere with your academic performance, employment, other community activities, marriage speeches while you meet your catamites at the Ramada Inn, collecting your Teamster bribes; you are worthy only of contempt; I hope this message causes substantial embarrassment and humiliation within your community of functional illiterates who find new ways to regulate every aspect of human existence, and the community of people viewed by the general public as slightly more palatable than child molesters but definitely less palatable than car thieves, wife beaters, or lawyers; you’ve joined the moronic headlong rush towards cyberbullying legislation that tramples our heritage of free expression in exchange for a few local news headlines; you drafted a bill that is stupendously overbroad and chilling of all sorts of protected expression; you need to stop hiring lawyers from gas-station bathrooms and the alleys behind methadone clinics; this statute will criminalize all sorts of criticism, argument, and satire based not on any objectively threatening nature, but on the whiny subjective butthurt of the disagreed-with; you’re teaching our children to be bad citizens, to look to government for redress when people hurt their feelings; you are ignorant censorious tools; snort my taint)
Albin H. Gess, of Snell & Wilmer, attorneys for Meghan McCain (stupid, meritless, censorious, thuggish, profoundly embarrassing, loathsome, humiliating, ugly, bumptious, offensive, frivolous threats and assertions; using money and power to achieve censorship; took the STOP BEING MEAN OR I’LL SUE route; obscure theories that Red State’s posts put McCain in a false light and violate her right to publicity are knowing and intentional bullshit; an angry, righteous, oddly disingenuous letter unless Albin says it’s cool; Red State wasn’t trading on Meghan McCain’s name and likeness, but were trading on their ruthless, clever, and transformative parody of McCain’s awful writing; Albin Gess should be reviled in public for his censorious threat; he’s worthy of contempt; it should cost him his self-respect and peace of mind; he sells the child molester a panel van and an array of colorful and delicious candies; stomp on the roaches; curb-stomp a censor) Meghan McCain — RedState.com parodied her using her name –  “Totally Meghan McCain” — and likeness, violating RedState.com’s Rule 9: “It is not allowed to use a user name or alias of a known public figure without permission, or to take other steps to impersonate a known public figure” (famous for no discernible or rational reason; the perfect modern inexplicable celebrity, photogenic in a crass way, talkative in a manner prone to attention-grabbing gaffes, opinionated without being informed; like Jane Teasdale with a brain injury; drafts her columns with Kenner’s ‘I can write good, too, mommy!’ kit; leaves a bad taste in your mouth; supported with insipid, execrably written drivel; censorious, self-absorbed ass; no respect for core Constitutional values; ran all butthurt to a lawyer; famously a moron; well-known as an awful writer; too stupid to understand parody or the 1st amendment)
Jamie Spottz, PeakSearchEngineRanking.net — professional legal marketer (sends unsolicited email; spams web sites with ill-targeted emails clumsily and insultingly designed to appear customized; his solicitation is unappealing and does not give you even a scintilla of confidence in his abilities or the value of his services)
Steven L. Hill, Ticket Void, LLC, Denver, Colorado (BLOGSPAMMER; uses sleazy internet marketing techniques; sleazy former real estate lawyer; fallen Denver real estate attorney)
Brandlink Communications LLC/Erica/VP Media Director Jose Martinez/Partner Carol Bell — professional legal marketers (sends unsolicited PR pitch asking for blog about a Kardashian wearing panty hose; illiterate; passive-aggressive douche who spams people about Kardashians for a living; swollen with typical marketeer/spammer entitlement; freakishly entitled; thinks people should be grateful to get his spam; deluging you with unwelcome, over-capitalized and oddly spelled screeds telling you how you can make your dick bigger; wrong; a classic loser in high-tech form; someone who makes his money sending insipid spam emails about uninteresting things done by vapid people to masses of people, 99.9% of whom don’t care and the other .1% of which only care because they are stupid; his attitude is typical of his ilk; secretly knows what they do is loathsome; they feel entitled under the 1st Amendment to spam you but they aren’t; telling them what we think of them is amusing; they are unwelcome intruders, annoying thousands to get one sale; fuck ‘em)
Sparta Townson, Internet Guru Girl — professional legal marketer (wants you to abandon your reputation and ethics to her and expose yourself to widespread ridicule and contempt; frequently employs bots, or low-paid net jockeys on the subcontinent to flood legal blogs with spam comments in a highly offensive, usually fruitless, attempt to build their clients’ web presence, which is the same marketing technique favored by cut-rate porn sites and the multitude of pills that make your dick hard; marketers who spam generate hostility and contempt for dubious gain; she spammed Austin attorney Jamie Spencer with inane spam comments on behalf of clients; she has an insufferable sense of entitlement and utter lack of actual marketing savvy that spammers are famous for; very foolish; scummy; made a ranting and largely incoherent response; was snooping around here; legal marketing is shot through with bumblers and scam artists and uber-spammers; only crooks and morons use them) (Rapers: Jamie Spencer; Mark Bennett)
Trish Williams, SearchEngineRanking.ass — professional legal marketer (confused; disoriented; perhaps she has special needs; perhaps she recently sustained a major head injury; perhaps she uses a program to spam blogs automatically; perhaps she’s a friend of SEO spammer Jamie Spottz; perhaps she hasn’t contemplated the irony of sending irritating, offensive and impertinent marketing spam to a web site that ridicules spam marketing)
Wasserman Comden and Casselman — member of SueEasy (reviewed and approved Sue Easy’s promise that I can start and file my own class action through a web page; reviewed and approved Sue Easy’s social networking strategy which involves bothering people with unsolicited junk spam through Twitter; outsourced its marketing, good name, and ethics to a spammer) SueEasy — professional legal marketer (a site subscribed to by law firms specializing in class actions, who are matchmakers between people who have suffered trivial damages not worthy of an individualized suit and lawyers who want big contingent fee payouts, who file suits for people so stupid that they don’t know Crunchberries aren’t real fruit, and so stupid they need a written warning not to set the headphone volume too high, i.e. people who lack common sense; SueEasy’s marketing is deceptive; SueEasy should be sued; they send unsolicited messages; they’re a spammer)
Bradley Johnson, Personal injury attorney, Seattle — spammer (he’s someone who probably doesn’t know the internet from a hole in the ground, who hired a marketing company to spam weblogs with trackback links to the spammer firm’s website; we name spamming attorneys so they will ask that the post be removed because who wants to be known across the entire internet as a spammer?; some people demand removal or are otherwise unrepentant; we’re happy to help those who apologize and promise to correct their errors if we’re convinced of their sincerity; Johnson has so much faith in black search engine optimization that he’s continuing to spam law blogs; Crime and Federalism’s post naming him a spammer is about to hit page one of Google and will stay there a long time) (Raper: anonymous@crimeandfederalism.com)
Dennis Toeppen, owner of Suburban Express — shuttle-bus company threatened critics with lawsuits, then Internet vigilantes hacked and defaced his business and personal websites, and hijacked his reddit account which was used to post his password and penis size; some accused him of defacing his own sites to make himself a victim (engaged in online dickery; doubled down; is now retreating furiously from the precipice; caught a glimpse of the Streisand Effect; threatened Reddit moderator with a libel suit; notably coy about when and how the violations occurred; played fast and loose with the difference between false statements of fact and opinion; doesn’t seem familiar with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; defamation threats are very vague and target protected communication — a reliable hallmark of meritless thuggery; defamation threats are highly dubious; Streisand Effect went from zero to catastrophic reputation damage in less than a week; was soon looking down the barrel of posts at Ars Technica and BoingBoing; is taking a certain amount of responsibility responding to complaints, but still indulging in pointing fingers and taking shots at others; its potential pool of customers are now people who have never heard of them, which is not how marketing is supposed to work; very likely they have irretrievably beshat themselves; Toeppen’s emails to me don’t bode well; it’s unlikely they can resist their pattern of lashing out; if they abandon their current raft of litigation they might come back; they should think about shutting up, and stop inflaming their customers; should take time to get a grip, get good advice, and not talk like an ass; should know their enemy; should know what they are talking about before they talk big; using FOIA demands to identify online critics, to harass and pierce internet anonymity in order to file frivolous lawsuits; used its website to attack Jeremy Leval whose criticism set off its last paroxysm of threats and litigiousness with the intent to revile a litigation opponent; seeking an injunction in a defamation case is often a good indicator of frivolousness; their stubborn statistical analysis that 125 lawsuits does not make one likely is sanctionably ridiculous [lawsuits represent 1% of ridership]; the letter is replete with contempt for their customer base; in what amounts to projection, Toeppen spins any criticism as narcissism; his statement that my coverage is giving a handful of young people an inflated sense of self-worth, i.e., ‘you’re just children doing this for attention and because you have nothing better to do’, is a common theme from Toeppen and other internet cranks faced with criticism; it’s difficult in light of their pattern of conduct to believe their version of events about nearly everything; threatened defamation suit is part of a pattern of attempted intimidation of critics; their Wikipedia page is the site of an ongoing struggle to delete criticism, and one Wikipedia editor who added critical material found her user page edited to say she has a conflict of interest; his statement that Wikipedia has degenerated into a social-media site and hangout for teen and 20-something wannabes expresses disgust at his client base; he responds coyly to the allegation that he uses aliases to attack critics on Reddit and says anonymity leads people to do things they would never do in public, and he would like commenters to be compelled to provide their real names; he supports legislation that defeats anonymous online commenting; his online activities and FOIA requests are nigh-suicidal for a business that depends on goodwill; his company’s approach to customer service is loathsome; he is incapable of comprehending how he sounds to his audience; his rule that cell phone usage is limited to 3 minutes per passenger per trip smacks of contempt for his customer base; he rails at people using the internet to trash-talk him, but gleefully posts screeds about opponents and posts snide videos of competitors; he is a failed cybersquatter and small-time bully who can dish it out but can’t take it; a classic internet crank, bewailing the necessity of sharing the planet with the stupid and inferior people that bedevil him; he uses litigation as a weapon of censorship because defending it is ruinously expensive to average people; actions do and should have consequences so Toeppen should face the consequences of his conduct; it’s difficult to imagine students using Suburban Express if they knew its history)  (Rapers: arstechnica.com; reddit.com; techdirt.com; Jeremy Leval; Katherine C.; Murph Finnicum; Daily Illin; Christopher Mulreed)
The Dozier Law Group, worked for Burzynski Clinic after Marc Stephens left (like hiring Hannibal Lecter to take Deffrey Dahmer’s place as your sous-chef) Marc Stephens, hired by Burzynski Clinic to try and stop dissemination of false and inaccurate information (As a layman I find the criticisms of Dr. Burzynski far more persuasive than his defenses; poor, angry, frothing, rather inarticulate, possibly crazy, Marc Stephens embarked upon a campaign of bufoonish threatening, bumptious, berating emails against bloggers who questioned the scientific basis for Burzynski’s practices; he refused Quackometer’s requests to specify what in the blog post was false which is a telltale sign of a bullshit legal threat; he falsely implied that he was a lawyer representing the clinic which is illegal; he’s a web guru of some flavor with a shop called MAS Web Design & Hosting; through a campaign of half-literate, comically legally misguided and fatuously irritating legal threats, Stephens worsened Burzynksi’s reputation by several orders of magnitude; he couldn’t have harmed Burzynski’s reputation more if he had set out on a well-funded campaign to destroy it; his communications contained grammatical and spelling errors, feckless generalities, puerile purple prose, and other hallmarks of crazy people; he is loathsomely thuggish; complains that everyone he’s angry at is guilty of defamation and mean-scientist-fraud and stuff; getting caught being a total douche to dozens of strangers by email,  fraudulently posing as an attorney, and now being publicly humiliated, he’s going to go with ‘oh no, my email was hacked and the hacker did nasty things, or a wizard did it’; snort my taint; when he says an associate will contact me, does he mean in the sense of ‘Wayne, who lets me sleep on his futon when I can’t pick up enough shifts at Arby’s,’ or an associate like in mob movies; can anyone other than him see and hear this associate, because if this associate is a giant goddam invisible rabbit, that’s a deal-breaker; a 6-foot invisible rabbit would freak me right the fuck out; if he’s siccing an invisible rabbit on me there should be a federal investigation; threatening people with giant rabbits through the electronic mails is almost certainly a violation of several federal statutes, but a sharp legal guy like Marc would already know that; I’ve taken the liberty of dropping a note to the D.A. about you, Marc, and I encourage everyone who has gotten a legal threat from you to do the same; govern yourself accordingly; that squishing sound you hear is Marc Stephens being thrown under the bus or out on an ice floe by the Burzynski Clinic; firing Stephens is like firing Jeffrey Dahmer as your sous-chef; he threatens critics of the Burzynski Clinic with badliy-researched and oddly worded forms of legal Armageddon; sent a rather bizarre threatening email suggesting that I was in league with an international skeptic identity theft ring or something; stifles criticism through feckless legal threats; is very concerned that I linked to public documents from the Cal. Sec. of State re MAS Acquisitions, Inc.,because it encourages retaliation; has difficulties operating his internet and may need to order a new one; asserts that I have nefariously deleted Twitter exchanges; this is why you should never buy your internet out of the back of a Dodge Dart from someone you met at cognitive therapy; his “identity theft” references suggest he is trying to back away from the stupid, thuggish emails he sent to critics of the Burzynski Clinic; alters my emails to him to change their content; the main thrust of his “identity theft” references is far, far more insipid, which is that critics are associated with skepticism, James Randi is associated with skepticism, and Randi has a partner who was accused of identity theft 24 years ago; challenged that this theory is inhumanly cretinous, he doubles down and responds that Rhys Morgan’s harassment of the Burzynksi Clinic is not a joke [he's a Skeptic who got a James Randi award]; there are people this genuinely stupid and crazy out there; I think he is threatening to report me to the State Bar, the Attorney General, the Press and the Internet unless I stop writing about him; I suspect these entities will swiftly conclude he’s a nut; that’s what happened when he tried to get Edward McGuire arrested for writing about him; he’s not an inherently interesting person in the sense of “evil and worthy of wide condemnation”; if he admits he’s not a lawyer and apologizes to the people he’s threatened, I’ll stop writing about him; made his harassing intent clear by emailing a letter to attorneys in my firm but omitted me; his alterations to my emails are calculated to make me look uncouth and as bad a writer as he is; he’s a twit; If you harass my colleagues further I’ll track you down like a dog and call your mother to spank you; I am the boss of California and can throw your ass in jail tonight; I do not follow rules you little twit; I am Popehat, don’t you know my reputation in L.A.?; your behavior is pathetic, contemptible and worthy of comment; I sort of think that the ship of your feelings sailed when the dice of genetics and upbringing were cast and produced the sad little snake-eyes that is you; if you think Rhys Morgan did wrong to the Burzynski Clinic with his posts, you are freakishly ignorant about fundamental issues of American law; your theory re identity theft is either the most overtly delusional or crassly stupid legal theory I’ve ever heard; you’re aggressively dishonest or irretrievably stupid; Rhys Morgan is more mature than you; you’re still running away behind mommy’s skirts rather than answering the question of whether you’re a licensed attorney; after ignoring my invitations to comment, you come roaring in with stupid threats about identity fraud investigations; the cops talked to a Texas writer and concluded you were a liar or a troll and a nutcase, and told you to conduct yourself accordingly; I think when you report me to the State Bar, Attorney General’s Office, D.A. or the Press they are going to perceive you as a troll, a liar, unusually dumb, or mentally ill, and I think they’re right; you’re losing because you don’t know what you’re doing; your grasp of the law is laughable; you come off like a comic-relief thug; you’re incable of perceiving how you come off to others; unable to see how ridiculous your arguments are; if you had anything resembling honesty or reading comprehension you’d see I only talked about the criticisms of the clinic in passing, it’s all about you; you are the worst possible thing that could have happened to the Burzynski Clinic’s reputation; I’m not going to let you threaten people with impunity; thuggish lawsuit threats calculated to chill dissent only work when people refuse to fight back, so let’s fight back; Hitler reacted to his disaffiliation with the Burzynski Clinic here at “Marc Stephens’ Downfall”; using the language “it has been brought to my attention” is characteristic of people who like to use lawyer-letter sounding language that has no actual meaning, or people who like to imply that they have minions, allies, staff or something; does not understand the legally significant difference between statements of opinion and false statements of fact; bizarre semantic games are typical of the deranged but will find no traction in court; if some law school did permit him to graduate, that school ought to face an angry mob with torches and pitchforks) (Rapers: BoingBoing, PZ Meyers, Andy Lewis @ Quackometer.net, Kat Arney @ sicenceblog.cancerresearchuk.org; Rhys Morgan; Josephine Jones; The Skeptic Society; James Randi Educational Foundation)
Judge Bethzaida Sanabria-Vega — heard Meredith Nilan case (she has prohibited someone from speaking about a criminal proceeding and ordered him to delete what he’s previously written, all without a hearing; protective orders pose a grave risk to 1st Amendment rights if judges issue them without applying scrutiny; there’s no excuse for her to use her coercive power to protect Nilan from commentary; she issued a patently unconstitutional gag order) ___________________________Judge Mark Mason — lifted gag order (he let fly with a somewhat gratuitous warning: ‘your posts don’t rise to the level of fighting words or true threats, but you’re walking a very, very fine line.’ I haven’t seen anything anywhere close to any principled constitutional line, unless its the line of speech that may lead a court to ignore constitutional rights and rule from cronyism or visceral annoyance; judicial bloviation) Meredith Nilan, daughter of Clifford J. Nilan, Chief Probation Officer of the Berkshire Superior Court — charged with a hit and run after she hit 45-year old Peter Moore as he walked his dog; he suffered a broken neck and concussion (the case proceeded oddly: a magistrate refused to find probable cause against Nilan and barred Moore from the hearing; another judge overturned that ruling; Nilan sought dismissal when court documents in her case mysteriously disappeared; prosecutors dismissed the charge of leaving the scene of an accident; the court continued the misdemeanor negligent operation charge for 6 months; Dan Valenti blogged about her preferential treatment; the theories on which Nilan sought an order are plainly unconstitutional; prior restraint on protected speech is only permissible in rare cases, and orders requiring removal of defamatory material usually come only after a full trial on the merits; Nilan never informed Valenti what specific facts he printed were false; vagueness in legal threats is a hallmark of censorious thuggery) (Rapers: Dan Valenti of Planet Valenti; Rinaldo Del Gallo; ACLU’s Bill Newman)
James Amodio, attorney for Med Express (he responded to Paul Levy when Levy pointed out that true statements are protected by the 1st Amendment with an open, contemptuous and contemptible threat to abuse the legal system; manipulated it to impose huge expense on defendant no matter what the merit of her complaint; he’s a censor who abused the system to make true speech so expensive and risky that citizens will be silenced; if Nicholls has to incur ruinous legal expenses to vindicate her rights, the bad guys win; help Nicholls stand up for the freedom to speak the truth without being abused by a broken legal system; help give Med Express and James Amodio the legal curb-stomping they so richly deserve; justice, karma and the esteem of free speech supporters everywhere will be your reward; Med Express should not be permitted to act in this manner without consequence;  publicize the case on Facebook, Twitter, on your blog, on forums, and on every other venue available to you; don’t do business with a company that abuses the legal system to extract revenge against customers who leave truthful negative feedback) Med Express — sells refurbished medical equipment on Ebay (rank thuggery; unprincipled censorship; Nicholls paid for an item which Med Express took to post office and paid full amount of shipping cost, but for some reason $1.44 postage was due when package arrived; when notified of the problem, Med Express offered to reimburse Nicholls, but Nicholls posted negative feedback on Ebay which slandered their good name (“Order arrived with postage due with no communication from seller beforehand” [Catch22]); they admit she received the package with postage due and yet sue her for complaining about it, suggesting she should have taken reimbursement and shut up; Med Express is seeking damages and an injunction forcing the removal of Nicholls’ feedback) (Raper: Amy Nicholls; Paul Levy)
Charles Carreon, attorney for FunnyJunk —  C&D letter (conceals his involvement in sex.com like Al Bundy conceals that he used to play football for Polk High; threatens a federal lawsuit for defamation and false advertising under the Lanham Trademark Act; claims are factually bogus; the first people to try “you named me when you said mean things about me; that’s a trademark violation” gambit in a creative-like-a-preschooler-with-paste-and-glitter attempt to evade the protections of the 1st Amendment; attempts to abuse trademark law and chill free speech; demanded that The Oatmeal take down its criticism and demanded $20,000; is going to get curb-stomped in court in a proctological discovery campaign waged by free-speech-supporting pro-bono lawyers; has just given himself +eleventy in “censorious twatwaffle” on Klout, and the Streisand Effect is looming; pack it up and go home; had a snit and tried to shut down the fundraiser because it was embarrassing to him and his client; fuck him; he’s vermin; he’s not forgivable; let any good he has ever done be wiped out; let the name “Charles Carreon” be synonymous with petulant, amoral, censorious douchebaggery; litigious ewok;  reminds me of JarJar; ill-considered threat; astonishing that he markets himself as an internet lawyer; seems mystified by the most basic elements of internet culture that even the rawest YouTube-watching tyro could explain; taken aback by the notion that sending a smug lawsuit threat to a professionally snarky and frequently cheerfully vulgar online cartoonist with a rabid following could lead to the public relations catastrophe he now faces; sounds notes of wounded innocence in his interview with MSNBC; if he were an 80-year-old probate lawyer, I would write it off as culture shock; this failure to anticipate the natural and probably consequences of his legal threat was nothing less than incompetence, a grave departure below the standard of care; not minimally competent in understanding that such threats will naturally lead to several orders of magnitude more people hearing about the complaint and a much more negative view of the client; didn’t counsel his client as to the likely impact of the legal threat; guilty of willful ignorance; guilty of wretched hypocrisy; supports bullying that makes money for him but hates and condemns the kind that doesn’t make him money, the kind that any sort of rube who never went to law school can employ; his legal threat that said “shut up, delete your criticism of my client, give me $20,000 or I’ll file a federal lawsuit against you” is unquestionably a form of bullying; he doesn’t have to speak the subtext, any more than the local lout has to tell the corner bodega-owner that “protection money” means “pay or we’ll trash your shop;” doesn’t care if you’re right and he’s wrong, or that his client makes money off of traffic generated from troglodytic users scraping content; looks the other way with a smirk; wants to humiliate you, delve into private irrelevancies, harass your business associates and family, disrupt your sleep, stomp on your peace of mind, and consume huge previous swaths of your life; frivolous lawsuit; thinks he’ll get away with it even if he loses; demands that you yield, stand and deliver or suffer; our legal system should jail or flog him for his threat; Carreon supports bullying like that; has slightly odd letterhead; knows that he’s inspiring fear and stress and plays it to the hilt; doesn’t like our shows of force; he sniffs that he’s unfamiliar with this style of responding to a legal threat, but really means “if the people I threaten don’t have to dig into their pockets to hire a lawyer and spend unpleasant hours with a lawyer, and lay awake at night worrying,” he can’t intimidate them; I fail to see why Charles Carreon sending that threat letter is more legitimate, admirable, or proper than 10,000 Oatmeal fans sending back the message that Charles Carreon is a petulant, amoral, censorious douchebag; we should blog it, tweet it, post it on Facebook; post it in comments on forums; there’s no reason to exalt Carreon’s power and condemn The Oatmeal’s; his whine of “mob psychology” is a cri de coeur to the contrarians and people who think the Streisand Effect is too mean and who sympathize with Joseph Rakofsky and Crystal Cox; wants us to meekly pick up our phones and call our lawyers and start dishing out money and submit to the law’s delay; professional bully; we should name and shame and call out censorious thuggery; he can dish it out but he can’t take it, so tough shit; lifetime-movie-style dysfunctional relationship with the Internet; frivolous, censorious, thuggish demand letter; bizarre and contemptible behavior; passed from mundane short-term internet notoriety into legal cartoon-supervillainy; transcended typical internet infamy when he filed a federal lawsuit; belongs to the ages; censoriously litigious; butthurt that someone leveraged his douchebaggery into $200,000 of donations to two worthy charities; will continue to wreak havoc until forcibly medicated; he is entitled and self-righteous to an abnormal degree; litigious and thin-skinned; indulged in some good old-fashioned Godwinizing and quasi-Victorian pearl-clutching and couch-fainting when he contrived to say, “It might not have seemed very dehumanizing when Walt Disney made Japanese people look silly with buck teeth and big glasses who could not pronounce their ‘R’s or their ‘L’s. But it was dehumanizing, and the purpose was to direct evil intentions against them, which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred in the history of humanity. I don’t think Truman would have ever done that if we hadn’t so dehumanized the enemy”; the site he and his wife run is fully of nutty incoherent sub-normal muck; he’s a censor and a hypocritical tool; he’s the most universally scorned figure in the schoolyard: a bully who can dish it out but can’t take it; him suing charities is an infuriating, evil turn of events; I have no qualms whatsoever about encouraging people to donate to the ACS and NWF as a gesture of defiance and contempt against Charles Carreon and the petulant, amoral, censorious douchebaggery he represents; spread the word and tell this story on blogs, forums and social media and encourage people to donate as part of a gesture of defiance of Charles Carreon and entitled butthurt censors everywhere and help the Streisand Effect work; I don’t take his claims of victimhood at face value in the least; names the two charities to force the charities to “police” fundraisers using their name so people like Carreon won’t be butthurt; his trademark claim is premised on an obviously fake and satirical Twitter account that used his name to parody him; his complaint is overtly petulant-entitled-crazypants; sued Matt Inman, IndieGoGo and two charities in a fit of unbalanced, from-Hell’s-heart-I-stab-at-thee pique; his complaint is the butthurt that Charles Carreon angrily crayoned down and chucked at a federal judge; contemptible; eccentric view of California charitable law; may have violated Rule 11; claims as a cause of action to impose a constructive trust, which is a remedy not a cause of action; his “on information and belief” means that he has no evidence whatsoever, but kind of likes to imagine its true and who knows what he’ll find in discovery; ass-damply; interacting with him is akin to being farted upon by a unicorn; he thinks his actions inspire only adulation and the occasional rapturous fainting incident; his third cause of action is not in the California Civil Code; thinks California charity laws ought to apply to IndieGoGo; wants a formal judicial declaration of most wanton and hurtful trespass unto fee-fees; has reaped the whirlwind of scorn for suing charities; names the charities as defendants but doesn’t name them as defendants in any of the three causes of action; doesn’t make it clear whom he thinks should be paying his attorneys fees; paragraph 6 trails off awkwardly without conclusion, like a former friend or family member mulling how to create a diversion rather than answer the question “how can you tolerate being associated with this vexatious twatwaffle?; attention entitled dipshit; complaint is full of patent defects, provably false statements and rank hypocrisies; his theory of how California charity law governs the defendants is wholly harebrained; wrong-headed and deliberately deceptive; he made up the part about requiring charities to police fundraising they don’t control themselves or contract out; makes a number of factual assertions that appear to play fast and loose with the requirements of Rule 11; he claims that Mr. Inman intends to turn over only $20,000 of the amount raised to the charities but his own exhibits show he is lying; implies falsely in the complaint and to the media that the bear-loving mother is Carreon’s mom instead of FunnyJunk’s; fond of posting his own emails to people at American-buddha.com; quotes Inman in great detail in an embarrassingly pearl-clutching quasi-Victorian effort to cause horror and disgust at Inman’s comedic style; became incensed when Mattel’s trademark attorney wouldn’t respond to his emails about a porn doll that Carreon thought infringed a Mattel property and urged his readers to contact the hapless attorney; the implications of his argument which will be demolished by apt 1st Amendment case citations are frightening; cannot cite a single thing Inman said to encourage anyone to take any illegal action against him; the implications of his argument reveal its fatuity; he argues that the more popular a speaker is the less they can say for fear the audience will be “incited” to do something illegal, and that the more contemptible a person’s behavior is, the less that others can criticize it for fear of “incitement”; he has a deeply unprincipled position; cannot articulate the line between permissible criticism and his open-ended definition of “incitement”; has an un-American and pro-totalitarian position which asserts the government should have a license to censor speech on the basis that someone might react to it in the wrong way; has a weakness of character; awkwardly and unconvincingly wears the guise of innocence abused; portrays himself as shocked and appalled at the crassness of The Oatmeal’s cartoons and has pretensions to tempered speech, but he’s full of shit; before he became Easily Offended Aunt Agnes, Carreon threw elbows; Tara Carreon’s website is Charles Carreon’s website, all of Tara Carreon’s photoshops are also Charles Carreon’s photoshops, and everything Tara Carreon says is also Charles Carreon’s statements because everything a wife does, the husband is also responsible for; compare who he was with what he has become as a result of his petulance and ego and shake your head; thinks everything is not his fault, but Walt Disney’s; abjectly and unapologetically hypocritical; engages in hand-wringing about incitement and tone and content; bumptious demand; the threat of the first lawsuit never materialized; when he says if he’d known not all Oatmeal comics had been taken off the FunnyJunk site that no demand letter would have gone out, it sounds like he reveals confidential attorney-client communication between himself and FunnyJunk in order to make himself look less ridiculous; his litigation is a perfect storm of internet ridiculousness; our pal Charlie the Censor offers no legal authority or argument why Inman is a commercial fundraiser for charitable purposes; he fails to note that “irreparable harm” excludes pure monetary harm; he’s concerned that Inman will abscond with the money or donors will be deprived of the value of tax write-offs, but these are not irreparable and can be addressed by money; Carreon falsely suggests that donors’ donations would be tax-deductible even though IndieGoGo clearly says they won’t; his motion illustrates how petty he is; he tries to reframe the narrative to be about him vindicating the rights of donors everywhere, enforcing  California charity law and preventing abuse of charities; by agreeing to IndieGoGo’s 4% fee if they will send money directly to the two charities, he wants to save face and achieve some sort of pathetic victory over Inman, no matter how mean and small; more pitiful than maddening; willing to use the legal system to tell people what to think, what to say, and how and why they may donate to charity; has delicate sensibilities; none of his damn business if Matt Inman wants to point to a bad actor like Charlie the Censor to inspire people to donate money to a good cause in defiance; even though he knew exactly when IndieGoGo would transfer the funds, he delayed to file his application for a TRO until after IndieGoGo had already transferred the money and he offers no explanation for his delay; gets a petulant amoral victory when Inman asked IndieGoGo to transfer the credit card money to the charities without getting to take a picture of the entire pile of money; the pedagogical point that Inman could have achieved by taking the picture has been achieved by the nationwide attention to Carreon’s appalling and unprofessional behavior; knows he lacks standing to sue which is why he attempts to drag the California Attorney General into the case; IndieGoGo’s opposition is an extremely well-drafted rebuke that would be humiliating to any normal attorney, but Charlie the Censor will probably try to sue PayPal next; EFF argues that charitable fundraising is protected speech entitled to more deference than standard commercial speech which refutes Carreon’s quasi-Victorian couch-fainting and deeply hypocritical approach to fundraising decorum; has no standing to police charities under California law; his douchetastically logarithmic process of doubling down and redoubling and redoubling again upon his bad behavior; turned the censorious thuggery to 11 with Paul Levy; when he asked Paul Levy to convey his disquiet about the case to Ralph Nader, that’s so hilarious that I will hang my head in shame and move on; confronted with competent opposing counsel, Carreon went full thug; he could walk away from this set of opponents, but I doubt he will; I predict he will crow that he achieved a victory by “forcing” Inman and IndieGoGo to handle the charitable contributions differently than they otherwise would have; he will continue threatening and suing others; a figure of internet-wide ridicule; Inman’s pictures of the money are a triumph of good over evil; Judge Chen asked Inman to submit proof of checks to two charities in the context of requesting the basis he needed to deny Carreon’s application for a TRO as moot; this is like crowing that you dominated the captain of the firing squad by making him offer you a blindfold and a cigarette before shooting you; stinging from his recent infamy, Carreon started a website called Rapeutation, whose purpose is for scrawled-on-the-asylum-wall poetry and disturbing videos, because being ridiculed about your bad behavior is equivalent to a sexual assault; he advocates for a new, rather ill-defined cause of action to address something called “Distributed Internet Reputation Attack”; use of the word “zombies” is always a signifier of serious and credible legal analysis [not]; even in lashing out, Carreon is unoriginal with his DIRA as Joseph Rakofsky already proposed “Internet Mobbing”; through his Trojan horse “fair play,” he’s suggesting a major revision of fundamental 1st Amendment concepts solely to protect his own wounded pride and the feelings of his ilk; for such a man to stoop to undermine one of his own principles and one of the most important principles of American society is nothing short of tragic; he slunk away braying that he prevailed; he hasn’t risen to Inman’s bait to raise more than $1.1 million for a Nikola Tesla Science Center, and has made no effort to tie Tesla to the Freemasons or Rosicrucians or something; sent a letter to Recouvreur’s employer to preserve evidence based on the unsupported presumption that the blogger used Walgreens computers to blog about him; his true motives are retaliation and intimidation; wants to get the blogger in trouble and impose a high cost on blogger’s decision to exercise his 1st Amendment rights to criticize and ridicule him; this is a favored tool of legal thugs; it’s a tactic akin to what convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin used to intimidate bloggers; his censorious threats to Recouvreur amounted to “I’m going to sue you at some point, in as inconvenient a location as possible, in as expensive a way as possible”; despicably thuggish; doing what he can to hinder and delay the lawsuit by cowering and evading service; going to ridiculous lengths to avoid being served; several times he mailed back correspondence from Paul Levy unopened; he told the process server “No thank you”;  didn’t answer the door; didn’t claim the complaint that was sent certified mail; refused to respond to Levy’s emails; please contribute to Public Citizen to pay costs in this case; I paid the filing fees and other initial expenses, more than $700, out of my own pocket; I conceived a special dislike for Mr. Carreon; I made a hashtag game about him and recruited people to point out where Carreon and his wife engaged in rhetoric inconsistent with his contrived pearl-clutching horror over the contents of Inman’s blog; I refused to produce a privilege log because his demand was likely made to harass because of his animus against me; his suggestion that I refused to produce documents because of my animus is misleading at best and at worst it is a deliberate lie to the judge; perhaps it merely represents a failure of even minimal reading comprehension; it’s clumsy that he attaches my objections as an exhibit; the bulk of the order results from Carreon’s bizarre discovery demands in response to the motion for fees; character is destiny) FunnyJunk — humor site whose members post unattributed Oatmeal pictures (post other people’s work, scraped and slapped up without permission or attribution; maintains that it does not support such conduct and that it responds to copyright notices; Oatmeal called bullshit on this model; FunnyJunk and its flying monkeys responded in classic passive-aggressive, whiny-entitled, mommy-mommy-he-beat-me-twice-at-Counterstrike-it’s-not-FAIR form; fictionally thinks they are a competitor to The Oatmeal; couldn’t accomplish in a lifetime what The Oatmeal did in 24 hours even if that lifetime terminated immediately by a collective donation of vital organs to an extremely lax and non-judgmental medical facility; has quite a few unattributed images; posters are too lazy to click links; need others to provide them with an executive summary of a lolcat caption; entitled to free content served directly to their cheeto-dusted fingers at their favorite ass-ugly hangout; a few normal people who aren’t choosy about where they view their reheated memes; unloved and unwashed 12-year-old-boys, steeped in the internet tradition of poseur nihilism who you hope will not hang out with your kids; seem utterly unsupervised, unfed and grimier than a crack-den’s doorstep; inspire a secret and guilty sigh of relief when they are sent away to a secure academy and thereafter are only seen lurking, oddly dressed and glaze-eyed, in the back of family pictures; people whose lives are so unutterably sad that they feel cooler hanging out with a group; like the Sarlacc Pit)
Norm Pattis — attorney who defended Joseph Rakofsky’s tort of Internet Mobbing on his blog (a Rakofsky fawner, the sort who figures that being an underdog is automatically a sign of having a defensible argument; rushed to promote in notably ambiguous terms this supposed tort; a professional who is nominally devoted to the vigorous defense of constitutional rights and has been seduced into insipid advocacy of hysterical and unprincipled tort remedies; a deep and progressive thinker who believes that the right of plaintiff to be free of negative comments outweighs the defendant’s right to speak)
British Chiropractic Association (argued that Singh’s use of the word “bogus” meant he was accusing them of knowingly lying when they claim they can cure children of various diseases by fondling them, and that he must prove it under England’s idiotic rule that the defendant must prove the truth of the challenged statement; appallingly they prevailed on that view; fortunately the court of appeal was more sensible; now they have ignominously abandoned the field and issued a self-serving statement; even under England’s loser pays system, they will not have to pay Singh’s substantial attorneys fees after abandoning its case; has successful established that even when the legal system upholds your right to call a quack a quack, the quacks and their interest groups can inflict vast litigation expenses on you; fight back against the thuggish quacks like BCA by writing and talking and pointing out that any “scientific” or “medical” entity that sues critics is inherently suspect and can’t be trusted; when the BCA is firmly and permanently associated with censorious attacks on its critics, the public will be less likely to accept its junk science; agitate for reform of defamation law) (Raper: Simon Singh, British scientist and journalist)
Bill Schmalfeldt — Progressive journalist (deranged cyberstalker; violent online rhetoritician; vile; fantasizes at length about me being brutalized and murdered; disturbed self-styled journalist; writing is banal, belabored and unpersuasively angry; leaves no sense of what values he promotes but only of who he hates; you can tell he enjoys what he’s doing when he describes someone being raped, murdered, or abused, or when he pursues the families of someone he hates; got unceremoniously dumped by the Examiner and then fulminated that they failed to grasp his journalistic excellence; the Ignatius J. Reilly reaction is a hallmark of his relationship with anyone who disagrees with him; penned a thoroughly creepifying diary entry suggesting that conservative opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the fear that gay sex is too alluring; demonstrates that he is closest to his sweaty-palmed Happy Place when he describes the degradation of others;  thinks he writes cutting satire; most people are repusled; criticism led to petulance in the form of a bitter, angry and deeply embarassing post; was kicked out of Daily Kos only to reappear under another name portraying himself as a hapless victim of a right-wing conspiracy and an insufficiently spineful Daily Kos; under various handles, names and guises, he rails at real and imagined enemies; delights in using homoerotic imagery and insults normally associated with homophobes to attack people he doesn’t like; is perfectly willing to indulge in racism to revile people he doesn’t like; reveals a stinking streak of misogyny; really into the rhetoric of violence and murder; enjoys attacking the family of his political targets; conducted a grotesque campaign against Stranahan’s wife and children; produced satirical radio ads about Stranahan pimping his teen daughters; responded to criticism with characteristic evasion, petulance, range and insults incorporating sexual imagery; was preoccupied with sexual discussions of Stranahan’s wife; conducted a sick and obsessive investigation of the death of Stranahan’s daughter, demanding proof of the circumstances of her death and even her existence; he reported Stranahan to the Dallas Police, the FBI, the D.A., the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and Texas Family Protective Services on the theory Stranahan had taken erotic photographs and would provide him with releases therefore he must have taken pictures of underaged girls; inconsistent; doesn’t have principles, values or beliefs; has enemies and then nothing but a black, dank, empty void of sullenness; doesn’t recognize the irony between his actions and serving the Lord Jesus Christ; incensed that I represent Patrick Frey pro bono in a vexatious lawsuit; he’s angry that I and many others talk about the evils of sociopathic perjurer, drug dealer and domestic terrorist Brett Kimberlin; he shares hosting with Kimberlin; he thinks anyone who opposes Kimberlin is a right-wing activist trying to undermine left-wing causes; he and his ilk support Kimberlin because they are gullible and credit Kimberlin’s mouthing of progressive rhetoric; there are always fools like that; it’s how Manson and Bundy got their followers; posted a fantasy about mob violence and murder imagining the death of Patrick Frey and me; he posted our office addresses and phone numbers; pretending that we had whined about being targeted he posted this; you can feel how the subject of violence elevates his rhetoric out of its customary doldrums; in determining whether this is a true threat of violence that can be prosecuted consistent with the 1st Am. under the federal interstate threats statute, there are a number of questions; is it a threat or an incitement?; he snidely suggests that others use violence, not himself; the federal court in U.S. v. Turner has recently blurred the line and determined that white supremacist Hal Turner had threatened judges by calling for their murder;  Turner, like Schamlfeldt, published the judges’ addresses; the court recognized that a threat can be cloaked in rhetoric and that a nominal call for action can actually be a threat; it depends on syntax; threats don’t need to be explicit or conveyed with the grammatical precision of an Oxford don; Schmalfeldt’s call for action could be a threat; if asked if it is a threat, Schmalfeldt would probably resort to vaguely misogynistic mockery like “See a threat there, my delicate little vulva?”; he would probably cry that he said NOT to do those terrible things; this argument isn’t an absolute barrier; he’s using rhetorical device of apophasis, which is saying something by asserting you’re not saying it; his disclaimer at the end is tepid; the meat and heat of his argument is in the fervid imaginings of violence; it’s perfectly possible to frame a threat as a non-threat; I don’t think it would satisfy the tests of: (1) would an ordinary person familiar with the context interpret it as a threat?, and (2) did he intend his threat to be taken as a genuine expression of intent to harm?, because out of moral cowardice he added a countervailing coda and wiggle language, because his fantasy is a call for action by unspecified and unknown others, because he has no following, because of the apophasis framing, and unlike Turner, he didn’t invoke recent violence against his targets to convey that murder was plausible when Turner condemned a judge and his family was then murdered; he is nothing but hate and bombast; but it’s not hard to imagine law enforcement viewing his post and investigating it as a true threat; he probably satisfies the subjective element in that he clearly wanted Patrick and me to fear for our lives while maintaining plausible deniability; it can it be seen as incitement of violence if it is likely to produce imminent lawless action; thankfully I don’t know his mind, and don’t know if he intended to incite violence, or if he thinks he has followers who would commit violence for him; I suppose it might incite convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin who has a demonstrated history of brutal violence if he wasn’t always promoting his own interests; as a rule sociopaths don’t have their friends’ back; most of his readers are there to monitor or laugh at him; his true believer followers could pose a threat but most of them will have trouble getting me because they left their bus pass in their sweat pants again and their mother put it through the wash; it’s probably not unlawful incitement though it wouldn’t surprise me if it produced a criminal investigation; if he is ever investigated police should consider his own words about the power of blog posts; when conservative blogger Robert McCain excoriated his behavior, Schmalfeldt cried it subjected him to danger, which is proof that he views mere criticism as subjecting its targets to violence, unless he’s always full of shit; he’s a disturbed freak, a twisted personification of narcissistic fury; his admirers are vapid partisan hacks who like him because he hates the right people and mouths the right dogma)  (Rapers: Lee Stranahan)
Nadia Naffe — filed a federal complaint against Patrick Frey for violation of her civil rights (filed a frivolous, censorious, thoroughly contemptible, frankly ridiculous SLAPP suit seeking to chill Frey’s 1st Amendment rights on the disingenous theory that he blogs as a Deputy District Attorney rather than as a private citizen; claimed invasion of privacy because Frey published depo transcripts that were available in public records; sued the County of L.A. for negligent supervision; sued Patrick’s wife for no apparent reason; sued the former D.A. of the county; didn’t describe a legal wrong; her claims were attempts to censor speech; she and her attorneys misrepresented the content of relevant blog and twitter posts to the court to suggest that Patrick was blogging in his official capacity as Deputy D.A. when the documents showed the exact opposite; attempted to mislead a federal judge; ideal clients and political opponents will shut up if you tell them to, but Nadia Naffe is not an ideal client; she is a young conservative activist who once worked with James O’Keefe, another conservative activist; she publicly accused O’Keefe of a scheme to sexually assault her; a judge dismissed her claim for insufficient evidence; even sources that would normally report any allegation against O’Keefe with unmitigated glee are treating her with suspicion; her diction and demeanor show us what it would be like if Gawker Media hired a lolcat; she is a classic example of a nightmare client; she’s embroiled in litigation and threatening litigation and will not shut the fuck up; unless your attorney is taking a Kardashian-inspired approach to litigation and helping you get publicity, you need to shut up about your lawsuits; she would like to sue O’Keefe, but her antics have rendered any case probably unwinnable due to a wealth of impeaching statements and rhetoric that puts her motives in the worst light possible; has created an appearance that they view litigation as politics by other means, not as a way of resolving genuine disputes; lawyers hate clients like this; might well be not-shutting-up her way into trouble; she downloaded documents after getting access to O’Keefe’s email, which may be a violation of the federal computer fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. section 1030; she and her political allies very much want Patterico to shut up about her allegations against O’Keefe and are willing to threaten him to shut him up; then she released her two-part series accusing O’Keefe publicly, Patterico offered some skeptical questions which appear to me the most thorough consideration of exculpatory evidence that I have ever seen from a L.A. Cty. Deputy D.A.; she and her allies didn’t refute Patterico’s bullet points, rather they turned to threats about reporting him to Internal Affairs at the D.A.’s office for writing posts that amounted to legal advice to O’Keefe, that interfered in civil matters, and was posting on a private blog during work hours, which appears to be ass-damp speculation; I routinely write before or after work and set posts to publish during the day or publish during a break; I would be surprised if Patterico isn’t very careful about his on-the-clock behavior; her other two claims are simply ridiculous; she released assertions publicly in a clear bid for publicity; the notion that a lawyer blogger can’t comment without straying into “legal advice” is ludicrous; such a wide interpretation of ethical rules would not survive 1st Amendment scrutiny; the notion that an attorney is interfering in a public civil matter by commenting on it is fatuous; she cannot produce any authority supporting her arguments because it doesn’t exist, and she isn’t capable of finding it if it does exist; they aren’t relying on their arguments, but openly censorious thuggery, or politics by other means; misconduct allegations against any attorney, even when they are sub-literate and specious, are embarrassing, inconvenient and annoying; she intends to make frivolous complaints to a public entity in hopes of silencing a critic; she deserves our contempt; she seems like an unbalanced publicity-seeker; Naffe and her pals are coming off as the clear villains of this exchange; I will not hesitate to put up the Popehat signal for Patterico if the sub-normal blather ripens into anything; an apt illustration of the sub-normal censorious asshatery that Naffe has in her corner is them accusing me of being a thug, a disgrace to the community and state of California, of exhibiting outrageous conduct towards women, other races, religions and cultures, of being a racist and attacking people without provocation, of being a despicable low rent thug, which blogger is immune to an equally censorious response because he doesn’t have a job, or the folks at the place he cleans toilets on the night shift don’t care) (Rapers: Patrick Frey, aka Patterico; Ron Coleman)
____ Hutt (greasy; demi-literate; demented; wrote an extended quasi-sexual fantasy about a mob murdering Patrick Frey and me)
George Tierney, Jr. (possible jackass; possible troll; possibly mentally ill; sent crass and contemptible tweets to Sandra Fluke when he disagreed with a political point she was making; reacted to blog posts with silly legal threats; is now internet-infamous with long-term consequences for himself and anyone who shares his name; seems a genuine asshole on the face of it; probably a very skillful troll or regrettably mentally ill; freak of the week; vengeful would-be censor; crazy douchebag; what the fucking fuck?; seriously, from whence comes this all-too-common sentiment that you can act any damnfool way you like in public but people can’t comment on it?; where do nominal adults get the idea that its actionable to be quoted?; is it the incoherent grumble of a populace instructed that self-esteem is paramount and raised to feel entitled to respect whether or not their conduct is respectable?; is it a sign of atrocious civic education?; he doesn’t understand the degree to which he will get curb-stomped in court if he tries to sue someone for making fun of him for saying “when are you going to shut your god damn dick sucker?”; wouldn’t it be nice if we could lay down our arms for a truce between the trenches and join together in calling out, ridiculing, and opposing the censorious assholes and psychopaths of the world?)
Senator Mark Pryor, Democrat from Arkansas — complained about Girls Gone Wild’s parodic press release (ashamed to be called a prostitute but proud to be a thug; I know of no credible allegations that he has ever sold his body for the sexual pleasure of paying customers; any implication that Pryor is a prostitute arises from his status as a senator; he sold his virtue to be elected in the first place; he daily sells his vote to the highest bidder in return for campaign contributions; there is justified public cynicism about Congressional morals, and perhaps Arkansas politicians in general; he’s probably not a prostitute literally speaking; we’re on firmer ground with his qualifications as a thug; he called the FBI demanding that the author of an obviously parodic press release (sending the winner of Girls Gone Wild’s Search for the Hottest Girl in America to be sent to his office) be prosecuted for fraudulent impersonation, attempted fraudulent sale of a government office, and unauthorized use of the Great Seal of the U.S. Senate, whatever that means; no doubt his overreaction was caused by learning that Joe Francis was not an advocate for women’s issues, and ”Girls Gone Wild” is not a feminist wilderness conservation society; Pryor knows the FBI will tell him no crimes were committed, though it’s certainly possible that tits were shown; threatening criminal prosecution from his perch in the U.S. Senate over an obvious prank and wasting the time and resources of the FBI makes him a thug; it’s damned hard to make Joe Francis look like a good guy but it’s easy to make the Senate and Congress look like a corrupt cesspit of bloviating thugs, and for that Pryor can be proud) (Raper: Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild)
Evan S. Cohen, attorney for his daughter J.C. (it’s not okay to censor him, but it’s okay to hate him; there’s absolutely nothing wrong with simultaneous holding someone in complete contempt for their speech and defending that speech from censorship; a L.A. entertainment lawyer with a web site possibly designed by an 8-yr-old; sued for violation of his daughter’s 1st Am. rights; Judge Wilson, who is a bit of  Mean Girl himself, granted summary jugment in J.C.’s favor; but that doesn’t mean we can’t hold J.C. and her father in contempt; the lesson he hopes his daughter learns from the case is about the limits on government intrusion; he describes her video as relentlessly juvenile, but not an example of cyberbullying; his daughter offered to remove it from YouTube but he keeps it posted as a public service so viewers can see what kids get suspended for in Beverly Hills; yes, he deliverately keeps his daughter’s video in which she gleefully describes another classmate as an ugly slut and encourages friends to bash her posted on the internet to show was a free speech hero he is; he thinks the most important lesson his daughter can learn is not about acting like a decent person, as opposed to a teenager and a bully, but about free speech law; we can learn a great deal about Mr. Cohen’s character from this and the sort of human being his daughter is likely to become with him as a parent; embrace the cognitive dissonance; he is a smug and unlikeable douche raising a child to be a sociopath; decent human beings would have decided that choosing to vindicate her 1st Am. rights instead of punishing her for her cruel attempt to humiliate a classmate is pathological; he’s an attention-seeking twerp with a low character; he is keeping the video up as a gesture of triumphalism and spite over vindicating his daughters 1st Am. right to ridicule and demean another teenage girl) J.Cohen (it’s not okay to censor her, but it’s okay to hate her; there’s absolutely nothing wrong with simultaneous holding someone in complete contempt for their speech and defending that speech from censorship; she goes to Beverly Vista High School in Beverly Hills, CA; she filmed some of her friends ragging on another girl and encouraged them to talk trash about the girl, then posted the video on YouTube; she acted like a Mean Girl the way teen girls probably always have; her loutish and classless behavior was enhanced by modern technology; the victim of her rant complained to administrators at the school, who suspended J.C for two days; rejoice — your kids will be out in the world with her; decent human beings would have decided that it was more important to punish her for a cruel attempt to humiliate a classmate; attention-seeking twerp with a low character)
Fred Anthony Antone Accuardi — threatened a defamation lawsuit against blogger/owner of Telecom Compliance News Press (threatened a defamation lawsuit; associated with entities accused of telemarketing abuse; his threat has many hallmarks of vexatious harassment; ignorantly or deceitfully misstates Oregon law; either hasn’t bothered to read the statute he’s invoking or is hoping to deceive the blogger about its terms through bluster;  email is bumptious and unprofessional and smacks of censorship rather than merit) (Raper: telemarketerspam.wordpress.com)
Jacques Nazaire, attorney for AF Holdings, Prenda case (indulged in ridiculous rhetoric in opposing sanctions; since then things have continued to go badly for Prenda; undaunted, he asks again for a protective order; complains that future filings should be under seal because blog posts, including mine, are embarrassing and give misleading characterizations, and create unsafe environment for him and third parties; seeks to hide not only exhibits and documents, which might be reasonable if they contain private information, but also court pleadings discussing the merits and progress of the case; he leaves out that I intended to convey disgust for his client; his arguments are ridiculous so I will ridicule them; some ofhis arguments are contemptible so I hold them in contempt and invite others to do so; not many people are sympathetic to his belief that vigorous coverage of this case is unneeded; invite him to consider Prenda Law’s recent extortion threats to contact the neighbors of the targets; protests that he works for the benefit of a trust that benefits ungotten and unborn children; hasn’t considered all of his options)
Jack Stuef — wrote an article about Matt Inman for Buzzfeed ([*] We don’t like Jack Stuef; he’s no ordinary neckbearded assclown; he’s a low level troll, a self-styled comic and self-styled journalist who was forced out of WONKETTE (think about that) for poor taste; he devotes his talents to mocking the disabled; he applied his talents to a hit-piece on Matthew Inman who is the internet equivalent of a former samurai turned buddhist monk, living on a mountaintop, a samurai who has abandoned the sword for a life of contemplation of the idea of a sword, who can now kill with a stick, or a blade of grass, or the Shao Lin Buddha Finger, who does not lower himself to street brawls with thugs like Jack Stuef) (Raper: Matthew Inman) 
Michael Farris — attorney for Patrick Henry College asked for page critical of Patrick Henry College to be removed from Facebook (acts like a censorious tool; he knew the job was dangerous when he took it; threatened lawsuit based on criticism of the school from a gay rights perspective; issued a foolish threat on the blog’s Facebook page; he got an ominous call from Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen inquiring whether he is represented by counsel in the matter, which is like getting a call from a doctor asking “how quickly can you get in to discuss the extremely alarming things our team has discovered on your rectal x-ray?; within minutes he publicly retreated; made an utterly reckless and legally specious threat; Levy says “apart from displaying his ignorance about the difference between copyright and trademark, Farris showed his lack of familiarity with the rudiments of trademark law which allows bloggers to use the name of the target of their criticism to identify the pages where the criticism appears”; he retreated ignominiously from the field, but it was too late to salvage his reputation as an attorney; the lesson is a sharp one: foolish litigation threats may lead to public humiliation, and they should; it is the solemn duty of everyone who cares about freedom of expression to contribute to that public lesson; his censoriousness, human frailties, hubris, ignorance and misguided wrath lost, and that’s good) (Rapers: queerphc.wordpress.com; Paul Levy, Public Citizen) Patrick Henry College (very forthright about restricting the expressive activities of its students; brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation that it cannot be trusted to endure criticism on a blog)
Debbie Schlussel — commentator (would-be censor is stone crazy; she clears the bar of all the world’s crazy people; she’s the stream of bat’s piss that shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark; she is the manic and oddly-worded blog post in the darkness, the watcher of the malls, the fire that burns the homes of incorrectly-hued neighbors, the light that brings the truthiness, the shrill honking voice that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of the totally mental; she stands out; floridly nutty in public life; an aspiring censor; she smirked and chirped over Lara Logan’s sexual assault in Egypt; she worked herself into an unmedicated frenzy over an Arab-American Miss America; she lunged for her flag-shrouded fainting couch at the prospect of a black man portraying a white man; she rubbed her sweaty palms together gleefully at the prospect of North Korea imprisoning human rights reports; she explained that the real tragedy of a mass shooting at an immigration clinic was that immigration clinics are full of foreigners; she erupts into a lawsuit-threatening tirade; much of her freakout happened on Twitter; communicates in word fragments, glottal clicks and vaguely threatening grunts; hard to piece together exactly what set her off on her Twitter feed, perhaps it was mockery over her recent assertion that Snow White and The Hutsman should be read as Muslim propaganda, or perhaps it was criticism of her suggestion that some doctors wouldn’t be doctors without affirmative action; she didn’t react well to criticism; she lashed out at critics and attacked on for being a fake convert Jew and thus inauthentic; when people suggested she used twitter on the sabbath, she issued legal threats and demanded retraction and threatened a defamation action, chortling that she would sue in Michigan to make things more expensive, and suggesting that she would attack the careers of her detractors, threatening attorneys with bar actions and ridiculing possible opposing counsel based on their sexual preference; repeatedly vows that she knows the law, despite being under the false impression that prevailing plaintiffs in defamation cases get attorney fees; perhaps she’s confused about what country she’s in; she pressed her theme that her detractors are just jealous of her awesomeness; she also issued legal threats and demands about an article on her published at Right Wing News; the whole site is down because possibly she ate it; it’s difficult to see how she thinks she can prevail in a defamation action as she’s a public figure and she’d have to prove that her detractors acted with actual malice in saying she tweeted on the sabbath; how can you possibly make the reputation of someone like her any worse than it already is?; she rants and rages about how Americans are insufficiently muscular and aggressive in the face of our foes; she ran to the court to sue when someone was mildly mean to her; she’s a sniveling pissant; many see her as a buffoon; she’s certainly foolish and pathetic, a freak who pushes hate to the ragged edges of dark self-parody; perhaps it’s all a marketing schtick; her behavior might be an extended Andy Kaufman set piece; she’s troubling because some media figures inexplicably treat her as a serious commentator and because censorious legal threats, even when issued by the aggressively unhinged, are particularly chilling because threatened people perceive that the unhinged will sue without regard to reason or legal merit; like Brett Kimberlin, she looks like the sort of person who abuses an incompetent legal system to silence critics; publicize her behavior to invoke the Streisand Effect and ensure that any threat brings tenfold negative publicity and attract supporters who will take up the fight and take up the case; if she sues you I will be happy to help find counsel; we’ve had excellent luck finding pro bono counsel to defend bloggers from deranged threateners; she sees herself as defending America against a horde of enemies; we have occasional areas of agreement, like my strong belief that censorious fuckwittery on the part of some Muslims is contemptible and must be defied openly; she’s a terrifying, bigoted lunatic; her censorship shows her to be at heart a pathetic, narcissistic coward)
Alex Jones / InfoWars (a scraper site that scraped my post wholesale, which is clearly not fair use; conspiracy theorist; editor Kurt Nimmo didn’t respond to my request to transform the post into a reasonably limited quotation and a link; they are busy day by day, they are the tip of the spear, seeking the irrefutable proof that Lizard People faked the moon landing to create the illusion of a genuine space program, whilst actually preventing humanity from encountering That Which We Are Not Meant To Know; busy fact-checking this so-called private space mission which is actually being filmed on a sound stage in Burbank; a number of the participants were washouts from second-string reality shows; they are this close to a blockbuster story about how local craft services people have been delivering a suspicious amount of live bugs to the soundstage; they’re too busy to create original content, too busy to refrain from thievery, too busy to respond to emails; I’m holding off on sending a DMCA notice because my wife informed me I have reached my quarterly quota of unbalanced people I may antagonize, because she’s concerned I might get snatched off the street and stuffed into some sort of Patriot’s Terrarium or something; has high-class advertisements advocating use of colloidal silver; interesting fact: lizard people, who are naturally green, are genetically incapable of turning blue, whatever disguise or glamour they are wearing, therefore widespread use of colloidal silver is an excellent method of identifying lizard people, which is why it is imperative that someone fund a live-action Smurfs movie)
Chris Roubis — blogger (scraper; his blog falls into the general classification of “sites with advertisements about how fluoridation threatens babies” or “sites with post categories involving the terms “UFO” and “Chemtrails”; I left a comment, but a week later it’s still in moderation)
Radio Justin (also scraped me shamelessly; ripped off my content, and won’t answer my complaint about it; I got depressed at the weepy Donna Summer tributes and tuned out; their silence and stonewalling are preferable to enraged, vaguely threatening and semi-literate justifications)
J. Croft (my favorite advice is just shut up; he’s a scraper; lifted the whole damn thing; he’s a copyright violator; the beauty of his modern picture-in-picture TV is that I can watch American Idol and child porn at the same time while giving the dog a reach-around; seems to be wound a little bit tight; normally I’d have to go to the World of Warcraft forums and advocate nerfing paladins to draw that level of socially dysfunctional sputtering outrage and odd entitlement; revolutions have been funded by a motley array of malfeasance before; probably aims to resist the black helicopters of the New World Order by scraping and thieving)
George Tierney, Jr. of Greenville, South Carolina (finds himself abruptly infamous for sending crass tweets to Sandra Fluke when he disagreed with a political point she was making, and making legal threats to people who wrote about him; reacted with silly legal threats; demanded that they take his comments off google, which reminds me of “Remove me from your rooster!”, a collection of anti-gay tirades to a writer; the events went viral and he is now internet-infamous, with long-term consequences for himself and anyone unfortunate enough to share his name; is it possible to know whether he is a genuine asshole as he seems on the face of it, or a troll posing as him for some nefarious purpose, or genuinely mentally ill, like other people who have become abruptly internet famous for ranting?; I’m inclined strongly towards “very skillful troll” or “regrettably mentally ill”; freak of the week; who cares if he is genuine/trolling/crazy as long as the narrative shows how terrible the other side is?; seriously, what the fucking fuck?; from whence comes this common sentiment that you can act any damnfool way you like in public, but people can’t comment on it?; where do nominal adults get the idea that it’s somehow actionable to be quoted?; is this a sign of culture shock, a sign that we haven’t worked out whether the internet is public or private?; is it the incoherent grumble of a populace instructed that self-esteem is paramount, and raised to feel entitled to respect whether or not their conduct is respectable?; is it a sign of atrocious civic education?; does he not understand the degree to which he will get curb-stomped in court if he tries to sue someone for making fun of him for saying “when are you going to shut your god damn dick sucker” to someone?; I’d take that case for free, get anti-SLAPP fees or sanctions, take his debtor exam, and take him through a painstaking catalog of the value of his lawn jockey collection and mullet glamor-shots; didn’t answer my  inquiry about the legal theory he might pursue against Tbogg and others; it would be nice if we could lay down our arms and join together in calling out, ridiculing and opposing the censorious asshats and psychopaths of the world; I don’t think the vast majority of conservatives approve of his language, or his censorious threats)
Shawano School District of Wisconsin (teaches bad American citizenship; teaches students to scorn free expression that is an archetypal example of a student opinion piece on a controversial topic simply because it is detestable, awful, execrably written, misquotes Jesus Christ, meanders like a drunkard, and opens with Leviticus 20:13, suggesting that the Biblical penalty for homosexuality is death; instead of defending differences of opinion as an important part of life in a democratic society, they went into full retreat from these principles and apologized for the article’s offensiveness, cultivation of a negative environment of disrespect, and bullying; Liberty Counsel says officials made other troubling statements to Wegner, pulled him into hours of meetings with school administrators and staff, without his parents’ knowledge, and caused him to miss exam preparation classes and at least one exam; when Superintendent Todd Carlson asked Wegner if he regretted writing it, he said no, and then Carlson told him he had got to be one of the most ignorant kids to try to argue with him about this topic, and that his column had personally offended him, so he knows it offended others; they are teaching terrible lessons of bad citizenship to their students; they use an unusually broad and unprincipled use of the term “bullying;” it is an utterly open-ended justification for censorship; suicides of bullied young people are unspeakably tragic, but become more tragic if we cynically and crassly misappropriate them to justify suppressing speech we don’t like in an orgy of “think of the children!”; their actions seek to make students into moral cripples and bad citizens by sending the message thatwe are entitled to look to the government to suppress messages we don’t like; instead of cultivating liberty in the hearts of children, they cultivate the appetite for government control; they teach children that they have no responsibility in the marketplace of ideas other than reporting offensive speech to the government and shutting up; the best response to ugly speech is more speech; people should tell Brandon Wegner that they find his views loathsome; they should widely shun and scorn his viewpoint; we want students to respond to Wegner’s speech in non-violent verbal and written ways, because we want them to grow up to respond to contrary viewpoints, rather than run to the government and ask that they be suppressed; traditionally disparaged groups are not well-served by censorship; exceptions to norms of freedom of expression have always been imposed disproportionately against people with less power, and only a damned fool would expect otherwise) (Rapers: Richard L. Mast, Jr., Liberty Counsel; Brandon Wegner)
Blogger JJRoid.com (freakishly entitled; pretentious douche; sent his original post down the memory-hole and posted a much shorter and less emo post; fortunately I have some quotes; believes he has a strong case against overpriced-coffee-and-muffin-behemoth-and-hipster-hangout Starbucks because they wanted him to leave after being there several hours; they didn’t refuse him service because of his race, scream obscenities at him because of his religion, or disclose his ludicrously convoluted coffee order to the world for everyone’s amusement — they simply asked him to order more product or move on; he thinks he has been discriminated against in a way that gives him a cause of action against Starbucks; he implies that Starbucks might have it out for laptop users; pertinent discrimination laws don’t identify laptop-users as a traditionally despised class; he thinks that Starbucks has inflicted emotional harm against him in a way that gives him a cause of action against Starbucks; he’s a man-child; doesn’t know that the tort of infliction of emotional distress generally requires extreme and outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of decent society; he thinks Starbucks has an obligation to let people buy $5 worth of product and then use their space as an office or hangout for three hours; his yawp is the seed of everything that is weak and soft and pampered and needy about us, which is the feeling that everyone else ought to be in the business of coddling us; chances are that wandering through life with this set of expectations will cause him to sue someone for not indulging him; if he files pro se I hope he comes up with a better grasp of the law than he has right now)
Sarah Grunfeld, accused Prof. Cameron Johnston at York University of making an anti-semitic remark (a member of the Moron-Insipid-Entitled-Canadian community which is too stupid to grasp context, and believes that it is un-Canadian to require her to pay close enough attention to follow context; she was outraged to hear, sort of, that her professor thought that all Jews should be sterilized, and started quite a stir; she complained to York University officials and various community members; tumult and inquisition ensued; she demonstrates that with proper accommodation, Moron-Canadian students learn the most important lesson that there is no objective reality, like the person-object-construct we call “Professor Johnston” is Jewish [7]; whether Prof. Johnston is Jewish depends on the shifting perceptions of people like her, and on advanced scholarship by deep thinkers; she doesn’t understand context, logic and inquiry, and thinks that context, comprehension and caution are hate-concepts; may as well say that she and the members of her dull-witted inattentive community are second-class citizens; she made a careless, stupid accusation of racism, and doesn’t want it subjected to scrutiny; she doesn’t want to be burdened with the hateful responsibility of having to pay attention to what’s going on around her; she thinks there ought to be a government inquiry into whether universities and the media are chilling stupid people from being stupid; she should consider coming to America which is very welcoming to morons)
Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch, of Canada’s Human Rights Commission (when you think that Canada’s champions of censorship can’t get any more ludicrous and offensive, here comes Jennifer Lynch; Canada’s appalling Human Rights Commissions’ tendency and capacity to punish unpopular speech through bureaucracy without due process or remedy have been under heavy political fire in Canada as the public grasps their illiberal censorious nature, but they aren’t going down without a fight; the new hero to emerge to shoulder the mantle of nanny-state-wiffle-life censorship is Jennifer Lynch; she refused to go on TV to debate Ezra Levant, and tried to bully CTV into excluding him, but CTV defied her and told viewers about her efforts to keep Levant off the show; she idiotically said that those claiming that human rights commission’s jurisdiction over hate speech is chilling freedom of express have created their own reverse chill; she thinks that the advocates of government censorship of unpopular ideas are being cruelly and unfairly chilled because critics are vigorously attacking censorship; in shamelessly selling this sob story, she betrays her fundamental ignorance about free expression, which does not carry with it freedom from the social consequences of speech; that’s why government should refrain from punishing contemptible speech like that of racists, because decent people will stand up, respond, criticize, agitate, condemn, and shun the racists from decent society; that’s what is happening to Warman and Lynch and their pro-censorship ilk, as free people’s natural revulsion for bullies and busybodies and Mrs. Grundys leads them to speak; she sounds just like the right wing whiners who complain that being called a racist for saying racist things is unfairly chilling in a way that breaks the marketplace of ideas, which is bullshit; we should worry about people being chilled by threats of government censorship; censorship is a loathsome idea; at the conference, she asked us to cry for the hurt feelings of the censors; her new metaphor for justifying censorship is “matrix,” because she says no right is absolute, but is instead a matrix of different rights and freedoms mutually reinforcing each other to build a strong and durable human rights system; give me the blue pill please)
Matt Ivester, founder of Juicy Campus (he is a fool or a liar; his website, Juicy Campus, is a platform for anonymous gossip about students at various colleges; he markets it as 100% anonymous, and brags that it doesn’t track posting; the result has been wildly unpredictable, unless you are a carbon-based lifeform capable of deeper thought than a radish; the forums are clogged with the most vile crap you can imagine; posts single out individuals for sexual, racial, and religious abuse, most vigorously when the target is a woman, then replies gleefully pile on; he wrote a blog post that is earnest, but laughable, under the title “Hate isn’t juicy,” followed by a prominent disclaimer that the site is not responsible for content; he’s either a disingenuous douchebag, or a moron of epic proportions, probably the former; he understood the internet enough to come up with an idea for a gossip website, but wants us to believe that he did not anticipate or intend that it would become the sewer of bigoted, malicious vermin that it is; anyone with a room-temperature IQ, and more than a half an hour on internet forums, becomes familiar with the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory; it is perfectly obvious and predictable to anyone with the most nodding acquaintance with the internet that the site would sink to a place for cruel anonymous sniping, sicko-loser misogyny, racism both sincere and trollish, and general frat vs. frat fuckwittery; it’s almost impossible to imagine that this isn’t exactly the result he intended and planned; if your aim is to build traffic, it’s a fair business plan to create a site for college kids to act like assholes to each other anonymously, wait for the hateful garbage to build up, and for the media to cover the resulting outrage, and enjoy the resulting hits; you would have to believe he is profoundly stupid, historically stupid, stupid on a level that calls into question whether he can use utensils, or speak in complete sentences, to believe that he intended the site to be a “place for fun, lighthearted gossip, rather than a place to tear down people or groups”; the vastly more credible explanation is that he always planned to profit from anonymous misogyny, racism, and general crassness, and that his post is not the work of a moron, but of a savvy, but fundamentally dishonest, shitbird; I don’t think public schools, or private schools committed to principles of free speech should block it though, because it’s bad to encourage schools to block sites based on content; I’m comfortable with the legal barriers to forcing sites like Juicy Campus to reveal the identity of anonymous posters, because the hardships faced by people treated like shit on the Internet is outweighed by the danger that people will use the legal system like thugs to intimidate contrary speech; I think clever people should engage in research, identify the posters of vile stuff, and reveal their identity to the college community so they will become pariahs; depending on what guarantees of privacy the schools have made to students, it seems fair game for the schools to identify people leading to their pariahdom, because the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect you from being treated like a scumbag if you talk like a scumbag; I’d like to see some good Googlebombing of the sort that resulted in Sen. Santorum’s name permanently associated with anal froth directed at Matt Ivester and other people associated with Juicy Campus; he’s a douchebag bigotry ringmaster; we should make sure that his parents, classmates, siblings, grandparents, churches, workplaces, etc., know the sort of site he sponsors, so they can evaluate his character; we should test his commitment with legal methods, like carefully-calculated statements of protected opinion, and truthful quotes; New Jersey prosecutors are investigating the site for consumer fraud on the grounds that it promises to keep out offensive material but doesn’t)
 Clifford Shoemaker, Virginia attorney for litigant claiming harm from vaccines (anti-vaccine thug lawyer; sent abusive subpoena to blogger Kathleen Seidel at Neurodiversity in an apparent attempt to chill her criticism; Public Citizen stepped in to quash the subpoena, which is major trouble for him; his subpoena was calculated to retaliate against her for writing about him; he hit a Harvard professor and former member of the Immunization Society Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine with a subpoena in an apparent attack on the credibility of that organization’s conclusions about vaccine safety; the judge quashed the subpoena and ordered Shoemaker to show cause why he shouldn’t be sanctioned under Rule 11; that’s a fairly unusual and grave step in federal court; he is in trouble; if he’s sanctioned, that will be reported to his State Bar; it appears the court issued the order based on Seidel’s pro se motion to quash, which is a coup for Seidel and a humiliation for Shoemaker; the system is too slow to punish sleazy lawyers who use the law to chill speech, punish dissent, and inflict pain and trouble on adversaries) (Rapers: Kathleen Seidel, Neurodiversity; Paul Levy, Public Citizen)
Professor Ann Bartow (a censorious and controlling twit; she thinks it is “bullying” if you repeat somebody’s comment on another blog and criticize it without giving the original author notice and an opportunity to respond; she’s an object lesson in why it is impossible to take large segments of academia seriously) (Rapers: Scott Greenfield; Marc Randazza)
Roger Shuler (Shuler’s history shows him to be a vexatious litigant; I think his erratic and foolish behavior has contributed substantially to this situation; he represented himself; it’s not clear whether he refused appointed counsel, which he foolishly did before, or whether he was somehow deprived of one; I suspect he refused counsel, which is transcendentally idiotic and self-indulgent; nothing in his history of pro se litigation suggest she was even minimally competent to defend himself; representing yourself is likely to lead to the result that you’re not prepared for trial; I suspect Shuler is doing everything he can to undermine his own best interests; it’s not outside the realm of possibility that Shuler somehow waived a trial by jury or consented to resolution of the defamation claim at a hearing given his erratic behavior; Shuler argued that he couldn’t take down the blog posts from jail, which might have been grounds to release him, had he not also apparently proclaimed in court that he would not comply with the court’s order, rendering the inability moot; given Shuler’s behavior in court, I’m skeptical that he will be able to mount a successful appeal; telling the court that it’s a joke and (incorrectly) that it lacks jurisdiction over you is generally not a recipe for appellate success; the Salon article is overly credulous coverage that seems to accept Shuler’s characterizations of his behavior uncritically and ignore the evidence of his actual behavior; Shuler remains his own worst enemy; his evasion of service, blogging about the same, and nutty-pro-se refusal to acknowledge the court all impede effective defense of his rights; but even nuts and cranks deserve due process; Roger Shuler, the “legal schnauzer”; a helpful tipster sent me the Shelby County Sheriff’s return of service and log of service attempts that generally supports the assertion that Shuler was evading service of process, which is party of the pattern of nutty pro se conduct that contributed to his trouble; Judge Neilson dismisses the concept of prior restraint with scare quotes, attributing the concept to Shuler and implying it is a silly argument, which it is not;  the court repeats Mr. Riley’s counsel’s claim that Mr. Shuler called the court a “joke,” claimed it lacked jurisdiction, and refused to participate in the permanent injunction hearing, which is a damnfool thing to do that may deprive Shuler of substantive appellate review; Shuler continues to be the biggest impediment to vindication of Shuler’s rights; his behavior is calculated to court martyrdom, not to protect his first amendment rights, which is a shame; I continue to doubt Shuler’s allegations because of the way he made them, the way he evaded service, and the way he has conducted himself in the case; the way the Alabama court has conducted this case doesn’t make me think that Shuler’s allegations about Riley are true; Shuler was refusing legal counsel; though Shuler may have enemies amongst Alabama politicians, and perhaps judges, he remains his own worst enemy; Roger Shuler is Still Roger Shuler;  Riley’s lawyer James Murrill describes Schuler’s conduct at this week’s hearing as: “A hearing was held today on a permanent injunction. Mr. Shuler attended and presented no evidence in support of his false allegations, but instead called the Court a joke and said that he would not follow the Court’s order. He also told the Court that it had no jurisdiction over him;” that’s disastrous for Shuler and the First Amendment; it’s exactly the sort of behavior that concerned me when Shuler refused a court-appointed lawyer; refusing to participate, calling the court a joke and denying the court’s jurisdiction is not a sensible strategy; it’s a wholly deranged strategy; Shuler reminds me of tax protesters who claim that the U.S.D.C. was an admiralty court with no jurisdiction over them because it flew a flag with gold fringe, Feemen who said that the defendant named in the indictment was not the same person as them because the name was capitalized in the caption and their name is not capitalized, and so forth; Shuler’s “I successfully evaded service and therefore this court has no jurisdiction over me” is a madman’s gambit;  Shuler’s litigation behavior, which is merely an extension of his history of vexatious pro se behavior, is robbing him of any chance of vindication of his rights; Shuler is, in a way that appears to me to be haphazard and craze, a critic of powerful politicians; you can’t vindicate your rights by refusing to acknowledge the court, like some fallen dictator before a revolutionary tribunal; you have to fight for your rights; you have to articulate how you believe your rights are being violated; you have to seek to call witnesses, to present evidence, and cross-examine the other side’s witnesses; if your circumstances make those things nearly impossible, you need to articulate your need for more time or resources and explain what you would do if you had them; if you don’t, you lose in the court you think is biased because you haven’t acted to preserve your arguments; Shuler was in a very bad place this week, but he could have acted to protect himself; he could have asked time to secure an attorney; there are pro bono attorneys willing to help him; he could have asked for time to conduct discovery to support his assertions; he could have tried to show that he had some sources and evidence supporting his blog posts which might have demonstrated that his posts weren’t defamatory because he didn’t write with actual malice; it is not clear why Shuler is acting that way; is his story a lie and he knows he can’t support it?; is he swollen with hubris?; is he crazy?’ legally speaking, he’s cut his own throat; worse, he’s helped set a precedent that will embolden future plaintiffs seeking to silence defendants through unconstitutional prior restraint; Shuler’s conduct and history  and the shady nature of his claims make me extremely skeptical of his story; Shuler says nasty and potentially defamatory things against Riley; upon review of Shuler’s litigation history and his posts I am disinclined to believe anything he writes, and suspect he’s making up this story in particular, which doesn’t make it right for a court to ignore first amendment precedent and impose prior restraint just because Shuler is crazy, creepy, or offending the local political elite; the unprincipled and unconstitutional orders that Shuler’s adversaries sought and a judge granted have drawn far more attention to this case than an obscure blogger’s plight would otherwise have merited; Shuler’s craziness may be an impediment to getting him effective representation and pushing back against the unconstitutional orders in this case; he can be a martyr and refuse legal counsel to make a point if he wants, but don’t confuse that with mounting an effective fight against injustice; every indication indicates that Shuler does an awful job representing himself; Shuler’s rejection of a lawyer seems to be part of the pattern of misguided antics that has robbed him of the opportunity to litigate the first amendment issues, like evading service and refusing to show up for hearings based on nutty vexatious litigant theories; if Shuler continues to refuse counsel, it’s highly unlikely that he will successfully navigate a system that’s indifferent to him at best and hostile at worst; his bumbling may serve to lock in the orders again him and weaken everybody else’s rights a little; it’s crazy; there are a few things you should know about Roger Shuler: he is creepy and crazy, he is a vexatious litigant, a serial pro se abuser of the court system, and is in jail arrested for contempt because he violated an unconstitutional preliminary injunction; the First Amendment protects everyone, even creepy, crazy vexatious litigants; Shuler writes about Republican politicians in Alabama which is a fertile ground for posts about substantive issues such as legacy issues of the civil rights struggle, the abusive elements of the criminal justice system, etc., but Shuler seems most interested in writing about politicians’ marital infidelity instead; perhaps he’s trying out for a job with a cable news network; Shuler seems to believe that Riley is being groomed for office, though Shuler’s word is not a good reason to believe it and if anything, the accusation is discredited by coming from Shuler; the order underlying Shuler’s arrest is unconstitutional; one other factor may have influence the judge: that Roger Shuler is creepy, crazy, and a vexatious litigant; Shuler has engaged in the sort of litigation conduct that would enrage any judge and that might cloud good judgment; Shuler is one of those litigants who thinks if he can successfully evade service of process he’ll never have to face the case; he refused to answer the door when sheriff’s deputies came to his house to serve papers; judges don’t like that (ask our friend Charles Carreon who got hit with a $46,000 attorney fee bill in part because he evaded service like Shuler); the sheriff served papers on Shuler by running a traffic stop  on him for a purported moving violation; the reason you should care that Roger Shuler who is a crazy, creepy, vexatious litigant who may have defamed Mr. Riley out of political spite has been arrested is because the injunction was absurdly unconstitutional and apparently derived through raw political power; because such abuses aren’t confined to people we all agree are creepy, crazy, and vexatious;  by the way, though Shuler wraps himself in the First Amendment and bemoans how defamation suits against him are intended to chill speech, he’s a fair-weather friend of free speech; when vexatious litigant and unrepentant domestic terrorist Brett Kimberlin abused the legal system to silence his political opponents, Shuler reacts with amusement and applause because Kimberlin hates the people Shuler hates and mouths the words Shuler wants to hear, but he wants you to be outraged that political opponents are abusing the court system to silence him; in short, Shuler is a hypocritical asshole; that’s okay because in addition to protecting crazy, creepy, vexatious people, the First Amendment also protects hypocritical assholes; someone has started a legal defense fund for Shuler and though I have doubts, based on how Shuler operates, that he has a factual basis for his accusations, I think that he should have competent counsel.)

 _______________

Notes:

* Rapeutation by Patrick Frey, popehat.com

1.  Plato’s “Republic,” Chapter VIII, gutenberg.org

Next comes democracy; of this the origin and nature have still to be considered by us; and then we will enquire into the ways of the democratic man, and bring him up for judgment.

That, he said, is our method.

Well, I said, and how does the change from oligarchy into democracy arise? Is it not on this wise?—The good at which such a State aims is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable?

What then?

The rulers, being aware that their power rests upon their wealth, refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance?

To be sure.

There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same state to any considerable extent; one or the other will be disregarded.

That is tolerably clear.

And in oligarchical States, from the general spread of carelessness and extravagance, men of good family have often been reduced to beggary?

Yes, often.

And still they remain in the city; there they are, ready to sting and fully armed, and some of them owe money, some have forfeited their citizenship; a third class are in both predicaments; and they hate and conspire against those who have got their property, and against everybody else, and are eager for revolution.

That is true.

On the other hand, the men of business, stooping as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, insert their sting—that is, their money—into some one else who is not on his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many times over multiplied into a family of children: and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State.

Yes, he said, there are plenty of them—that is certain.

The evil blazes up like a fire; and they will not extinguish it, either by restricting a man’s use of his own property, or by another remedy:

What other?

One which is the next best, and has the advantage of compelling the citizens to look to their characters:—Let there be a general rule that every one shall enter into voluntary contracts at his own risk, and there will be less of this scandalous money-making, and the evils of which we were speaking will be greatly lessened in the State.

Yes, they will be greatly lessened.

At present the governors, induced by the motives which I have named, treat their subjects badly; while they and their adherents, especially the young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind; they do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain.

Very true.

They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of virtue.

Yes, quite as indifferent.

Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them. And often rulers and their subjects may come in one another’s way, whether on a journey or on some other occasion of meeting, on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellow-sailors; aye and they may observe the behaviour of each other in the very moment of danger—for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich—and very likely the wiry sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh—when he sees such an one puffing and at his wits’-end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them? And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another ‘Our warriors are not good for much’?

Yes, he said, I am quite aware that this is their way of talking.

And, as in a body which is diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness, and sometimes even when there is no external provocation a commotion may arise within—in the same way wherever there is weakness in the State there is also likely to be illness, of which the occasion may be very slight, the one party introducing from without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies, and then the State falls sick, and is at war with herself; and may be at times distracted, even when there is no external cause.

Yes, surely.

And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.

Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw.

And now what is their manner of life, and what sort of a government have they? for as the government is, such will be the man.

Clearly, he said.

In the first place, are they not free; and is not the city full of freedom and frankness—a man may say and do what he likes?

‘Tis said so, he replied.

And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases?

Clearly.

Then in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of human natures?

There will.

This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being like an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.

Yes.

Yes, my good Sir, and there will be no better in which to look for a government.

Why?

Because of the liberty which reigns there—they have a complete assortment of constitutions; and he who has a mind to establish a State, as we have been doing, must go to a democracy as he would to a bazaar at which they sell them, and pick out the one that suits him; then, when he has made his choice, he may found his State.

He will be sure to have patterns enough.

And there being no necessity, I said, for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be governed, unless you like, or go to war when the rest go to war, or to be at peace when others are at peace, unless you are so disposed—there being no necessity also, because some law forbids you to hold office or be a dicast, that you should not hold office or be a dicast, if you have a fancy—is not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful?

For the moment, yes.

And is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world—the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?

Yes, he replied, many and many a one.

See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the ‘don’t care’ about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city—as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study—how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honour any one who professes to be the people’s friend.

Yes, she is of a noble spirit.

These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.

We know her well.

Consider now, I said, what manner of man the individual is, or rather consider, as in the case of the State, how he comes into being.

Very good, he said.

Is not this the way—he is the son of the miserly and oligarchical father who has trained him in his own habits?

Exactly.

And, like his father, he keeps under by force the pleasures which are of the spending and not of the getting sort, being those which are called unnecessary?

Obviously.

Would you like, for the sake of clearness, to distinguish which are the necessary and which are the unnecessary pleasures?

I should.

Are not necessary pleasures those of which we cannot get rid, and of which the satisfaction is a benefit to us? And they are rightly called so, because we are framed by nature to desire both what is beneficial and what is necessary, and cannot help it.

True.

We are not wrong therefore in calling them necessary?

We are not.

And the desires of which a man may get rid, if he takes pains from his youth upwards—of which the presence, moreover, does no good, and in some cases the reverse of good—shall we not be right in saying that all these are unnecessary?

Yes, certainly.

Suppose we select an example of either kind, in order that we may have a general notion of them?

Very good.

Will not the desire of eating, that is, of simple food and condiments, in so far as they are required for health and strength, be of the necessary class?

That is what I should suppose.

The pleasure of eating is necessary in two ways; it does us good and it is essential to the continuance of life?

Yes.

But the condiments are only necessary in so far as they are good for health?

Certainly.

And the desire which goes beyond this, of more delicate food, or other luxuries, which might generally be got rid of, if controlled and trained in youth, and is hurtful to the body, and hurtful to the soul in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, may be rightly called unnecessary?

Very true.

May we not say that these desires spend, and that the others make money because they conduce to production?

Certainly.

And of the pleasures of love, and all other pleasures, the same holds good?

True.

And the drone of whom we spoke was he who was surfeited in pleasures and desires of this sort, and was the slave of the unnecessary desires, whereas he who was subject to the necessary only was miserly and oligarchical?

Very true.

Again, let us see how the democratical man grows out of the oligarchical: the following, as I suspect, is commonly the process.

What is the process?

When a young man who has been brought up as we were just now describing, in a vulgar and miserly way, has tasted drones’ honey and has come to associate with fierce and crafty natures who are able to provide for him all sorts of refinements and varieties of pleasure—then, as you may imagine, the change will begin of the oligarchical principle within him into the democratical?

Inevitably.

And as in the city like was helping like, and the change was effected by an alliance from without assisting one division of the citizens, so too the young man is changed by a class of desires coming from without to assist the desires within him, that which is akin and alike again helping that which is akin and alike?

Certainly.

And if there be any ally which aids the oligarchical principle within him, whether the influence of a father or of kindred, advising or rebuking him, then there arises in his soul a faction and an opposite faction, and he goes to war with himself.

It must be so.

And there are times when the democratical principle gives way to the oligarchical, and some of his desires die, and others are banished; a spirit of reverence enters into the young man’s soul and order is restored.

Yes, he said, that sometimes happens.

And then, again, after the old desires have been driven out, fresh ones spring up, which are akin to them, and because he their father does not know how to educate them, wax fierce and numerous.

Yes, he said, that is apt to be the way.

They draw him to his old associates, and holding secret intercourse with them, breed and multiply in him.

Very true.

At length they seize upon the citadel of the young man’s soul, which they perceive to be void of all accomplishments and fair pursuits and true words, which make their abode in the minds of men who are dear to the gods, and are their best guardians and sentinels.

None better.

False and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place.

They are certain to do so.

And so the young man returns into the country of the lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men; and if any help be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of him, the aforesaid vain conceits shut the gate of the king’s fastness; and they will neither allow the embassy itself to enter, nor if private advisers offer the fatherly counsel of the aged will they listen to them or receive them. There is a battle and they gain the day, and then modesty, which they call silliness, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname unmanliness, is trampled in the mire and cast forth; they persuade men that moderation and orderly expenditure are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them beyond the border.

Yes, with a will.

And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.

Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough.

After this he lives on, spending his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over—supposing that he then re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors—in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them but encourages them all equally.

Very true, he said.

Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others—whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

Yes, he said; that is the way with him.

Yes, I said, he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.

Yes, he replied, he is all liberty and equality.

Yes, I said; his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many;—he answers to the State which we described as fair and spangled. And many a man and many a woman will take him for their pattern, and many a constitution and many an example of manners is contained in him.

Just so.

Let him then be set over against democracy; he may truly be called the democratic man.

Let that be his place, he said.

Last of all comes the most beautiful of all, man and State alike, tyranny and the tyrant; these we have now to consider.

Quite true, he said.

Say then, my friend, In what manner does tyranny arise?—that it has a democratic origin is evident.

Clearly.

And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy—I mean, after a sort?

How?

The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth—am I not right?

Yes.

And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy?

True.

And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?

What good?

Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State—and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.

Yes; the saying is in every body’s mouth.

I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.

How so?

When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cup-bearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.

Yes, he replied, a very common occurrence.

Yes, I said; and loyal citizens are insultingly termed by her slaves who hug their chains and men of naught; she would have subjects who are like rulers, and rulers who are like subjects: these are men after her own heart, whom she praises and honours both in private and public. Now, in such a State, can liberty have any limit?

Certainly not.

By degrees the anarchy finds a way into private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them.

How do you mean?

I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom, and the metic is equal with the citizen and the citizen with the metic, and the stranger is quite as good as either.

Yes, he said, that is the way.

And these are not the only evils, I said—there are several lesser ones: In such a state of society the master fears and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters and tutors; young and old are all alike; and the young man is on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed; and old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety; they are loth to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of the young.

Quite true, he said.

The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other.

Why not, as Aeschylus says, utter the word which rises to our lips?

That is what I am doing, I replied; and I must add that no one who does not know would believe, how much greater is the liberty which the animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracy than in any other State: for truly, the she-dogs, as the proverb says, are as good as their she-mistresses, and the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen; and they will run at any body who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for them: and all things are just ready to burst with liberty.

When I take a country walk, he said, I often experience what you describe. You and I have dreamed the same thing.

And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority, and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.

Yes, he said, I know it too well.

Such, my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny.

Glorious indeed, he said. But what is the next step?

The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy—the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government.

True.

The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.

Yes, the natural order.

And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?

As we might expect.

That, however, was not, as I believe, your question—you rather desired to know what is that disorder which is generated alike in oligarchy and democracy, and is the ruin of both?

Just so, he replied.

Well, I said, I meant to refer to the class of idle spendthrifts, of whom the more courageous are the leaders and the more timid the followers, the same whom we were comparing to drones, some stingless, and others having stings.

A very just comparison.

These two classes are the plagues of every city in which they are generated, being what phlegm and bile are to the body. And the good physician and lawgiver of the State ought, like the wise bee-master, to keep them at a distance and prevent, if possible, their ever coming in; and if they have anyhow found a way in, then he should have them and their cells cut out as speedily as possible.

Yes, by all means, he said.

Then, in order that we may see clearly what we are doing, let us imagine democracy to be divided, as indeed it is, into three classes; for in the first place freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than there were in the oligarchical State.

That is true.

And in the democracy they are certainly more intensified.

How so?

Because in the oligarchical State they are disqualified and driven from office, and therefore they cannot train or gather strength; whereas in a democracy they are almost the entire ruling power, and while the keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the bema and do not suffer a word to be said on the other side; hence in democracies almost everything is managed by the drones.

Very true, he said.

Then there is another class which is always being severed from the mass.

What is that?

They are the orderly class, which in a nation of traders is sure to be the richest.

Naturally so.

They are the most squeezable persons and yield the largest amount of honey to the drones.

Why, he said, there is little to be squeezed out of people who have little.

And this is called the wealthy class, and the drones feed upon them.

That is pretty much the case, he said.

The people are a third class, consisting of those who work with their own hands; they are not politicians, and have not much to live upon. This, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in a democracy.

True, he said; but then the multitude is seldom willing to congregate unless they get a little honey.

And do they not share? I said. Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves?

Why, yes, he said, to that extent the people do share.

And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as they best can?

What else can they do?

And then, although they may have no desire of change, the others charge them with plotting against the people and being friends of oligarchy?

True.

And the end is that when they see the people, not of their own accord, but through ignorance, and because they are deceived by informers, seeking to do them wrong, then at last they are forced to become oligarchs in reality; they do not wish to be, but the sting of the drones torments them and breeds revolution in them.

That is exactly the truth.

Then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another.

True.

The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.

Yes, that is their way.

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.

Yes, that is quite clear.

How then does a protector begin to change into a tyrant? Clearly when he does what the man is said to do in the tale of the Arcadian temple of Lycaean Zeus.

What tale?

The tale is that he who has tasted the entrails of a single human victim minced up with the entrails of other victims is destined to become a wolf. Did you never hear it?

Oh, yes.

And the protector of the people is like him; having a mob entirely at his disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen; by the favourite method of false accusation he brings them into court and murders them, making the life of man to disappear, and with unholy tongue and lips tasting the blood of his fellow citizens; some he kills and others he banishes, at the same time hinting at the abolition of debts and partition of lands: and after this, what will be his destiny? Must he not either perish at the hands of his enemies, or from being a man become a wolf—that is, a tyrant?

Inevitably.

This, I said, is he who begins to make a party against the rich?

The same.

After a while he is driven out, but comes back, in spite of his enemies, a tyrant full grown.

That is clear.

And if they are unable to expel him, or to get him condemned to death by a public accusation, they conspire to assassinate him.

Yes, he said, that is their usual way.

Then comes the famous request for a body-guard, which is the device of all those who have got thus far in their tyrannical career—’Let not the people’s friend,’ as they say, ‘be lost to them.’

Exactly.

The people readily assent; all their fears are for him—they have none for themselves.

Very true.

And when a man who is wealthy and is also accused of being an enemy of the people sees this, then, my friend, as the oracle said to Croesus,

‘By pebbly Hermus’ shore he flees and rests not, and is not ashamed to be a coward.’

And quite right too, said he, for if he were, he would never be ashamed again.

But if he is caught he dies.

Of course.

And he, the protector of whom we spoke, is to be seen, not ‘larding the plain’ with his bulk, but himself the overthrower of many, standing up in the chariot of State with the reins in his hand, no longer protector, but tyrant absolute.

No doubt, he said.

And now let us consider the happiness of the man, and also of the State in which a creature like him is generated.

Yes, he said, let us consider that.

At first, in the early days of his power, he is full of smiles, and he salutes every one whom he meets;—he to be called a tyrant, who is making promises in public and also in private! liberating debtors, and distributing land to the people and his followers, and wanting to be so kind and good to every one!

Of course, he said.

But when he has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.

To be sure.

Has he not also another object, which is that they may be impoverished by payment of taxes, and thus compelled to devote themselves to their daily wants and therefore less likely to conspire against him?

Clearly.

And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy; and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war.

He must.

Now he begins to grow unpopular.

A necessary result.

Then some of those who joined in setting him up, and who are in power, speak their minds to him and to one another, and the more courageous of them cast in his teeth what is being done.

Yes, that may be expected.

And the tyrant, if he means to rule, must get rid of them; he cannot stop while he has a friend or an enemy who is good for anything.

He cannot.

And therefore he must look about him and see who is valiant, who is high-minded, who is wise, who is wealthy; happy man, he is the enemy of them all, and must seek occasion against them whether he will or no, until he has made a purgation of the State.

Yes, he said, and a rare purgation.

Yes, I said, not the sort of purgation which the physicians make of the body; for they take away the worse and leave the better part, but he does the reverse.

If he is to rule, I suppose that he cannot help himself.

What a blessed alternative, I said:—to be compelled to dwell only with the many bad, and to be by them hated, or not to live at all!

Yes, that is the alternative.

And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require?

Certainly.

And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?

They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if he pays them.

By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort and from every land.

Yes, he said, there are.

But will he not desire to get them on the spot?

How do you mean?

He will rob the citizens of their slaves; he will then set them free and enrol them in his body-guard.

To be sure, he said; and he will be able to trust them best of all.

What a blessed creature, I said, must this tyrant be; he has put to death the others and has these for his trusted friends.

Yes, he said; they are quite of his sort.

Yes, I said, and these are the new citizens whom he has called into existence, who admire him and are his companions, while the good hate and avoid him.

Of course.

Verily, then, tragedy is a wise thing and Euripides a great tragedian.

Why so?

Why, because he is the author of the pregnant saying,

‘Tyrants are wise by living with the wise;’

and he clearly meant to say that they are the wise whom the tyrant makes his companions.

Yes, he said, and he also praises tyranny as godlike; and many other things of the same kind are said by him and by the other poets.

And therefore, I said, the tragic poets being wise men will forgive us and any others who live after our manner if we do not receive them into our State, because they are the eulogists of tyranny.

Yes, he said, those who have the wit will doubtless forgive us.

But they will continue to go to other cities and attract mobs, and hire voices fair and loud and persuasive, and draw the cities over to tyrannies and democracies.

Very true.

Moreover, they are paid for this and receive honour—the greatest honour, as might be expected, from tyrants, and the next greatest from democracies; but the higher they ascend our constitution hill, the more their reputation fails, and seems unable from shortness of breath to proceed further.

True.

But we are wandering from the subject: Let us therefore return and enquire how the tyrant will maintain that fair and numerous and various and ever-changing army of his.

If, he said, there are sacred treasures in the city, he will confiscate and spend them; and in so far as the fortunes of attainted persons may suffice, he will be able to diminish the taxes which he would otherwise have to impose upon the people.

And when these fail?

Why, clearly, he said, then he and his boon companions, whether male or female, will be maintained out of his father’s estate.

You mean to say that the people, from whom he has derived his being, will maintain him and his companions?

Yes, he said; they cannot help themselves.

But what if the people fly into a passion, and aver that a grown-up son ought not to be supported by his father, but that the father should be supported by the son? The father did not bring him into being, or settle him in life, in order that when his son became a man he should himself be the servant of his own servants and should support him and his rabble of slaves and companions; but that his son should protect him, and that by his help he might be emancipated from the government of the rich and aristocratic, as they are termed. And so he bids him and his companions depart, just as any other father might drive out of the house a riotous son and his undesirable associates.

By heaven, he said, then the parent will discover what a monster he has been fostering in his bosom; and, when he wants to drive him out, he will find that he is weak and his son strong.

Why, you do not mean to say that the tyrant will use violence? What! beat his father if he opposes him?

Yes, he will, having first disarmed him.

Then he is a parricide, and a cruel guardian of an aged parent; and this is real tyranny, about which there can be no longer a mistake: as the saying is, the people who would escape the smoke which is the slavery of freemen, has fallen into the fire which is the tyranny of slaves. Thus liberty, getting out of all order and reason, passes into the harshest and bitterest form of slavery.

True, he said.

Very well; and may we not rightly say that we have sufficiently discussed the nature of tyranny, and the manner of the transition from democracy to tyranny?

Yes, quite enough, he said.

2. “We all have our opinions concerning lawyers, or attorneys, as they prefer to be called. Originally, our founders wanted the citizen to be able to make his own case, by his own voice, in court, if unfortunate enough to need go there, and then be judged by a jury of peers who knew him and what he was capable of. He was not to be judged by the ‘judge’ or have evidence forbidden to be admitted in his defense. He was not to be ‘defended’ by an attorney-at-law, as in the British system. And it was not intended that he should have to pay to file before he could be heard in court. All that changed somewhere along the way. Our courts became foreign jurisdictions, admiralty courts displaced to dry land, under a corrupted and altered flag. No longer were they American soil where Constitutional rights would be honored and defended. And not just here, but literally in every nation of the world now, has this usurpation of power and authority taken place. Secret societies and New World Orders have altered everything that could possibly protect the sovereign individual from the tyranny of a self-proclaimed elitist group. It pays, as they say, to ‘know thine enemy’. [3] [4] May I suggest you also research David Wynn Miller [5] [6] and his knowledge base.” –  Bar the BAR?, by Steven, sodahead.com/united-states/bar-the-bar

3. “Know thy enemy.” — Kenneth Popehat White

4. “I fail to see why Charles Carreon sending that threat letter is more legitimate, admirable, or proper than ten thousand Oatmeal fans sending back the message that Charles Carreon is a petulant, amoral, censorious douchebag. It doesn’t take lawyers, it doesn’t take law school, it doesn’t take any special privilege conferred by the state — it only takes a robust right of free expression — sending it back by blogging it, tweeting it, posting it on Facebook, and posting it in comments on forums. Charles Carreon has power derived from an inadequate legal system and letters of marque from the State Bar; The Oatmeal has the power of goodwill and community respect earned by talent. There’s no reason to exalt Carreon’s power and condemn The Oatmeal’s.” — Ken Popehat White

5. You guys who keep coming up with the examples of falsehood and hypocrisy just rock. You’re the army of Davids. Do me a favor — whenever you find a good web page showing an inconsistent statement, or an item that shows hypocrisy, take a screenshot or print it to pdf in case he memory-holes it. — Ken Popehat White, June 18, 2012

6. “[Sic]” is the rape-tool of the oppressor, by which Western thugs brutalize brave freedom fighters who reject patriarchal “spelling” and “grammar” and “diction.” bell hooks defies you, thugs! — Ken Popehat White

7.  Gertrude Stein Views Life and Politics — The Cryptic Author, At Home in Paris, Sees No Good in Modern “Chinese Walls” Or In Rule By Intellectuals

by Lansing Warren

New York Times Magazine, May 6, 1934
Paris

A visit to Miss Gertrude Stein in her studio in the Rue de Fleurus is like consulting a Grecian sibyl.  But, as Miss Stein says of Avila and Barcelona in her opera, there is a difference.  Many of Miss Stein’s statements have an irrefutable terseness, though that terseness may conceal mystifying ambiguity such as characterized the sibylline utterances Hiere, culled from an hour’s conversation with Miss Stein, are some sample dicta to guide the young Aeneas who would descend today into the realms of politics, art, science or literature:

“Building a Chinese wall is always bad.”

“Hitler should have received the Nobel Peace Prize.”

“Intellectuals are not suited to directing of government.  They are deterred by a mental obliquity.”

“Government does not matter.  It is competition, interest, struggle and activity that counts.”

“The best rulers are those who govern by instinct, not by theory.”

“The French are just tired — worn out by this process of making and spending money.”

“Don’t think you can’t be senile at the age of 22.”

But, again unlike the sibyl, Miss Stein is ready to elucidate. “I say these things,” said she, “not from any secret knowledge of what is going on.  I speak only from my knowledge of people and what I know about my friends and neighbors.”

***

The path to Miss Stein’s studio is as worn as ever was that to a sibyl’s cavern.  A host of men and women, some of them now famous, began going to hear what Miss Stein had to say many years before she acquired her present popularity.  Miss Stein is not difficult of access, for she receives whoever interests her.  The success of her autobiography of Alice B. Toklas and of her opera, “Four Saints,” had greatly increased the numbers of her callers.  It is possible to obtain audience, too, through the intercession of Miss Toklas, her friend and life companion, who is a very real and efficient personality, despite the doubts that were expressed as to her existence when the autobiography appeared.

Miss Toklas does not, however, as is often the habit of the friends of celebrities, assume the role of manager.  She is always self-effacive, remaining in the background, and signs herself Secretary.  This signature has lately got her in for vastly increased duties, for she is obliged to take care of the mail, arriving in ever growing quantities.

One approaches the studio in the Rue de Fleurua through the usual portal of a large, modern Left Bank apartment house, and is directed by the concierge to the interior courtyard.  Across that court is a low building, the upper story of which is constructed entirely of glass, suggesting a greenhouse or what it actually is, a workshop for artists who must have light.  Miss Stein’s door itself is partly of clouded glass, and is opened by an Oriental servant in a white jacket.  The entry again is that of a workshop, through which is visible on one side the kitchen, leaving one all the more unprepared when ushered to the other side into the studio.

It is not an eccentric studio such as one imagines, and too often discovers, in typical Parisian bohemian life, with overturned easels and paint-pots mingling with unwashed dishes and cast-off clothing.  In fact, there is nothing about the studio, or about Miss Stein herself, with the exception of the phrasing of some of her writings, to suggest the exotic, the bizarre.  The whole impression is, on the contrary, one of quiet comfort, neatness and order.

A wide sofa backed to a broad table, of equal length, plenty of comfortable armchairs and rows and piles of well-dusted books are the first things that catch the eye.  The next things remarked are the paintings.  They cover the whole of the upper part of the high walls of the studio, which rises to the top of the two-story building.  These pictures are mainly the work of Miss Stein’s cosmopolitan painter friends, noted and unknown, who have been her confidants or her protegee.

Again, the impression is not of wild, exaggerated tendencies and aberrations.  There are indeed paintings that would be called modernistic, futuristic and even unintelliglbe, but they do not predominate.  They are mingled with examples of all schools of art, and the gallery (for it is a veritable art gallery) conveys the idea of reflective taste.  This effect is heightened by the absence of pretentious frames.

Finally the feeling of order and of sanity is confirmed by the presence of Miss Stein herself.  Her white poodle, Basket, jumps up from beside her on the couch and makes a great show of what is rather friendly hostility.  “Basket is a great watch-dog,” she observes, “when he thinks about it.  But he doesn’t always remember, and so he has to be all the more demonstrative when he does.”

***

Miss Stein’s appearance is striking, especially in her calm, self-possessed carriage and in her unusual head.  The most remarkable touch is her thick hair, close cropped, which must give strong resistance to a comb.  It was black, but is mingled almost equally throughout with gray, and the result intensifies distinction.  It also makes her seem masculine, an impression confirmed by her low-pitched voice, her decided features and her energetic manner.  Her eyes are dark and large and there is in their forceful expression something of the ascetic, suggesting years of meditation.

She wears a woolen skirt of medium length, a silk overjacket of mixed tone and what would be termed sensible shoes.  When she laughs, as she often does at the mental confusion produced in her auditor by many of her remarks, her face and body become mobile, and there is something impish in her expression.

“I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize,” she says, “because he is removing all elements of contest and of struggle from Germany.  By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left elements, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity.  That means peace.”

Her speech is steady, natural and marked by a strong feeling for the values and the niceties of words.  It is the Gertrude Stein of the Toklas biography who is talking. You cannot find the faintest trace of “Tender Buttons.”  That is her experimental, her provocative side, and it does not appear in her everyday life.

Having been absorbed most of her days in psychology, in poetry and in the interpretation and development of art, she looks upon words as materials.  She has studied them so long that for her they have come to have character, to have each its individuality quite irrespective of the significance that any distinct combination of words may give.  Perhaps some comprehension of this regard for words, which she obviously feels much more strongly than a person of limited vocabulary, may be gained from her explanation of the difference between the French and the American attitude of mind.

“The French,” she says, “Are simply tired out.  They not only have had the war but they have been through this long period of Americanization, or modernization, if you will — the making and spending of money.  They’ve been forced into doing it, and it doesn’t interest them.  It wears them out. Americans take their pleasure in physical activity, in rushing about, in getting more and more money, in finding new and exciting ways of spending it.  That doesn’t interest the French.  They are interested in excitement, too.  But it isn’t physical excitement that they like.  It is the exciting sensation of a new idea.

“They want the money question settled and decided as soon as possible in their lives and then put aside for good and all.  They don’t want to hear about it any more.  And then they are ready for the fireworks.  Intellectual fireworks are what excite them and what they enjoy.  They don’t think ever of putting their ideas into practical life as we are continually doing.  The practical side does not attract them.  That is what they are trying to escape.”

Miss Stein as an intellectual, and one who has had a long residence in France, has undoubtedly imbibed something of this mental cast which she perceives in the French.  It would seem to explain her experiments with words.  She gains mental excitement from examining them in unaccustomed situations, from turning them this way and that and viewing them from the standpoint of their individualities.

But she would not think, any more than the French with their intellectual gymnastics, of putting her word-play into practical application.  She would not think of conversing with the first person who came along, her concierge, her butcher or the servant who cooks her meals, after the fashion of the Saints in her opera.  She might do it once for an experiment, and some day language may become enlarged and take on new meaning so that her word combinations will become usual.  But she wouldn’t dream of attempting to make such things general today.

Such things are not for practical life.  They are for excitement.  Other people may get their excitement by speeding in automobiles, by doing barrel rolls in the stratosphere.  Miss Stein’s stratosphere is the abstract realm of the written word.

***

This separation of the practical from the intellectual sheds considerable light on many of Miss Stein’s otherwise cryptic opinions.  Though decidedly an intellectual herself, she has a poor opinion of intellectuals who intervene in practical affairs.

“I always say that intellectuals are not suited to be the directors of government,” said Miss Stein. “They have a mental obliquity.  By that I mean that they are diverted by their intellects, by their ideas and their theories, from responding to the instincts which ought to guide practical rule.  The best governors are always the men who respond to instinct, and in democracies this is more necessary than anywhere else.  There really are only two wholly sincere democracies, and those are the American and the French.

“The Saxon element is always destined to be dominated.  The Germans have no gift at organizing.  They can only obey.  And obedience is not organization.  Organization comes from community of will as well as community of action.  And in America our democracy has been based on community of will and effort.

“When I say government does not matter, I do not mean that it cannot have bad effects.  I mean that any form of government may be good, and any form of government may be bad.  What matters is competition, struggle, interest, activity that keeps a people alive and excited in accordance with the instincts which best provide excitement for the individual people.

“Building a Chinese wall is always bad.  Protection, paternalism and suppression of natural activity and competition lead to dullness and stagnation.  It is true in politics, in literature, in art.  Everything in life needs constant stimulation.  It needs activity, new blood.  To the young people who, wanting to become writers, ask me for advice, I always say, ‘Don’t think it isn’t possible to be senile at 22.’ It is even very difficult to keep from becoming senile in youth.  It is hard to keep one’s self open and receptive to stimulation.  Doing what other people tell you and being protect from this and from that is not so good, is not stimulating.  You must face life and struggle.  Satisfaction comes from overcoming opposition and sometimes from enduring things that are not supposed to be good for one.

“That is the reason why I do not approve of the stringent immigration laws in America today.  We need the stimulation of new blood.  It is best to favor healthy competition.

There is no reason why we should not select our immigrants with greater care, nor why we should not bar certain peoples and preserve the color line, for instance.  But if we shut down on immigration completely we shall become stagnant.  The French may not like the competition of foreigners, but they let them in.  They accept the challenge and derive the stimulus.  I am surprised that there is not more discussion of immigration in the United States than there is.  We have got rid of prohibition restrictions, and it seems to me the next thing we should do is to relax the severity of immigration restrictions.”

***

Miss Stein is engaged in writing a book on four Americans, Washington, Wilbur Wright, Grant and Henry James, in which many of her ideas about government and American democracy will be expounded.  She promises that the new book will not be difficult to read, which seems to mean that the style she has chosen is less in the manner of “Capitols Capitols” and more on the order of the “Autobiography.”

It is from writing this book that Miss Stein today derives the excitement she considers so important.  Otherwise her life is quiet and uneventful, as, in her opinion, practical life should be.  She rises late in the morning, pays close attention to the quality and variety of her meals and the good order of her surroundings.  She works each day a little, not too much, and promenades the poodle, Basket, morning and evening. Between times her time and that of Miss Toklas is taken up with answering innumerable letters and in conversation.  Miss Stein’s studio is dedicated to discussions with her friends, and she likes to talk with strangers, too.

About the future Miss Stein declines to make predictions.  But she has confidence in the future both of America and France.

“The French are bewildered now,” she says, referring to the Stavisky affair and the crisis of the governmental regime. “They have never before had a political boss, and they don’t know what to do about it.

“They are like a person who has been living for years in a house he thinks he owns and suddenly discovers that through trickery somebody else has become the proprietor.  But I don’t think their democracy is dead.  They are going to clean it up and go through with it, the way we shall do in America.”