Lee Stranahan declared today "Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day," which only seems reasonable. Kimberlin is scary-evil, and a threat to free expression. Threats to free expression should be called out and exposed — hopefully without descending into pure partisanship.

Since people refer to this as a law blog, and my secretary keeps claiming I am a lawyer and that I am supposed to be working on law-stuff, I thought I would focus on law. I went on Westlaw and searched federal cases for Mr. Kimberlin.

There are quite a few. But today, let's just look at some highlights.

First, let's look at some language from the Sixth Circuit describing what Kimberlin did:

Kimberlin was convicted as the so-called “Speedway Bomber,” who terrorized the city of Speedway, Indiana, by detonating a series of explosives in early September 1978. In the worst incident, Kimberlin placed one of his bombs in a gym bag, and left it in a parking lot outside Speedway High School. Carl Delong was leaving the high school football game with his wife when he attempted to pick up the bag and it exploded. The blast tore off his lower right leg and two fingers, and embedded bomb fragments in his wife’s leg. He was hospitalized for six weeks, during which he was forced to undergo nine operations to complete the amputation of his *529 leg, reattach two fingers, repair damage to his inner ear, and remove bomb fragments from his stomach, chest, and arm. In February 1983, he committed suicide.

After being convicted of the bombings and related offenses, Kimberlin was sentenced to a fifty-year term of imprisonment for manufacturing and possessing a destructive device, and malicious damage by explosives with personal injury in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and (f), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(f) and (i). He received a concurrent twelve-year sentence for impersonating a federal officer, illegal use of a Department of Defense insignia, and illegal use of the Presidential Seal in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 912, 701, and 713, respectively, and a five-year term for receipt of explosives by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 842(i)(1). Finally, he was given a four-year sentence by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on an earlier, unrelated conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana.

Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527, 528-29 (6th Cir. 1993).

The same court listed Kimberlin's unsuccessful appeals and collateral attacks on his convictions:

Kimberlin’s convictions have been affirmed on appeal, United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023, 107 S.Ct. 3270, 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987); United States v. Kimberlin, 781 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 938, 107 S.Ct. 419, 93 L.Ed.2d 370 (1986); United States v. Kimberlin, 692 F.2d 760 (7th Cir.1982) (table), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1092, 103 S.Ct. 1792, 76 L.Ed.2d 359 (1983); United States v. Kimberlin, 673 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir.1981) (table), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 964, 102 S.Ct. 2044, 72 L.Ed.2d 489 (1982); and on subsequent collateral attack, United States v. Kimberlin, 898 F.2d 1262 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 969, 111 S.Ct. 434, 112 L.Ed.2d 417 (1990). Kimberlin’s Rule 35 motions have also been denied, United States v. Kimberlin, 776 F.2d 1344 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1142, 106 S.Ct. 2251, 90 L.Ed.2d 697 (1986); United States v. Kimberlin, 675 F.2d 866 (7th Cir.1982).

Id. at 529 n.1.

Second, Kimberlin's many appeals, many collateral attacks, and many lawsuits against the government might suggest to you that he's an implacable foe of the state, a staunch opponent of law enforcement. Well, sort of. When it suits him. That's his brand. But when cooperating with the state might suit his needs, Kimberlin does so. Kimberlin has acted as a jailhouse snitch:

Appellant was also connected to the cocaine transaction by his admission to Brett Kimberlin, his cellmate. Kimberlin testified that appellant admitted his involvement in a drug transaction that appellant claimed to have gotten involved in as a favor for someone in his family. Kimberlin also testified that he vaguely remembered appellant telling him that the cocaine was in appellant’s car or in the car’s trunk.

U.S. v. Sarmiento-Perez, 724 F.2d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1984). I haven't been a prosecutor for 12 years — I've been a defense lawyer all that time — and I'm not shocked by many things prosecutors do any more. But I am stunned that an AUSA would put this man on the stand and ask a jury to believe him.

Kimberlin also demanded, but did not receive, credit for "cooperation" in connection with explosives:

Kimberlin filed a motion 116 days later, on August 12, 1983, seeking a reduction of sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). He argued that he had begun to cooperate with the government and should receive a reward. The government opposed the motion-ungratefully, if one believes Kimberlin, although the government’s position is that Kimberlin has never provided it any help concerning his dealings in explosives and that to the extent he has offered other aid he should direct his plea to the Parole Commission rather than the court.

U.S. v. Kimberlin, 776 F.2d 1344, 1345 (7th Cir. 1985).

Third, Kimberlin has never lost the capacity to see himself as the victim. He asserts that the Parole Commission made unfavorable rulings against him in retaliation for his claim that he once sold marijuana to Dan Quayle. Bullshit, says the Sixth Circuit:

As for Kimberlin’s allegations about Vice President Quayle supposedly creating an appearance of political vindictiveness in the Commission’s decisions, the district court correctly concluded that Kimberlin, not the Commission, created this appearance. He has neither proven nor alleged that the Commission’s decisions were actually influenced in any way by his statements about the Vice President—indeed, Kimberlin’s counsel did not mention Quayle during oral argument. In the absence of proof or an allegation of actual vindictiveness, no lawful basis exists to set aside the Commission’s sentence. Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 799–800, 109 S.Ct. 2201, 2204–2205, 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989) (where Pearce presumption does not apply, burden remains upon defendant to prove actual vindictiveness). Were it otherwise, any prisoner could make public accusations prior to a Commission’s decision, and *533 then argue that the decision was tainted by an appearance of vindictiveness.

Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527, 532-33 (6th Cir. 1993).Id. 532-33.

Fourth, as an illustration of what Brett Kimberlin values, he sued in an attempt to force the Bureau of Prisons to let him use an electric guitar in jail:

Plaintiffs assert that an acoustic guitar is not equivalent to an electric guitar. According to plaintiff Kimberlin, it is impossible for him to play his songs on an acoustic guitar. He is not able to make long, sustained notes. Also, he cannot perform a technique called “vibrato” because the strings on an acoustic guitar will not bend or sustain like those on an electric guitar.

Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 150 F.Supp.2d 36, 41 (D.DC. 2001).

Fifth, to illustrate what Brett Kimberlin does not value, he has struggled endlessly and mostly successfully to avoid paying the judgment that the widow of his bombing victim, Carl DeLong, obtained against him. When the prison tipped off his probation officer that Kimberlin was sending cash to a woman outside of prison, Kimberlin was so enraged that he sued for a breach of the Privacy Act. He lost:

Kimberlin was convicted in 1981 for detonating an explosive device and is currently residing at the Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC). In 1983, Sandra DeLong won a civil judgment against Kimberlin on behalf of her husband Carl, subsequently deceased, in the amount of 1.61 million dollars for injuries he suffered in the explosion. Thomas Gahl, the probation officer assigned to Kimberlin, sent a letter to the warden of the MCC to inform him of the civil judgment. Kimberlin’s prison case manager, Patrick Leddy, in turn informed Gahl that Kimberlin was regularly sending funds from his prisoner commissary account to someone outside the prison. Gahl informed Mrs. DeLong and her attorney, Paula Kight, of the transfers. DeLong then obtained a writ of attachment against the plaintiff’s commissary account based on an affidavit alleging that Kimberlin was sending $125 a month to a civilian outside the prison.

Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 788 F.2d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 1986).

Kimberlin later litigated in an attempt to prevent money seized from him at the time of his arrest from being turned over to his victim's widow to satisfy her judgment against him:

The FBI seized as evidence $3037.13 from Brett Kimberlin when it arrested him in 1979. The FBI kept custody of the funds while Kimberlin’s case continued through the courts. In 1987 Kimberlin’s conviction became final. In 1989 the government moved to have the money disbursed to compensate for funds it used in processing Kimberlin’s case. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(f). Meantime Sandra Sue DeLong, the victim of Kimberlin’s crime, secured a 1.61 million dollar judgment against Kimberlin in the Superior Court of Marion County, Indiana. Kimberlin did not file a supersedeas bond after the court issued the judgment, so, though the case is still on appeal, DeLong has a final, collectible judgment. When she learned that the FBI had possession of some of Kimberlin’s funds, she intervened in the proceeding to disburse the funds so as to satisfy a portion of her otherwise unpaid judgment against Kimberlin. Attorneys for the government, DeLong, and Kimberlin attended the hearing on the motion.

The government argued that the funds belonged to Kimberlin, making the money available for distribution. Kimberlin argued that the funds belonged to his mother because she had spent so much on his legal defense. The court adopted the government’s position.

Kimberlin v. U.S., 978 F.2d 1261, *1 (7th Cir. 1992) (unpublished).

That, ladies and gentlemen, is Brett Kimberlin. Believe it or not, the man has allies and supporters. As far as I can tell, it's because of pure partisanship — because people will embrace any evil if it stands against the same things they stand against. That's sick.

That aside, there are people out there like this, and they and their allies will attempt to sue, harass, threaten, and retaliate against those who would expose and criticize them. Stand against them — whether you love or hate their critics.

Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

1. Game of Thrones on HBO. We're several episodes behind. I'm savoring them.

2. The Abbado recording of The Magic Flute. I treated myself to buying a few recordings on iTunes before vacation, and chose this based on the Penguin Guide recommendation. On the one hand, I don't love the pacing — it's authentic, but a little jumpy for my taste. However, the voices are simply spectacular.

3. To End All Wars, a book about England in World War One. Two themes were well-portrayed and resonated. The first was how hubris and uncritical devotion to traditional tactics led to disaster. The second was how, in wartime, nominal critics of government will become uncritically pro-war to gain and maintain power.

4. Warlock: Master of the Arcane. I've been looking for a game in this genre as satisfying as 1994's Master of Magic since — well, since 1994. This, as far as I am concerned, is it.

5. The iPad. My precious.

6. Patron tequila.

7. The Bloggess' new book. She's like the result of a genetic experiment involving Dave Barry, Dorothy Parker, Erma Bombeck, David Sedaris, and [think of some writer who says "fuck" a whole lot]. Hilarious, and in consistently surprising ways. She's one of those writers who makes me say "I want to be a writer."

Consumer Products That Did Not Disappoint Me This Month © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

Earlier today, in the course of discussing possible jackass/possible troll/possible mentally ill person George Tierney, Jr., I asked people to consider calling out vengeful would-be censors because they are vengeful would-be censors, not because the victim of the moment is on "our side":

Political differences are meaningful, and should not be disregarded, but recognition of mutual humanity is often productive, and there are few more common human experiences than encountering crazy douchebags on the internet. In addition, we all have a stake in calling out, and opposing, censorship.

I'd like to expand upon that theme.

Last week I blogged about how convicted bomber and perjurer Brett Kimberlin pursued blogger Aaron Worthing, and linked to Aaron's story about how he was fired, and falsely charged with a crime, as a result of Kimberlin's vengeful efforts to silence him. Since Aaron released his story, many people have written about it. This is a good thing. It's a story that ought to be told. Moreover, there are legitimate partisan political elements to this story — like the question of why certain leftist political activists associate with Kimberlin, and why some entities donate to Kimberlin's organizations. For that matter, the various people who wrote about Kimberlin and incurred his wrath may have been motivated, at least in part, by partisan politics.

But to me, the core of Aaron's story is not about partisan politics. It's about freedom of expression, and how it can be attacked by frivolous litigation, by threats to employers, and by other such contemptible measures. Some of the responses to Aaron's story recognize that. But others do not — other responses frame this as a story about Left vs. Right.

I'll cite Michelle Malkin as an example, though she is by far the only one. Fair disclosure: I often disagree with Michelle Malkin and this site has criticized her before. In her post discussing Aaron's story, she quoted and linked us, which I appreciate. However, I must dissent from her framing of the issue: "Free speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers." In a better world, this issue should be framed as "Free speech blogburst: show solidarity for targeted bloggers." Protecting freedom of expression, and condemning its enemies, benefits everyone — conservatives, liberals, and so forth.

We've talked about legal (and other) threats against all sorts of expression here, and occasionally been able to lend a hand. We've talked about lawsuits against former parishioners criticizing churches, threats against artists criticizing how Etsy is run, Democratic senators lashing out at parody, various legislatures of different political stripes posturing about "cyber-bullying," junk scientists suing critics, the TSA "cautioning" journalists, colleges threatening alumni critical of their new administrations, twerps threatening me for making fun of them for threatening critics of junk scientists, and and libel suits springing from book reviews. And that's just 2012.

What this diversity of topics shows is that legal threats — and threats of other forms of retaliation for speech — represent a pervasive problem in our culture, and are a deterrent of all sorts of speech, not just the speech you like. Say that someone sues, or threatens, or abuses someone whose ideas you despise, someone whose good faith you doubt, someone working for political or social ends you are struggling against. If that censor is successful in any measure, are you harmed? Yes. You are harmed because the next censor, the one gunning for you or someone you agree with — is emboldened. You are harmed because people, in general, are deterred from discussing controversial ideas. You are harmed because when censors are successful, censorship increasingly becomes the norm, and the populace's already tenuous support of principles of free expression ebb a little more.

That's why decent people ought to be unified behind protecting people like Aaron Worthing, and opposing people like Brett Kimberlin — not because we agree with one of them or the other. When the rallying cry is "protect conservatives from censorship by leftists" — or the reverse — the rallying cry is less effective, easier to ignore, easier to dismiss as mere partisanship. We shouldn't defend Aaron because of his political stance. We should defend him because in this country you should have the right to express yourself without a convicted domestic terrorist and his cronies harassing you with frivolous litigation and threats.

There is no need to agree with, or praise, or even treat respectfully the people we defend. For instance, when I wrote about Nadia Naffe's threats against blogger Patterico because of his support of James O'Keefe, I felt free to make fun of Naffe, O'Keefe, and (to a lesser extent) Patterico. And even though I said Evan S. Cohen was right on the law, he won't be thanking me any time soon for what I said about him. It's perfectly fine to say "this person is a jackass, this person is wrong, what this person urges is contemptible and awful — but this person should not be censored, and I stand against such censorship." That should be the message. "Stand against the censorship of our side is the wrong message. I'm disappointed to see so much of it in the wake of Aaron's posts. I think it is detrimental to the cause of free expression, and a boon to the censors, who will use it to portray the defense of free speech as just another instance of tiresome political bickering.

How About Defending Speech Because It's Speech, Not Because You Agree With It? © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

And that's a problem for the Florida Highway Patrol and the Seminole County Sheriff's Department.

On August 10, 2011, Kintner, a citizen of Lake Mary, Florida, noticed suspicious behavior on the part of a Seminole County Sheriff's Deputy.  The deputy had driven his cruiser onto Kintner's street and parked, creating a traffic obstruction and a hazard to children and other residents.  Not content to block traffic with his noxious presence, the deputy then pointed a device designed to fire hazardous radiation beams at oncoming motorists, threatening Kintner's neighbors with cancerous tumors.

Most men would have gone about their business against such an awesome abuse of power.  Not Kintner.  Never one to cower before tyranny, Kintner exercised his right to express dissent, which as we all know is the highest form of patriotism. He drove his car up one block, then began to shine his headlights at oncoming motorists, his friends and neighbors, to warn them that the government was conducting radiation experiments in the area.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a man in possession of the courage to speak out against government overreach must be arrested, and branded a criminal.  That truth came to pass in Kintner's case.  The deputy abused his authority to charge Kintner with the high crime of "flashing lights" in violation of Florida statute 316.2397(7):

Flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles except as a means of indicating a right or left turn, to change lanes, or to indicate that the vehicle is lawfully stopped or disabled upon the highway or except that the lamps authorized in subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), and (9) and s. 316.235(5) are permitted to flash.

Fortunately for us all, where most men would have given up at this point and "paid the ticket", Kintner fought back. He retained the services of J. Marcus Jones, the noted attorney of Oviedo Florida, and sued for his liberty.  Jones fought for Kintner's freedom with a two-pronged assault: first, that the Seminole County Sheriff applied the statute arbitrarily, to punish Kintner for warning his fellow citizens of the deputy's misconduct; second, that each time he activated his headlights to caution his neighbors, Ryan Kintner was engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

That's right.  Ryan Kintner speaks with his car.  And with the able advocacy of Marcus Jones, he does so most eloquently.  Yesterday Judge Alan Dickey of the Seminole County Circuit Court struck down the unlawful acts of this brazen Sheriff, holding that Ryan Kintner has a First Amendment right to warn friends, family, and neighbors of hazards created by the police.

Even if he has to use his car to do it.

So hats off to Judge Dickey, Mr. Jones, and especially Mr. Kintner.  Thanks to Ryan Kintner, all of us are a little more free today.

Ryan Kintner Speaks With His Car © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

George Tierney, Jr. of Greenville, South Carolina, who finds himself abruptly infamous for sending crass tweets to Sandra Fluke and then making legal threats to people who wrote about him, raises a series of questions in my addled mind.

Before we get to the questions, let's have a bit of background. Ostensibly, George Tierney, Jr. of Greenville, South Carolina is a man who, using the twitter handle @geotie2323, wrote crass and contemptible tweets to Sandra Fluke when he disagreed with a political point she was making. When his comments were featured on the blog Tbogg, he reacted with silly legal threats:

Whoever runs this site needs to take my damn comments off of it. I did not give you permission, nor did you ask me for it. It shows up on google and I will see a lawyer if this doesnt disappear. Ask me before posting bullshit about me. You fuckers had no right.

Sincerely,

George Tierney Jr

. . .

You dont get to make the rules. I am the george tierney that made the comments to sandra fluke, not to you..take it off google. If it goes to a lawyer, it will be settled in court, with me getting paid.

Sincerely,

George Tierney Jr

(Incidentally, the "take it off google" immediately made me remember the magnificent ""Remove me from your Rooster!", a collection of anti-gay tirades to a writer.)

This series of events went viral, and George Tierney, Jr. is now internet-infamous, with long-term consequences for himself and for anyone unfortunate enough to share his name.

Now, the questions.

First, a question that annoying people would call epistemological: how do we know what people on the internet are, or are not? Is it possible to know whether George Tierney, Jr. is (a) a genuine asshole, as he seems upon the face of it, (b) a troll, either named George Tierney, Jr. or posing as him for some nefarious purpose, or (c) genuinely mentally ill, like other people who have become abruptly internet famous for ranting? (This interview inclines me strongly towards either the "very skillful troll" or "regrettably mentally ill" interpretations, though admittedly in the modern political climate is is difficult to distinguish either from common rhetoric.)

Second, do we care? How many people who write about the Freak of the Week actually care whether he or she is genuine/trolling/crazy? How many people, by contrast, simply care that the Freak of the Week serves their narrative about how terrible the Other Side is, whether the Other Side is conservatives, liberals, or (in my case) censors?

Third, taking George Tierney, Jr. at face value for the sake of argument, my question, offered in the context of American thought about freedom of expression, is this: what the fucking fuck? Seriously? From whence comes this all-to-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 signifier of culture shock — a sign that we haven't worked out, in our own minds, 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? Or is it simply a sign of atrocious civic education?

Fourth, again taking George Tierney, Jr. at face value: does he genuinely 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? Really? I'd take that case for free, get anti-SLAPP fees or sanctions, and wind up taking his debtor exam and taking him through a painstaking catalog of the value of his lawn jockey collection and mullet glamor-shots. (For the record, I wrote to Mr. Tierney asking him to comment on the legal theory on which he might pursue Tbogg and others, and did not receive a response.)

Fifth: wouldn't it be nice if we could lay down our arms for a sort of Christmas Day truce between the trenches, and join together in calling out, ridiculing, and opposing the censorious assholes and psychopaths of the world? I don't think that the vast majority of conservatives — even those who despise what Sanda Fluke stands for — approve of either George Tierney, Jr.'s language or his censorious threats. Yet most of the criticism I see is from the left — I suspect that people on the right feel that calling out the likes of Tierney would mean supporting Fluke, or supporting Tbogg, or something. Yet it doesn't mean that, by any reasonable measure. On a different scale, I'd like to see leftists condemn scary censorious psychopath Brett Kimberlin, and recognize that they can do so without endorsing the politics of those whom Kimberlin pursues. Political differences are meaningful, and should not be disregarded, but recognition of mutual humanity is often productive, and there are few more common human experiences than encountering crazy douchebags on the internet. In addition, we all have a stake in calling out, and opposing, censorship.

A Few Questions Regarding George Tierney, Jr. Of Greenville, South Carolina © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

And it will be, from last Wednesday night until forever.  Or until Patrick and I tire of the lot of you.  Or of Diablo 3.

We'll be in the Popehat Steam group chat lobby at 9pm EST sharp and we'll just arrange games based on how many people show up.  Last week we had enough for two games until the servers wet the bed.  Things should go more smoothly this week.  Everyone rolled a level 1 and some progress was made and we'll just keep trucking that way.

You can become a member of the Popehat steam group by sending me a PM on our forums or an email (our names at popehat dot com)  with your SteamID.

You are free to bring a friend as long as the following conditions are met:

1. Patrick and I do not actively dislike this person.  Sorry, you'll just have to roll the dice here if you are unsure.  But there will be consequences if you bring the wrong person.  Oh yes.

2. This person does not annoy the shit out of Patrick or me.  See above concerning consequences.

3. Conditions 1 and 2 are null if and only if our sometime co-blogger Derrick shows up, in which case Derrick will create funny cartoons about the annoying person using Microsoft Paint. Additionally, you will be awarded bonus points, redeemable for fabulous merchandise, in Hell.

This has the potential to be at least as much fun as a weekend in Ottawa, which I learned today is the capital of Canada. But only if you help us to make it so. Won't you join us?

Addendum: If you are a member of the popehat group, in steam you can go community -> groups and then in the list "Popehat" should appear.  Further, there should be a tiny little link saying something like "0 in group chat".  Click that and voila, you are in the popehat chat lobby!  You actually don't need to give me your SteamID (I forgot about this, and that's understandable) though it should appear in the upper right under "JoBubba's Account".  You can click on your profile and select edit profile (right side) and see your profile name.  Just remember if you choose something rather generic there, say "Chris" (pulling an example out of my ass), when I search for you to add you to the group I'm going to come up with 100 people and I'll have to determine which one is you.  This will annoy me, and it will annoy Patrick by proxy.  So don't be affraid to let your inner script kiddie/goth-overlord/juggalo loose and give your profile an awesome name like "Lord Doomspike Souldrinker".

Wednesday Night is Popehat's Semi-Annual Weekly Diablo 3 Night © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

People as bothered by asymmetry as I am will notice that our blogroll, on the left side of the page, has gotten a lot shorter.  This is something that should have been done a while ago.  The large majority of the blogs removed are no longer published, or their authors left a goodbye post, or all that's left is an error: 404 message.

One or two of the blogs taken off were removed for philosophical reasons. One or two were removed because they evidently have philosophical problems with us.

A couple of blogs that are long dead we keep around for sentimental reasons, principally the late great Jon Swift, and Dispatches from TJICistan, whose author may be released from prison with good behavior.

I'm struck by how difficult it seems to be, for many bloggers, to keep a site updated for more than a year.  I'm mildly encouraged that we're over seven years old.  A wise man once told me that year seven would be the most difficult year of my marriage. He was wrong. It was year eleven, but I take the point.  We're no longer running a "new" or "young" blog.  If you have a new or young blog, and you think our readers might enjoy what you have to write, drop us a line.  You may email me at patrick at this domain name.  You may email Ken at the same domain name, but bear in mind I'm more likely to add your site to the roll, and more likely to remove it.  It might be a good idea to look at our blogrolling policy, which is most liberal, before sending the email.

If you feel that your site was removed in error, let me know.

Housecleaning © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

Stuff I've written here has gotten crazy people, vengeful people, and very nasty people angry at me. Some have acted on it in various annoying and occasionally unsettling ways. Some of it you know about, some of it you don't. Sometimes you've heard about it; sometimes you haven't. I'm still here.

But I haven't experienced anything like what blogger blogger Aaron Worthing has experienced as a consequence of his writing about the astoundingly vile and terrifyingly sociopathic Brett Kimberlin, who for reasons that passeth understanding is still a darling to certain political activists despite the contemptible life he has led and continues to lead.

Aaron's story is quite long. (We had a tiny, tiny piece of it here.) But he supports it with primary documents and video recordings, and ultimately it's a wrenching depiction of how the system doesn't prevent crazy and/or evil people from victimizing innocents — a depiction of how the system can be the instrument of such victimization. It's not a pretty story, but it's worth reading.

Edited to add: Welcome, visitors. For a story about another person pursued by a vengeful crazy, consider the story of Crystal Cox. Coverage of broader free speech issues in general is under our free speech tag. For examples of how, in my humble opinion, one ought to respond to legal threats, consider this or this — though neither of those involved malevolence on the level that Aaron has had to endure.

Chilling Tales of Crazy/Evil © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

So, approximately eleventy billion people wrote to me with tips about the story of Beaverton Grace Bible Church in Oregon and its pastor, Charles O'Neil, suing a former parishioner and her family members for negative online reviews. It's a story in my wheelhouse, but I elected to wait until I could get my hands on the primary documents — Oregon doesn't maintain court records online, it seems. Now I've got them, and can share them with you.

JulieAnne Smith is apparently a former member of Beaverton Grace Bible Church and now a critic of it. She's written reviews about it online, and has a web site devoted to critique of it and of its pastor, Mr. O'Neil. At some point Mr. O'Neil had enough. He issued a self-justifying press release suggesting that a pastor at a different church had recommended that he sue:

DEFAMATION IS A CRIME: Pastor Chuck O’ Neal, his wife, his children, and Beaverton Grace Bible Church as a whole, have suffered JulieAnne’s hateful lying slander for well over three years. After seeking counsel from a pastor on staff with Grace Community Church (under Pastor John MacArthur) and reading him several excerpts from JulieAnne’s endless defamation, he recommended that we FILE A LAWSUIT in an appeal to Ceasar as the Apostle Paul did when falsely accused of crimes against God and the state. The lawsuit has been filed in the Washington County courthouse.

That other church refuted the notion with a smackdown of Biblical proportions.

O'Neil did eventually sue on his own behalf and on behalf of his church, naming Smith, her daughter, and other people who had commented on the church and O'Neil on the internet. You can read the amended complaint here. From a First Amendment lawyer's perspective, the complaint is notable because so much of it complains about expressions of opinion. From reading Pastor O'Neil's press release, one would expect the complaint to focus on very specific and factual allegations of wrongdoing levied against him. Instead, the complaint is replete with classic characterizations and statements of opinion not susceptible to defamation analysis — claims that the defendants said things like "You will be fine at this church if you never question the elders or pastor" and "Something creepy about this church" and that the church is an "oppressive and abusive environment." Such statements of opinion, which do not imply provably false statements of underlying fact, are protected by the First Amendment and generally are not subject to defamation analysis.

The defendants in the case have two things going for them. First, Oregon has a robust anti-SLAPP statute similar to California's venerable statute and Texas' new statute. Under Oregon's statute, a defendant may file a special motion to strike. If that motion establishes that the lawsuit is premised on one of the categories of speech protected by the statute — for instance, "[a]ny other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest," the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present admissible evidence showing that they can prevail on the merits. A prevailing defendant is entitled to attorney fees, and filing the motion stays discovery — two essential elements of a strong anti-SLAPP statute.

Second, defendants are fortunate to be represented by a vigorous and effective advocate. Oregon attorney Linda Williams is representing Ms. Smith and her daughter. She's filed a SLAPP motion directed both at the original complaint and the amended complaint — you can read the two parts of it here and here. I think the motion is simply superb — well-researched, well-written, and persuasive, and generally an informative pleasure to read. I've not encountered Ms. Williams before, but having read this, she's at the top of my list if I ever need to find counsel in Oregon. Read the initial motion. In addition to laying out the First Amendment and anti-SLAPP issues, it includes a fascinating discussion of church autonomy doctrine and a discussion of the limits of court intrusion into religious affairs.

By contrast, the church's response to the motion is, with all respect, rather weak and perfunctory, particularly compared to the motion papers. That's not a confident prediction that the defendants will prevail — the years have made me too cynical to believe that the best papers, the best legal argument, or the right side reliably wins. The church's response does, by the way, raise one interesting point about what might be called "internet law" — when does the statute of limitations start to run for purposes of defamation when the challenged statement is online? The church's position seems to be that as long as the post remains online there is "continuing publication" — suggesting that the statute of limitations never runs as long as a speaker maintains their post. I find that very problematical, as it allows the plaintiff to time the lawsuit strategically (possibly after witnesses and evidence related to the post are no longer available), and does not require diligence on part of the plaintiff.

This is one to watch. I'll keep an eye on the result of the SLAPP motion and report back. I suspect that Pastor O'Neil, and the church, may learn unpleasant lessons about the Streisand Effect from this case.

But I Tell You, Resist A Censor. If Anyone SLAPPs You, SLAPP Back. © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

I'm looking for someone admitted in Louisiana with expertise in First Amendment issues, specifically defamation defense, to help someone getting a raw deal. Though it would be for a pro bono consult, it might develop into a (modest rate) paid case. Help is appreciated, as always.

Popehat Signal: Louisiana Justice © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

It's been over two months since we last explored what brings you hobbitses to this site. So it's time for Road to Popehat, the feature in which we review search logs to examine the hidden things, long forgotten in dark places, that bring new readers into the light spaces of Middle Earth.

This month brought out a number of people who are even geekier than we are.

Thief! Thief! Baggins!: It stole our precious, yessss it did, and when we catches it, we'll squeeze it!

O.J. didn't do it: That tricksy Baggins probably did it.

I have the right not to be offended: Then why are you coming here, praytell?

Cuckold say uncle: Cuckold need food, badly! Really, you've already cheated with his or her spouse. Do you have to twist the arm as well?

Please tell me that it is not likely that amendment one will pass in NC: We tried to warn you that it was likely to pass. Did you bother to bother to move to North Carolina so you could vote?

Crystal Cox batshit crazy: Do tell.

Koreans anal: Perhaps you should have typed 항문 instead?

How to avoid a probable cause affidavit in Colorado: I hear Utah's lovely this time of year.

Narcissistic disorder excluded from DSM: The original entry consisted of a photo of Ken, but a cease-and-desist letter took care of the problem.

Road To Popehat: "We Hates It Forever!" Edition © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

In the course of pondering the correct response to internet trolls, my law school classmate David French poses an interesting question — "isn't there a middle ground between porn and prude?" Or, as I'd put it — is there a middle ground between being in favor of censoring sex-related expression, on the one hand, and being completely uncritical about public depictions of sex on the other? Is there, for want of a better word, a "normal?"

David — who has unimpeachable free-speech credentials — comes to this question courtesy of his wife, Nancy, who was quoted in a newspaper article about encountering a rather vivid sex-related display while leading her kids through a bookstore. Many people treated her as if she had expressed some Victorian-era sentiment that sex ought to go unmentioned in public at all, that children should be shielded from all mention of it, and that any depiction of homosexuality is particularly offensive. Like so:

Heterosexist swine. And what harm comes from your kid knowing that sex exists at a young age. It is a beautiful thing created by God, and this Victorian attempt to cover it up is exactly what has created our hyper-sexualized culture.

And so on, in that vein.

I think David has the right of it — there must be a middle ground between saying "that ought not be allowed" and "people ought to feel free to criticize gratuitous, or gratuitously promoted, sexual expression." This is at the heart of one of my favorite themes here at Popehat — criticism is not censorship. As a parent, like David and Nancy, I am frequently appalled by sexual content in culture — not because it is sexual, but because it is relentlessly commercialized sexuality. The culture sexualizes children at a younger and younger age — for instance, by encouraging girls to dress skanky earlier and earlier — because it makes money for the skankifiers. It's not a celebration of the beauty of human sexuality — it's a celebration of commerce. I think that both commerce and human sexuality are swell, but I reserve the right to argue that perhaps a bookstore ought to make more responsible marketing decisions than placing soft-core porn displays in the paths of children. It's the difference between thinking that (1) the government ought not prohibit clothiers from selling sweatpants to tween girls with "juicy" written across the ass, but (2) if anyone sells that to my nine-year-old daughter, I will be contemplating visiting them with a cheese grater, a lemon, and some sea salt.

We all have sensibilities, and I think it is not inherently prudish — not inherently censorious — to engage in dialogue about those sensibilities. But here's the dilemma: sensibilities are held — tightly, and in a manner hostile to criticism or question — by people. Some of those people are silly and irrational, particularly when you put them in groups.

As a result, we're always going to be struggling to find "normal," walking the razor's edge between people who denounce us if we criticize expression, and people who seek to squelch speech in foolish and unprincipled ways because of their own sensibilities or because of what they assume about the sensibilities of others. Nancy's detractors are an example of the first category; for the latter category, consider the case of Jennifer Dinoia. Ms. Dinoia, the spouse of a Foreign Service officer, wrote a blog featured on a State Department-sanctioned website. The State Department features such blogs because they allow a network of mutual support for Foreign Service families and provide a glimpse of the life for aspirants to the Foreign Service. Unfortunately, the State Department removed Ms. Dinoia's blog when she dropped the n-word. No, not that ugly one. I mean "nipple." Ms. Dinoia, in the course of describing how she battled breast cancer and endured treatment while her husband was on assignment in Iraq, dropped that word. Apparently on at least one occasion she used the n-word without the level of clinical detachment that some State Department funky thought was appropriate. Maybe it was this:

In an April 26 post headlined “I have a new kind of cozy,” Dinoia, who lives in Annandale, described the “nipple cozy,” part of her post-surgery recovery regimen.

“I have the new style (close your eyes if you fear TMI…this is one of those posts), er, nipple cozy, if you will,” she wrote. For levity, she posted two images of tea cozies she pulled from the Internet.

Quoth the funky whose sensibilities were upset (or, perhaps, who believed the sensibilities of others would be upset):

“Hopefully, you can understand that some topics covered in your blog are very personal in nature, e.g. nipple cozies,” the employee wrote, “and wouldn’t necessarily resonate with the majority of potential candidates who are interested in learning about the FS [Foreign Service] life overseas.”

The State Department, to its credit, has repositioned itself and restored Ms. Dinoia's blog. Cooler heads will often prevail over the temporary gusts of sensibilities. But the case illustrates the dilemma: I want to encourage David and Nancy to speak their mind as parents and citizens, on the one hand, without encouraging the inane culture of offense embodied in the State Department's initial response to the word "nipple."

Regrettably, there are no simple answers about sex or speech.

[By the way, the nipple story comes courtesy of Donna, another classmate -- this time from high school -- a talented writer with her own blog about family life in the Foreign Service, which I have mentioned before.]

Sex-and-Speech-Related Question: Am I Normal? © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

Passover has its traditional questions. So does Instapundit day. These are but a few of them:

1. How many people will remember that we did this last year?

2. How many people will, despite Patrick's established habit of satire and moderately subtle commentary (at least compared to my axe-to-the-head level of discourse) take it all at face value?

3. How many people will perceive that there are jokes and comments not only in the format, but in the content and tone?

4. How quickly will I start getting emails?

5. What will the ratio be of concern to outrage?

6. Who will win this year's prize for "most entitled to have a complete stranger provide content the way I want it?"

7. Who will descend the quickest to insults against Patrick and David, apparently thinking this will endear them to someone else?

8. Is the thought we put into titles worthwhile?

9. What makes a blog readable, or good, anyway? Why do some blogs have huge followings, and others languish in obscurity?

And, new for this year:

10. Do RSS feeds and email-the post settings control you, or do you control them?

Questions About Instapundit Day © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

According to the Iceland Review, Icelandic MP Árni Johnsen has taken steps to protect a family of elves by relocating a thirty ton boulder. Johnsen explained that the boulder was home to three generations of living elves.

It appears that Johnsen, of the Icelandic Independence Party, was not motivated by purely altruistic purposes. A source revealed to the Review that in 2010 Johnsen was involved in a single car auto accident, in which the MP's vehicle was destroyed. Johnsen, however, escaped from the collision unscathed. It is speculated that Johnsen's miraculous survival, from an accident which would have killed most men, was the work of elven magic. According to the Review, while Johnsen admits that a number of elves, "from all neighboring settlements", were present in the aftermath of the accident, the parliamentarian claims that his salvation was solely attributable to the intervention of one Ragnhildur, a previously unknown entity which Johnsen described, in conflicting statements, as  a "large being" (a term taken by many outsiders to refer to a minor god of the old Norse pantheon), and, after controversy arose, a purely benevolent "protecting spirit".

Despite Johnsen's efforts to portray what many believe to be the extension of unfair privileges to the Icelandic Elf community as an act of goodwill, many outside observers were unconvinced, noting that Ragnhildur, the Norse godling or protective spirit, goes unmentioned in all but two of the Icelandic sagas, and is relegated to a mere footnote on page 542 of Edith Hamilton's Mythology.

Authorities on Icelandic politics say that while it is not unusual for legislators and executive officials to have dealings with elves, Johnsen's efforts on behalf of the Old People, such as  moving a thirty ton boulder for the sole benefit of one elvish family, are extreme even by Icelandic standards. At present Johnsen is not under official investigation for what even his supporters admit has the appearance of elvish favoritism, but many outside the government speculate that pressure from Iceland's dwarves and trolls will lead to such a probe as parliamentary election season approaches.

Icelandic Parliamentarian Moves For Protection Of Elves; Dwarves Outraged © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.