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.
BILLY SEZ - Adventures in Bill Schmalfeldt's Pretendy Land Internet Courtroom. All Rise! 
Very true and telling.
LikeLike
Just as he believed, nay demands, that he has the right to control how his name and image is used, but he also has the right to control how he uses anyone else’s name and image.
It’s either one or the other, not both. Either he controls how his name and image are used everywhere, and everyone else has the same right for their names and images OR he controls how he uses others’ names and images and they control how they use his.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Forget about it, LG – it’s pretendy-land.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yep. It’s the Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt’s world. We just live it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much better stated than my humble comment on the same subject. Bravo, sir. Bravo
LikeLiked by 2 people
Related, from Instapundit:
LikeLiked by 3 people
It was hilarious to see the epic butthurt lying hypocrite Bill Schmalfeldt remove WJJ Hoge’s name from his banner at Derp Brain Radio after his epic butthurt lying hypocrisy was pointed out to him. It was a couple levels MORE HILARIOUS when he then immediately attempted to claim the moral high ground and demand the removal of his name from the banner here at Billy Sez.
As if acknowledging his hypocrisy and doing something that no one asked him to do nor cared if he did was sufficient to erase his hypocrisy and give him access to said high ground.
Nay, nay!
Bill Schmalfeldt thinks butthurt = defamation. He thinks that playing his game by his rules and consistently forcing him to faceplant in the playground gravel (aka responding to his three-for-one with a proportional nine-for-three) is unfair and actionable.
Good luck with that. It’s worked so well in the past. Why don’t you go try to dox Cinnamon at DailyKos again? Because that turned out brilliantly.
This is not an attempt to educate the monkey, because he willfully chooses not to understand what follows:
The monkey cannot be defamed by insults. Even if someone were to suppose aloud something so ridiculously heinous that a reasonable person would be disgusted and appalled (like, say, that Bill Schmalfeldt digs up dead babies and eats them) that would not be defamation because he has written, performed and podcasted radio skits to that effect and called it comedy! Plus – and this is the important part – his reputation is such after a decade or so of online villainy and self-destruction that it is nigh on to impossible for him to show that anything the Cult of HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGE!!! has done or said could bring more ruin upon him than he has already brought upon himself.
Likewise, while he is more than welcome to try to defame me, he can’t, for two simple reasons. One, fictional zombie – he can say anything he wants about Keeping A Kleen Krendler or Kalling Me A Kreeping Kowardly Klown.
And you know why that is?
Because – and this is the important part – his reputation is such after a decade or so of online villainy and self-destruction that it is nigh on to impossible for him to say anything about anyone that could possibly be taken seriously.
That certainly doesn’t mean he never says things that shouldn’t be taken seriously. When he threatens to waste his money filing frivolous sure-fire-loser lawsuits, that should be taken seriously. He is an idiot, after all, and an idiot with insurance money in his pocket is dangerous for the short while it takes him to burn through it. (It’s red. Vroom, VROOM!)
But he can call me names the livelong day! IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT HE SAYS. Because he is Bill Schmalfeldt, and his opinion worth less than a quart tub of Slovenian horseshit. And as a bonus…
http://imgur.com/NlSKH99
LikeLiked by 6 people
There’s a word for people like Bill Schmalfeldt, who insist on their rights while trampling everyone else’s:
SOCIOPATH
LikeLike