Today’s blog post is once again brought to you by poster Jeff M. He had a few insights to the responses in the gargantuan post over at the Artisnal Craft Blog HERE. Enjoy!
Dave, it seems that your duty is to abide by the myth of the objective journalist, you know, like Dan “Fake but Accurate” Rather. No opinions allowed. What do you think this is, an editorial page?
Let Willie show you how it is done. Ash runs a blog that is, according to him,
“completely devoted to attacking me by taking things I say out of context.”
Gee Ash I DO wish that just once and a while you would give some context to the poor guy’s quotation. Start small: say 10% and then gradually work your way up. Way to go Willie with that “down the middle, unbiased reporting.
“She’s asking for the right to hurl insults at me.”
She has that right, dimwit, and does not need to ask you for it. But wait maybe I have left out some context.
“And then to throw me in jail if I respond.”
What can I say? It appears to me that Willie IS responding. Is someone trying to put him in jail for commenting on Dave’s blog? Is someone trying to put him in jail for anything? Or is he really saying that he has the right to comment on Ash’s blog and to send her unwanted emails and telephone messages after being requested to stop doing so? And that Ash has a duty to let herself be annoyed by him in her private space and life?
“If Roy ever wishes to properly identify himself, convince the imaginary victim to file the imaginary charges, and the imaginary statute of imaginary limitations hasn’t expired, then he owes it to my poor imaginary victim to step forward and make the imaginary allegations public. Because to accuse a person of rape in a forum such as this, once I identify Roy, that is definitely libel per se.”
This one is a bit hard to parse because of Willie’s wizard skills at writing English prose. He means “to identify himself properly.” The subject of “convince” seems to be “Roy” and so should be “convinces.” And I suspect he means “statute” rather than “imaginary statute” because I am pretty sure that statutes of limitations are not imaginary. Of course there is no statute of imaginary limitations so maybe he is correct about an imaginary statute of imaginary limitations. And perhaps he means that the allegations were false rather than imaginary because I am quite confident that I saw the allegations rather than dreamed them.
As for the so-called libel is it only libel if uttered in this kind of forum? Or will it become libel only after he identifies Roy? An accusation of rape is libel per se? The last is definitely wrong as a statement of law. Only a false accusation of rape is libel per se. (Actually, it does not do to be quite so definitive. Intentionally or unintentionally, Willie raises an interesting point of law. If, after the expiration of the statute of limitations, X accuses Y of something that could have been prosecuted as a crime only within the statute of limitations, is that even an accusation of a crime? I can see that a false accusation in such circumstances is libel, but is it libel per se? Some case law on this issue would be fascinating.)
Anyway, I suspect Willie is trying in his own stumbling way to say that: Roy has a duty to repeat the accusation (so Willie can at least claim not to be barred by res judicata), and Willie has his own special right to define res judicata. FINALLY, we have some things that certainly ARE imaginary, namely both Roy’s implied duty and Willie’s implied right.
“I have the right to face my accuser.”
More on HIS rights. You legally have such a right in court only if you did not waive it. If you waive it, you lose the right. I can think of several cases where you have waived that right. You waived it when you dismissed your complaint in Maryland with prejudice. You waived it in Massachusetts and Illinois when you failed to show up.
It’s a common theme with Bill. Everyone else MUST bow to his so-called rights. But never in the equation do other people’s rights mean that he has to do something in return. One has to ask the question where this attitude comes from.