Little help (A Letter From Our Attorney)
As you all know, we went to court last week and we were unfairly and erroneously held responsible for comments in contradiction of actual law. It was proven in court that neither TSO nor I were personally guilty of harassment, but some of the comments caused someone to feel harassed. So, here is a letter from our lawyer, John Mason explaining the situation;
To the readers of This Aint Hell:
I am John D. Mason, of Copyright Counselors, LLC (www.copyrightcounselors.com), and along with co-counsel Mark Zaid, I am representing Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey in connection with Paul Wickre and his wife’s matters before Maryland courts. On Friday there was a hearing the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County in front of Judge Patricia Mitchell, on four peace orders filed against Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey by Paul Wickre and his wife (Mr. Wickre and his wife each filed a peace order complaint against Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey). The Court heard the four peace order complaints together, and ultimately denied Paul Wickre’s peace order complaints against Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey, finding that there were no grounds for them (all of Mr. Wickre’s numerous emailed death threats against Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey probably didn’t help his case).
However, the Court did issue two six month peace orders for Mr. Wickre’s wife, one each against Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey, respectively. The Court found that there was no direct communication of any kind, or direct threats or harassment or stalking, from Jonn Lilyea or Mark Seavey directed at or to Mr, Wickre’s wife. (in fact, she testified that she never reads this website and was only aware that her name was referenced on it because she had set up a Google Alert on her own name). But the Court found that anonymous comments posted in response to articles written on this website which referenced Mr. Wickre’s wife constituted third party annoyance and harassment, and that while Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey did not review, edit, control or moderate those comments, which are posted to the site automatically, the Court did find that they control the ability to take those comments down. Which is true. Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey can take down comments after the fact, and they very rarely do where someone posts another person’s personal contact information, for example. Some of the comments on the website now reference Mr. Wickre’s wife in a crude and vulgar manner.
At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Mitchell told the courtroom and parties that she would be addressing the relief normally granted in such peace orders, which includes no direct contact or communications of any kind to the Plaintiff/Petitioner, in this case Mr. Wickre’s wife, where there is a final peace order granted. Mr. Wickre and and wife were asking the Court in their peace order complaints to take down all references to them on this website, including articles and comments. The Court did not order that any existing articles, references or comments about Mr. Wickre’s wife be removed. She has a new job on Capitol Hill, and we are evaluating whether this website and Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey can continue to write and publish journalism about her such as the following, in light of the Court’s order:
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=55339
In its ruling, the Court found that there was a preponderance of evidence that in the last 30 days Jonn and Mark had “Placed [Mr. Wickre’s wife] in fear of imminent serious bodily harm: THREATS OF PHYSICAL HARM AND SEXUAL ASSAULT. Harassment” because third party anonymous commenters had made crude comments on this website about her having sex. Even the comments introduced into evidence at the hearing did not contain actual threats against her, although the Judge said that she understood why Mr. Wickre’s wife was frightened by having anonymous third parties reference her sex life on this website. The annoyance and harassment that the Court is referencing in its order are the anonymous comments that readers leave on articles on this website, not anything written or said by Jonn Lilyea or Mark Seavey themselves (although they are prohibited by the order from directly contacting Mr. Wickre’s wife, too, which is fine, because they do not contact her and have no intention of doing so).
The Court’s order further finds that there was a preponderance of evidence that Jonn and Mark were “likely to commit a prohibited act in the future” against Mr. Wickre’s wife. Again, the primary prohibited act complained of in the peace order complaint of Mr. Wickre’s wife is Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey allowing third party anonymous comments to articles, which comments reference Mr. Wickre’s wife, to be published and remain on this website. The Judge then ordered that for 6 months, Jonn and Mark can not have direct contact with Mr. Wickre’s wife or go near her home (they never do and didn’t), and shall not commit or THREATEN assault, rape, harassment, etc. (which they never do and didn’t). To be clear, the Court looked at the 30 day period before the hearing date for evidence of harassment of Mr. Wickre’s wife by Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey, and the contact or harassment Jonn and Mark are prohibited from having with Mr. Wickre’s wife is in person (never happened), by phone (never happened), in writing (never happened), “OR BY OTHER MEANS”. The Judge ruled that “or by other means” includes allowing anonymous third party comments from readers of this website, which reference Mr. Wickre’s wife, to be published and remain on the website. When I asked if there was a time period for Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey to remove any such references to Mr. Wickre’s wife by third party anonymous commenters on this website, the response was that the time period must be “reasonable.”
So essentially, because the comments on this website are not moderated or reviewed and are published automatically, Paul Wickre or his wife themselves, or one of their friends, or one of you readers, could leave a comment about her on the website and Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey will have violated the peace order if they do not remove the comment within a reasonable period of time. You should know that there have been more than 480,000 comments left on this website in its existence, the vast majority of which have never been read by Jonn Lilyea or Mark Seavey.
Obviously, these two orders cause great concern for Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey, and a great amount of work trying to review all anonymous third party comments left on their websites. These two peace orders can be appealed and we are evaluating all options. The immunity provided to publishers under the Communications Decency Act is at issue, and the issue should concern all journalists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-covered-section-230
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-not-covered-section-230
But I am here appealing to you, the readers of This Aint Hell, to assist Jonn Lilyea and Mark Seavey in complying with these two peace orders. Please do not reference Paul Wickre’s wife by name or in any manner whatsoever in the comments you leave to any article published on this website, or anywhere on this website. The website will be adding a reporting button so that if you see such a comment you can report it for removal. We are working through the issues and evaluating whether to appeal, but in the meantime, please help us comply with the peace orders.
Thank you.
John D. Mason
Copyright Counselors, LLC
I’ve been reading every single comment since the order was issued, and, frankly, you guys are exhausting. So, I’m asking for a little help here. My code monkey hippie chick has added a “report comment” button. 5 reports will send a comment to moderation. But, it’s for comments that you think could be construed as harassment or threatening – not because you don’t like what was said.
For example, I don’t anticipate any of Lars Taylor’s comments in moderation, because generally, he’s not abusive, even though he might piss us all off. No one will know who reported the comments. But, mostly, we need to to rein ourselves in from even the most innocuous comments.
You may have found some of your comments from this morning edited, don’t sweat it. Yes, this sucks, but, we hope it will be overturned. In the meantime, we need to behave ourselves and I’m depending on you guys to help keep this blog alive in the interim.
I also have the ability to whack comments in Facebook, so if you see some, let me know somehow. One of my main concerns is someone who can’t comment in the regular comments who tries to frame us in the Facebook comments.
Category: Administrative
Seems reasonable to me. Hope folks will listen and not cause Jonn and TSO more aggravation.
If this is the AAR of Friday, can I ask if the DRG’s overt threats were addressed in court?
It sounds like you boys need a drink.
Jonn and Mark – WOW, what a daunting task you have before you, trying to keep others from trying to frame you. You guys are way more tech savvy than moi, so I hope you have in place “automatic” checks to catch any havoc thrown your way.
I’ll be sure to play nice and wish you both luck.
OC
Jonn,
You had me at SEX!
ROG ALL!
Out!
I can only assume that Judge Mitchell sat next to Lawn Dart Danny in law school.
you assume this idiot judge went to law school. I am betting on match book diploma.
“I know you did nothing and there is no evidence in this case that anybody else really did, but Woman maybe scared Screw the Constitution”
That is the short hand version of the Judges Order
Can I mention my thoughts regarding judge Mitchell being a [fascinating lady] who currently has [a cup of warm soup]?
Well I would also comment that perhaps you should require registration for posting privileges…registration should require and active email account that can be verified and if not, then no posting privileges.
Another option is a small annual fee to post here, helps cover your costs and weeds out trolls…
Sorry you have to deal with this kind of BS…and glad I’ve not added to it.
Veritas Omnia Vincit…Good idea my man!
But we are already required to enter an email address to post.
I don’t know that there is any requirement that it be a legitimate address, though.
I like this idea, the registration part, at least. Though, I’m still wishing the forum could be reinstated. That way, we can openly discuss things that may be controversial to public view, but would need to agree to a TOS with an anti-butthurt clause in it to protect us, our First Amendment Rights, and those of our Liege-Lord and his Shire-Reeve.
I second this notion. But to avoid adding to Jonn’s admin burden I will offer to serve, will you? [grin]
Are you kidding? Moderating this bunch of unreformed reprobates will be easy. If someone gets out of hand, we just replace their comments with a link to bad porn and the entire forum will be quiet for two days.
I take the Father Flannigan approach when it comes to porn; There is no such thing as bad porn.
Yes, yes there is such a thing. Please don’t ask me to explain…some things can not be unseen my friends and some things should never be seen….
Wilco.
In the words of John Rambo, “they drew first blood…”
Jonn…Roger that Top! I’m falling into formation now. I hope all works out for you, TSO and TAH. So, I’ll do my part on this detail.
I am going to report you, Sparks.
No hard feelings, of course, but we need a test subject.
Green Thumb…LMAO! Cool, let’s see what happens.
Better be careful, Jonn could unleash the ban-hammer on old Sparks.
Wait, do you think it would work for PH2, also? 😛
I will only respond in kind if I am directly attacked by person or persons uninvited into my AO.
(Is that neutral enough?)
Where’s the fun in that?
WILCO.
Of course this happened in Maryland, where liberals run wild. Best of luck in any future court appearances and rulings.
Ditto, it sounds like that “Judge” is the type that thinks of criminals as “Victims of Society” while giving them undeserved breaks but hey, that’s merely my humble uncoerced opinion.
I will do my part, but have a strong feeling that the 1st Amendment issues will go in Jonn and Marks favor.
As has been previously said, continuing to not do that which one has never contemplated doing is pretty easy to accomplish. That’s the sort of thing which doesn’t even require a court order, but getting one seems important in some circles.
Meet y’all down by the camp fire later for ‘smores and singing?
I am almost tempted to say shut down comments until after an appeal. I will make sure to be dutiful in not making any stupid comments. I tried to avoid commenting on the subject that was mentioned in this article, because frankly the people on the other end are not being truthful. So good luck and we will all try to help.
Not a problem for me, as I don’t believe I’ve ever addressed the “other” individual named.
I’m thinking, though, that when the whole thing is cleared up, that we ought to take up a collection to send a few cases of “Cup O’Soup” to the judge. Just, you know, because.
H’mmmm, will comply, but will offer this for the consideration of my fellow commentors:
“The turds involved have, as their base desire, to cause financial hardship to the site operator(s). We can do our part to offset their desire.
I suppose that I am possibly the one of us with the lowest income. From that Income, I have been able to dig up $20.00 now and then, (a few times a year), to support our friend Jonn. I am making a pledge now, to make a monthly donation, (to the cause), of $20.00 and am suggesting that anyone else who really cares do the same or greater. This $20.00 will not break me, and most likely, wouldn’t break y’all either.
Screw them, their phony friends, and anyone else who may come along.
(“Screw”, being a non-sexual term meaning, “ignore” in this context.)
I can, I will, and I will remember who brought all this on.”
^^^ THIS ^^^
This idea certainly has merit, but I wonder about the mechanics involved?
Hit the “Donate” button on the top right margin. When you sign in to PayPal it will ask is the donation will be a recuring charge.
A DOH! moment. thanks.
Already did this earlier today, Frankie, but I can’t do it every month. This month’s total would only buy one Cohiba Genios cigar.
I’m in. It has been on my list of things to do. Thanks Frankie for the stimuli.
I’m in also. Starting Wednesday, 1APR2015.
This is a complete crock, but until legislation is passed that puts serious teeth in nuisance law suit penalties, Jonn and TSO have to deal with it, and it isn’t right that they pay for all the expensive legal fees.
I wonder if Judge Patricia Mitchell went to Columbia or Harvard with Barack Obama. They seem to have the same view of the law: Ignore when you don’t like it?
I’m in, Frankie, but it has to wait until next month to start. Folks have helped me when I was in a bad way, and I am always willing to return the favor whenever I can.
So when a person is found and called out for illegal activity they feel harrased? I understand if they were threatened with bodily harm from several individuals, but what did you think was going to happen when you morally and,in some states, break the written law by profitting from a lie?
Sorry, I hit the wrong button.
That being said, Richard, you have a great point.
Think Commander Phil Monkress at All-Points Logistics.
I can vouch for the calling someone out on illegal activity and their complaining to the law except, my complainant is under the gun so to speak,now. Took a long time to get the i’s dotted, t’s crossed, all details and witness statements (those were hardest to get because they were/are scared of retaliation).
Not to worry though, my perp is headed down the grind when this goes to trial. Two words, due diligence.
So who is the one truly at fault here? It seems to me that the most reasonable answer was he who first contacted TAH, not the other way around. Until that happened more than a year ago, no one, including moi, had heard of any of those people mentioned in the above letter. Those attacks literally came from the other party, whereas the people who responded with comments on TAH were simply ‘defending the fort’. Some of it was funnier than watching a squirrel decide between nuts.
Personally, I prefer to avoid beliigerent people like that other party. But that’s just me.
This almost sounds like the judge tried to “split the baby,” which sometimes happens when a judge opts to give a little to both sides in an effort to be “fair.” But wow, the chilling effect on journalists is palpable. Essentially, is this judge saying that if additional malfeasance and potential corruption on Capitol Hill is uncovered on the part of this particular person, nobody on this outlet can discuss or even reveal it at the risk of going to jail for harassment? Sometimes judges simply cannot split the baby, and this seems to be one of those times.
Have you guys considered contacting the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press. They are an excellent (and free) resource, to include legal assistance, that seems directly on point.
The wheels are in motion, I’m told.
Good. Standing by for this to get sorted before posting anything that might get you guys into hot water…
Jonn/TSO,
I know you guys are smart and well-represented, but FWIW another blogger went through this with the Maryland courts not too long ago.
Aaron “Worthing” Walker wrote about the Speedway Bomber, Brett Kimberlin, who managed to get a Peace Order for a short time in the Maryland courts from a Judge Vaughey. Aaron Walker appealed for a trial de novo in the Circuit Court, and Judge Rupp overturned Vaughey based, I think, on Brandenburg.
Hope some of this helps.
do the googleon/googleoff tags still work? Perhaps the comments don’t need to be indexed.
So, let me see if I have this straight.
We can bad-mouth Psul Wicker-basket-case all we want, but can’t even THINK about (the other half, she-who-must-not-be-mentioned)? ‘Bout right? Or not?
Probably best for now to not poke the bear, until this all gets sorted out by the lawyers and courts.
Besides, just think how glorious the comments, bottled up for a while, will be when it all gets turned loose.
Look at this as an opportunity to build and bolster your vocabulary in an extremely deep and descriptive way. The eloquence that should result will make everyone who comments here seem like literary geniuses.
Ex-PH2
You’re right. We DO tend to gravitate toward the base, common and gutter language.
I have been in the presence of Drill Sgts who did NOT utter ONE single profanity, yet, when they were done, made you feel like whale feces at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
That, BWoodman, is a skill devoutly to be wished for.
Obviously you knew Drill Sergeant SSG Joseph Zambuto, B-2-3, Ft. Leonard Wood, 1977. 45 minutes of chewing us out and not one word of profanity… I was awestruck. God love the man.
My concerns about this, besides the obvious ignorance of the law by the judge (as in actively ignoring), are two fold.
1) What will stop one or more of our wonderfully fine fellows who enjoy the Dutch Rudder from abusing the “report comment” button in a harassing manner?
2) What will stop one or more of our wonderfully fine fellows who enjoy the Dutch Rudder from posting off-hand comments under alternative names, taking a screenshot, and attempting to pass it off as direct harassment?
For the first, a simple IP ban could fix the issue, but we all know how that special sperm Viking can alter his IP.
For the second, I have absolutely no idea.
This is clearly a First Amendment issue, but I won’t get into my deep legal knowledge of that (as deep as the local kiddie pool, that is). However, I still see the issue with you being held as criminally liable for the comments of others as being a little bit fucky.
This is entirely my opinion, though.
Disguises don’t work since everyone needs a previously approved comment in order to get to get their comment posted initially. I still control the moderation, so if a comment gets reported and I disagree with the voters, I can return it to the forum. I’ve gone as far as blocking their IPs from viewing the blog, and they get around it because they want to be outraged. I’ve blocked them from my phone and my email and they still try to get in touch with me. I’m so irresistible.
Holy Crap!! She’s Rachel from Cardholder Services and her husband “Hello Seniors! They can get through ANYTHING!!!
I love humans, don’t you? Sometimes, I wish we could just remove all the warning labels and let Darwinism take its course.
Good job coding the report button, though. Now, about that like button…
((yes, I’m an ass sometimes))
Sometimes?
“…like button”????? I’m still waiting for the “PREVIEW” button; that gets priority.
Well, you *are* dead sexy, Jonn. Let’s be honest here.
I guess it depends on the disguise, Jonn. To me, it looks like there is a gag order out that is disguised as protective/peace/restraining/whatever order. How you and TSO could be the recipients of such an order w/o a finding that either of you has done or threatened to do harm of any sort to the complaining party continues to baffle.
Purely hypothetical situation, if someone refers to their own wife as chaste, by definition pure and virginal, and a certain Smitty inquires as to why he hasn’t figured out what to do about that, is that considered directed at the wife or the husband that can’t solve that problem? Personally, I feel that is more along the lines of asking for clarification or seeking information, but some people don’t seem to be far too easily offended
https://youtu.be/ROxvT8KKdFw
As of this moment, you’re on double secret probation!
Did that “Judge” even remotely take a certain party’s death threats into consideration? It sounds like that case was heard by one liberal slacker on the bench!
And this is why we need a like button. However, I am forced to agree with A Proud Infidel©℠ on this point. It would definitely appear that the judge was looking for a way to punish men for “disturbin’ dem wim’n foke.” In other words, because there may have been a half-frayed thread toward proof in favor of the female complainant’s request, you were already guilty of all crimes regardless of what they were.
Hmmm… that sounds prejudicial to me, as I am in that ‘wimmin foke’ corner and while I find the company rough at times, I have yet to find anyone make any sort of ‘disturbing’ remarks, EXCEPT someone posting from that OTHER party’s side of the fence.
I believe an in-depth review of comments by that other party in other threads over the past months since this started will show that what has been said here was rather mild in contrast to what that other party posted.
But what do I know?
Agreed. This seems pretty ridiculous. Jonn and TSO are basically being shaken down by a bunch of internet terrorists and the judge sides with them? They’re the ones that are morally bankrupt. They’re the ones that have lied, cheated, and broken the law. I guess all I have to say is that I’m sorry you guys have been dragged through the mud by a bunch of trash. I’ll comply with the new rules.
That is a good question Infidel, John did they just look over the death threat portion of this entire matter or what?
Roger copy, John. Although I never mentioned *** and never will again, I did post a link to a certain judiciary case search site. For reference, of course.
For the time being, discretion being the better part of valor, I’ll let sleeping dogs lie.
I like my metaphors shaken, not stirred. 😉
So, let me get this straight.
Someone FEELS threatened and is, therefore, entitled to censor a group’s free speech, holding two people responsible for the words of others.
On the other hand, someone makes REAL threats repeatedly, and nothing happens?
Maryland is a joke of a state.
Sounds like the Judge had to make a tough call.
^^^^Huh? Tough? In one corner is someone that has made multiple explicit gruesome death threats and in the other there are 2 folks that have never threatened anyone and been near said house. Sounds like a slam dunk to me.
Or maybe you mean it was tough to make that judgement with a straight face? Oh, I do hope you dont take this the wrong way.
I’m just saying I can see how a Judge could go either way. As the people in charge of the site, a case can be made holding them responsible for the things the users say and\or for not deleting the inappropriate comments. I’m relatively new here but I’ve seen comments here(aimed at various) that I would consider a threat if said to my face.
I accidentally hit the “report comment” on you. Truly. I meant to reply. What you are offering is some peculiar application of vicarious liability. Well, actually, you’re not but you can see how the judge got there. I can’t but I’m struggling to understand it. Most of us know that vicarious liability allows a party (employer or master) to be held liable for the acts of his agent (employee or servant.) But, here, neither Lilyea nor Seavey is in a master/servant relationship with any of us. If I appear at a rally and hold an offensive sign up, is that the responsibility of the person who gave me the marker and poster board? How about of the rally organizer? Like I said, I’m struggling with this, but my stomach is telling me somethin’ ain’t right.
If I leave my handgun out in the open and my kid or a visiting child hurts someone with it am I responsible?
I don’t know the whole Paul story but I do know this site has posted multiple updates to the story over the years. Knowing the type of comments each update garnered, to continue to post them can be seen by some as allowing\condoning the violent comments that were evidently ruled to be considered threats. Some commenters here go from zero to crazy in a blink of an eye and a lot of what they say….well it’s easy to see why it can be considered to be way out of line especially by a Judge who has his bench to protect. What is right and what is the law are entirely two different things often.
To be clear, I’m not saying this is how things should be, just how they are.
Yes, you are negligent, to say the least about that. But I hope that you can see the pronounced difference between that and writing the word “GUN” or drawing a picture of one and then holding the person who provided the pen and paper responsible for what was written or drawn.
Sure I can see the difference but the law often can’t and judges have their hands tied in what they can and can’t rule. They have to come down on the side of caution. The law is one size fits all, even though it rarely fully fits any.
Sure, except for that pesky fact that Jonn and TSO are protected from what we say under Sect. 230 of the Communications Decency Act (see above from their attorney). That alone made it a slam dunk for Jonn and TSO.
Let’s say that C. Long wins 50 tickets to the World Series. C. Long decides that they will be handed out to various strangers on a street corner. Come game time, one of the recipients makes a comment about killing the umpire. Said umpire decides to take out a retraining order but doesn’t know the name of the person making the threat. C. Long now feels justified in being the recipient of said retraining order because he gave the ticket to the provocateur despite not knowing the provocateur. Works for me, let me know when you want to take me to a ball game.
So, essentially, no, you’re wrong. Take your consolation prize and go home.
I don’t follow your point.
My point is that you should not be held liable for comments made by someone who you don’t know because of some temporary association. My point is also that this has already been clearly outlined at the federal level, which the judge chose to ignore.
Temporary being the key word. It would seem the judge ruled that the constant posting of updates(and hence the comments about his wife that came with) about this Paul guys supported the consideration of this place being a more permanent association. That’s sort of the whole point of forums like these, for like minded people to aggregate. Remember that a loose association doesn’t always mean a temporary one.
Again, I should point out that I don’t agree with the judges call, just that I feel it must have been a tough one for him to make. A lot of judges will rule one way, in the face of what some may consider ignoring facts, just to get it off their plates and let a higher level handle it, that’s probably what happened here.
I’d also say that your supposition is based on a host of assumptions, to include that what was brought into evidence were actually threats. If you happen to find the specific posts that the delicate flower considered “verbal rape” or a threat that were brought into court, you can judge them on their merits, but a broad “I’ve seen comments here(aimed at various) that I would consider a threat if said to my face” isn’t good enough.
First, I accidentally clicked report on this, to the powers that be I didn’t mean to. Second, my assumption that I’ve seen threats here before only tells me that if I went hunting for the comments about this mans wife I’d find them, unless the admins have already complied with the order to delete in which case it’s pointless. Because I chose not to point out actual comments is irrelevant, it could be easily down but serve no purpose other then to bolster my original opinion: a lot of what is said here in response to the stolen valor theives is hate filled, sexual orientation and\ or violent bashing not to mention often just in poor taste.
My balls hurt.
Get lost, turd.
Sort of making my point. Something is said that isn’t agreed with and it goes from civil to insults in a heartbeat.
They do hurt.
GT,
You should imagine how I feel…..
mumblemumblemumble….
/ballz
If, as you say, “a lot of what is said here in response to the stolen valor theives is hate filled, sexual orientation and\ or violent bashing not to mention often just in poor taste” then why do you visit. I don’t visit gay websites. I don’t visit racist websites. Occasionally, for a specific purpose, I do visit lefty sites. So, why, if so much here is distasteful to you do you visit TAH?
I appreciate and agree with the valor thieves getting the attention they clearly want. What I don’t agree with is some of the stuff that is said about them that has nothing to do with that specific lapse in judgment; especially the comments that lump whole groups of people in with them. Gays etc Even worse is when the targets aren’t even the thieves themselves. That all said I can ignore the stuff that bothers me to enjoy the stuff I do, a distinction some people have a hard time making for themselves.
Hate-filled?
Then you need to go back to the beginning of wickre’s appearance, sport, because the hatred came from him.
These people are rough trade but they are still civilized. I have yet to see any hate coming out of them, even if we fight like cats and dogs. We agree to disagree.
Two wrongs don’t make a right one could argue. Look I never said I agreed with the judge, I just said I could understand the decision.
As pointed out below, Wickre introduced his significant other as a topic of discussion when he cc’d her to her .gov email address for whatever reason. Now we can’t mention her name. It wasn’t a tough call or a hard decision. It was an idiotic decision. He doesn’t want his wife’s name mentioned on the blog, he should have never brought it here. Wifey doesn’t like what her husband did, that’s between her and the sad sack of shit she married.
Yeah, ain’t that First Amendment grand?
That it is.
Actually, the actual comments are relevant because those are what was used for the judge to make her “decision.” From what I understand, there were two comments (or comments from two individuals) that were the basis for the judge to move forward with the RO. They might have been explicit, (“I’m going to [XX] you”) to innocuous, like what you seem to feel is a threat (“My balls hurt. Get lost, turd.”). You don’t know where on the spectrum these “threats” lay, so you are logically unable to make a determination. I can guarantee you that “I’m going to [XX] you” won’t be found anywhere on this site unless it is qualified (“If you kick my dog, I’m going to [XX] you”).
I said comments that I would consider threats, not comments that are universal threats. I would wager that the comments the judge used in the decision have already been deleted. Like I said before I don’t know, nor care to follow, the Paul saga except to say it doesn’t sound good. Also, the get lost comment I didn’t say I considered a threat, I said it was an insult. I can’t discuss things with you or anyone if words are being put in my mouth. I can handle that on my own.
With just 3 minutes of looking I managed to find a comment here posted towards a Valor Thief with the words “Please Shoot it”. Now sure he\she followed it with a disclaimer that they were kidding but it can still be considered a threat and any reasonable person wouldn’t blame anyone who took it that way. If I said I was going to harm some politician but followed with a ;), I can bet the Secret Service(or whoever does that work) would still follow up. Again, it’s siding with caution.
I used to know a barracks lawyer very similar to C. Long.
I can’t tell you how many people I’ve know who use insults and snide comments to attempt to cover up their inability to discuss things intelligently. You know, like the professional adults the military strives to produce.
It was not an insult. It was a comparison.
He was a nice guy.
You should be proud, C. Long.
Welcome aboard. Vicarious liability is the issue here. The term ‘respondeat superior’ is used to define it.
Individuals that post here are not under the direction or ‘supervision’ of anyone. It is an ‘open forum’ to a large degree.
‘Inappropriate’ is a vague and nebulous term. Many who post here find my opinions on several topics ‘inappropriate’.
I can, and often do, play the ‘Village Idiot’. Notwithstanding that, there is a very serious topic most of us that post here have in common.
Insofar as ‘Stolen Valor’ is concerned, the focus is on the offender. Using rather benign references by third parties to divert the focus from themselves is a common tactic used by posers and embellishers. It is little more than an attempt to fuge the issue.
There is no reasonable expectation implied by anyone that every post will be or could be checked. I understand the report button policy. Even with this addition, I as a regular poster here am under no obligation to report anything to anyone.
I am not under the direct supervision of anyone when I post and I have no responsibility to be sensitive to what others might find ‘inappropriate’.
What I find ‘inappropriate’ is Stolen Valor as generally defined, the use of fake or embellished claims of military service and its use for any purpose.
If anyone finds my opinion of their conduct ‘inappropriate’ they have every right to take it up with me.
I agree, the word inappropriate is relative. When you are a judge though you have to(well, are supposed to) go by the letter of the law even when it flies in the face of common sense. Hence my original post that the judge made a tough call.
Here is the letter of the law: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act
The judge did not to adhere to the letter of the law, because, apparently, she was ignorant of the law. The only “tough call” that the judge had to make that day was what to have for lunch. I’m sure that they judge who will hear the appeal will toss the decision as soon as Sect. 230 is mentioned.
For any indicators AS TO why the judge chose to ignore the law would have to be provided by those in attendance.
I disagree and would have you consider my impression. The Judge in this case simply did what offered the path of least resistance.
To my knowledge and in my opinion to the knowledge of the Jugde, there is no credible threat whatsoever. If this kind of action is given merit by the courts, sites like Facebook better hire an Army of Attorneys.
There was nothing ‘tough’ about this decision, it is milktoast and mediocre. Her actions suggest to me that professionally she is little more than an average Attorney who happens to have a robe for the moment.
If she has problems with that opinion, I don’t give a shit and she can take it up with me.
As far as I know, you could be that Judge or a representative of hers. I have no evidence to believe you are, but then again, I have no evidence you are not.
We most often use a vernacular on this site commonly expressed by current and former military members.
Civilians often find it offensive or ‘inappropriate’. I can be ‘civil’ or ‘civilianized’ in my responses but often I choose to express my disdain for things I a manner my fellow Veterans can appreciate.
This Judge stepped into a clusterfuck and lacked the intestinal fortitude required to unfuckerate it. We commonly refer to people like that as Shitbirds.
There is a stark difference between “vernacular” and hate speech though. Comments like “shoot it” or calling someone a fag 9 times in one post(another post I’ve seen here) isn’t a matter of a military minded person speaking in their unique tongue, it’s a matter of an ignorant person speaking period.
One would assume that you have never been in the Infantry, C. Long.
Does having been in the infantry give someone the right to threaten and insult others? Comments like “shoot it” “fag” or “his wife has a lazy eye too” have nothing to do with stolen valor, it just has to do with ignorance. You can call someone out on their crap without sinking to their level.
Most certainly what you have said can be true. Most often though, it is a disconnect between civilian and military vernacular.
For example: If I hear and read someone making what I believe are Sadomasochistic threats to someone, it leads me to the opinion they have some deeply suppressed causality to that behavior. If the individual is 40-50 and male I tend to believe he has some latent desires he has been unable to successfully express.
I would express that to my fellow veterans as follows: He is probably a little twink that just needs some dick.
I could not even fathom a response to how many times a veteran called me a fag, sometimes in jest, sometimes not.
..and it was wrong every time someone called you a fag. No matter if they were kidding or not. That said it’s hard to read mood and expression through simple text so all people have to go on(i.e. judges) is what exactly is on the screen. If you will stipulate to that fact then you can easily see how comments like “Shoot it” or “let him come, I have ammo” can be seen as a threat.
Oh, just a note, my mother is the one with the lazy eye, get off my wife….I just got off of yours.
Now, if you were in the military long enough, you would find that funny as shit…..or humors.
I agree.
Many times “meatgazer, turd, felcher and maggot” can be terms of affection or endearment.
C. Long obviously does not get the Infantry.
‘Let him come, I have ammo’ is usually a response to some asshat making a threat to one of us. For example: In response to the ISIS threat to send someone to my house and kill me, I have posted many times words to the effect ‘Let them come, door is open, lights are on, I have ammo”.
I have to stop now, this civilian filter can only take so much shit at one time. It is starting to back up a bit and my brain hurts.
Just to be clear I wasn’t insulting your wife, I was paraphrasing another post here in response to a valor their and his wife.
I was in the military too, I understand the power and simple necessity of cracking on your buddies to build camaraderie. I just see a difference in off color jests and simple hate speech. You just got off my wife? Haha, you got me. Making fun of my sexual orientation or physical features? Not cool if for no other reason then it’s just lazy, making fun of something that is inherent to an individual.
Re ammo comment: I understand that Dave, and so does every other person here probably. Where the distinction is lost though is on third parties whose job it is to apply the law(or other decision making paths) to what is typed.
Like I said multiple times, that’s not how I want or like things, it’s just how it is.
I will give you that, this is how it ‘is’ sometimes. A Judge is an Attorney with an opinion an the authority to enforce that opinion.
I have a right to offend you, as you do me. There would be not need for the First Amendment if speech was offensive.
“was NOT offensive”
Sometimes they aren’t even attorneys. That’s when the real interesting judgments and case law starts coming down.
That is very true. I was completely unaware of that until a few years ago.
Judges do not always have to be Attorneys.
Yea, I think they try to keep them doing menial tasks like traffic court but then one could argue that no legal decision is menial. What’s even worse in my opinion are judges who are elected to the bench. I’m also not a fan of life tenure.
What I see is someone exhibiting the Lars syndrome, changing the subject of a thread and misunderstanding, perhaps intentionally, the difference between epithetical speech (let them come, I have ammo) and the actual hate speech generated toward specific people by the individual who brought this litigation in the first place. His efforts to intimidate people failed here and elsewhere, so his last resort was the courts.
I think it’s peculiar that this is the second instance in a short time that someone has attempted to change a thread subject and also failed to persuade anyone that he’s right, and then — oops! ‘Oh, I WAS military’.
I’ve been a civilian for 41 years. I heard worse than this post-war zone stuff in the 1970s. There’s nothing unusual about it.
As a result, C.Long, I do have difficulty believing that you were in the military for any length of time, if at all. If you were, you heard it then. If you claim you did not, I don’t believe you.
I’ve been posting here for weeks before this thread, maybe months. So the if the implication is that I just appeared to be contrary here then you are off base. Judging from what little of your comments I’ve read before, it’s your comfort zone.
I fail to see how I changed the topic of the thread. My original assumption was that the judge had a tough call to make and they did. Everything beyond that is simple discussion, if you(or anyone) wants to be defensive right out of the gate, not much I can do about that.
Furthermore, I understand the difference between just words and actual threats, the law, when interpreted, often does not. I have never once said I considered anything here aimed towards that Paul or his wife to be a genuine threat, I simply said that there have been comments that if said to ME and to my FACE, I would consider a threat. Thus, I can see how a judge could make that call.
“He doesn’t agree with me, he must be a phony.” If that is what you are saying then I counter with I don’t believe you ever served as well because I refuse to believe any branch of the military can produce someone who would take such a shaky position so quickly. /sarcasm
And, now, a word from our spiritual leader, Saint Rodney…
Those of us that have been in understand this. Jacked up uniform and all. Nice to see something besides low life’s and posers.
http://youtu.be/uoABty_zE00
Sarge needs to get the razor a little closer to his face, and square that uniform away.
I like the Elvis collar. “Thank you very much.” And that makes me think of Al Sharpton “And thatmulch we must…” The mind is a terrible thing. Well, mine is, anyway. I’m going to report myself. I’ve really had it with me. We need an EJECT button too.
Kind of shaking my head at the judge’s thought process, but hey whatever helps you guys out.
There are plenty of other topics to discuss. BOOCOO PLENTY!
Did I ever mention that I married a stripper? She is concerned that I don’t get enough cardio so she deliberately goes out of her way to piss me off twice a week, I figure that gets me about an hour of cardio in.
I have also tried to convince her that I am a war hero but, she doesn’t seem to give a shit. She often refers to me as her ‘sweet nothing’. I am starting to think only a bastard like me could love a bitch like her.
Feel free to comment as much as you would like to about her, if she get a case of the red ass I will ask her to show me where the internet touched her.
This policy applies to my wife only of course.
From Both of us:
Semper Fi
and
Semper Vicious
Can I report myself?
I liked the button better blue, and what happens when the threads get so narrow you cant read the thing anymore?
Do I get a monthly report on how many reports I get?
I assume the 5 reports limit is for any one single post. If I have 5 separate posts do I get credit for volume?
Why is Lars being discriminated against?
Lets get the code monkey hippie chick to show the number of reports made on each post. Or, maybe a color code system, just to show who is most offensive.
Can I get a button of my own, thinking about it and this generic report comment button doesnt make me feel very special.
Dont think a color code system is required to ascertain offensiveness. It is self evident.
How about just an annoying button, damn it I want to win something around here.
i hear that you can get bonus points if you report Lars.
But, if Lars is married then he is a spouse of somebody. If we cant comment on spouses then you just got reported. Only comment about single people with no spouse.
Finger moves ever so slowly to the left clicky button as it hovers over “report comment”……..
But no! Not Hardin this time…SPARKS!!! Why? Just because… Like in Christmas Story, SPARKS (Schwartz), get’s the hammer of pain right out of the blue for no reason at all.
Alright, I am with you, SPARKS is a bad influence on me anyway. I used to completely normal. Can we vote more than once?
You were a Marine, Dave. You were never “normal”. (smile)
Guilty a charged, the only thing normal in my life is that cycle on my washing machine.
Iam I the only one that when reading Dave’s comments my brain fills in his last name as “Hardon”…
anyone…
anyone…
Bueller?
Bueller?
😀
Stop assaulting me. It not my fault my name brings on ridicule. I just want to be treated “normal”. I am not a ‘fag'(well maybe that once)and my mother does have a funny (in and odd way) lip but please dont bring that up.
Dave,
I know where you can get a copy of a RO request already filled out. You can just copy off it.
😀 😀 😀
I was going to report all of you but the button seems to have disappeared just when I need it.
Jonn is out to ruin my reputation by not letting me click on the damn thing.
I AM OUTRAGED !!!!
Ok, I have decided if we are going to start using buttons around here we need one of these:
http://www.funtimegifts.co.uk/media/STOCKIMG/00068A4C.JPG
Nice button, should have one in every court room.
The report comment button is too close to the reply button. I did not mean to report JimW.
All I was going to say is, there already is such a thing in every courtroom. It’s called a “gavel.”
I’ve got one of those in my office. I’ve had to put in new batteries numerous times due to heavy use.
Hey! Great button. Need to get one to put next to my brother’s door so I can do a “welly” boot alert for the neighborhood. 😉
Help…will I help…I’ll Try
I ate a striper once. Damn good stuff.
I knew I could depend on you. Semper Fi !
Of course I will comply with Mr. Mason’s request. I doubt that I have any comments on any of the threads in issue. I have, however, noticed from time to time that there is somebody else that has posted with my name. I do not know how that happened. The posts I read were not offensive.
Jonn and or TSO, I have no problem with complying with your requests. Did the “honorary judge” even take into consideration Pasul’s threats? Did the judge order the wickreman not to contact TA? If not then why not? Does one have to have a law degree to be a judge in PROMn ? Joe
I can’t stand all this nice language here. We just can’t say jack about the other half. Psul is still a stolen valor thief, and sucks! The truth never felt so good! So we can still comment on the other turds that have reared there ugly heads and presented themselves as false veterans and heroes! SCOTUS said to write the truth and let the stolen valor thieves be exposed for who they are, turds… We can still shame these liars! Just have to be polite about how we call someone a dick.
Just testing out the new boundaries here….don’t push the button!
I did notice, that at least on my phone, the “button” is a nice Cobalt Blue, one of the colors of the US Army Chemical Corps.
I feel special…
(that is until Jonn moderates and removes this comment for being offensive to non-NBC types) 😉
Technology has out-paced the legal system. That doesn’t stop over-reaching and ignorant judges from attempting to control things.
To break it down, with some common sense forums are like fences that are allowed to get “tagged” by the property owner. If its a fence a few miles long there is liable to be something on there that 1. Is offensive to someone who walks by and 2. Is hidden among hundreds of other tags so the property owner may not see it.
What the clown that sat on the bench did was basically tell the property owner if someone spraypaints something on your wall that hurts this one particular snowflakes feelings you had better paint over it, or else.
Did the judge look anything like this:
http://images.taboola.com/taboola/image/fetch/f_jpg,q_80,c_fill,g_face,e_sharpen/http%3A%2F%2Fbcdownload.gannett.edgesuite.net%2Fmilitarytimes%2F44862801001%2F201412%2F3174%2F44862801001_3967056336001_video-still-for-video-3967071706001.jpg%3FpubId%3D44862801001
That’s just sick! I almost pushed the Redbutton!
That’s just plain wrong. I demand an ARCOM and I was a Marine!
I’d hit it, but never admit it. ARCOM, baby!
http://static.wixstatic.com/media/b0bc8d_67d329c2cafe4bb2b0f24f37f7fca4dd.jpg?dn=Id_Hit_it.jpg
So, spouses are off limits. I can deal with that. She didn’t realize that Crazy Train runs through Bethesda when they got married. Did the Judge say anything about commenting on a fictitious former president of federal contracting company?
Spousal units seem to be included. Significant others may not be. Life partners may not be protected either. Business partners? Who knows.
It also doesn’t seem to matter that it was the spouse who used the spousal unit as an attempt to intimidate others. Seems like since he was the one who brought her into the discussion that he is the one who should be the subject of censure (sp?) by the judge.
I can understand “spouses ore off limits” but, Psul W. brought this on himself. He came to this blog spouting his Viking nonsense under the explicit expectation that he would be paid $40,000 per month for his efforts. (At least that was his sworn statement to the court.) His failure to anticipate cause and effect should not trump the Constitutional Rights of Jonn, TSO, or any other American citizen. Further, she who shall not be named is/was an employee of the US Government and we pay/paid her salary. I was unaware of that perk… to not be spoken about by the people that pay your wages.
My impression is that her name would probably never have been mentioned if not for the fact of Psul W. calling Mrs. TAH on the phone and harassing her. An effort he thought he was getting paid for by Commander Phildo Monkress at All Points Logistics.
If it is true that Psul W. has a code monkey deleting all the “meta data” in regards to his name, why doesn’t he simply have said code monkey effect the same results for his wife? Why the drama of rape allegations etc.? (rhetorical question)
Don’t forget the use of .gov e-mails in the from and cc lines as a method of intimidation. No one would have known who the delicate flower was if it weren’t for those.
Good point, I did forget about that!
Wouldn’t it be a hoot to discover that person A and person B were not legitimately joined in union C?
Oh hell, this is going to be harder than I thought.
At least she is smart enough not to use his name in her career. Now you know what distant relatives of Hitler had to deal with.
And, in case you ever wondered;
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080125150824AAaF6vn
I think the “report comment” text on the button should be replaced with “That’s not what right looks like”.
Dammit. I did it again. I went to reply to Hack and I, instead, reported his comment. Jebeebus! Sorry, Hack. But I got thanked for my mistake and was assured that they will be looking into it. Jeez.
Well, Air Cav, two can play at that game. Unless we are talking Scrabble, which is up to four players, ages 6 and up. Scrabble is a great way to expand your vocabulary and learn proper spelling. Perfect for someone with plenty of time on their hands, such as someone who has been unemployed for two years.
I was unemployed once. It was the week between my ETS and my first post-service job. I’m not sure, but I don’t believe spandex had been invented yet, so I spent the week looking for work by day and chasing girls and drinking beer by night.
A lot of people turn their passion into a career. Can you make a career out of drinking beer and chasing girls? If you are fully committed, you could always bring your work home with you.
Here, Here.
Well-stated.
Being sober is also helpful, along with the ability to spell. Generally, though, if one can remain sober and know what the squiggly red line under a word means, one cane acquire some level of employment. Oh, and having never been incarcerated also seems to help in the employment realm. I’m not sure how it affects Scrabble abilities.
So dats wat doos linz iz. Hmmmmmmm
Okay, most of youse guys are Veterans or are in service presently. Some of you are hardasses, Vets or not. Candy asses don’t last long here and bullshitters are quickly detected, get whacked repeatedly, and either withdraw or, if really, really stupid, persist until they, too, retire from the field. All this is to say that daisies ain’t us. If something stinks, we are not inclined to pretend we don’t smell it or delicately cover our nostrils with an embroidered handkerchief. We say, “Cripes. That stinks!” Don’t stop that. Don’t stop calling a spade a spade. If someone is an asshole, he’s an asshole. Dancing around and adopting some PC bullshit is not the order of the day, as I understand it. Call a spade a spade but, at the same time, just be aware of the present situation for the sake of those who make this place possible. And fuck you know who but not his you know what.
2/17AirCav, there is a distinct difference between calling you a dick and saying your spousal unit is an object of use of same.
Frankly, I have no interest in anyone’s spousal unit. However I do have an interest in responding to abrasive approaches that include the use of acetylene-generated flames and other odd pieces of welding equipment. I think I am quite within my rights to object to being addressed or spoken about in that manner.
In reading that letter, I see nothing that says anyone who comments here cannot continue to do so, so long as the spousal unit of the party from the other side of this legal battle is not discussed or addressed.
On the other hand, there are some people who don’t understand why they can’t scare the living daylights out of you merely by pounding a keyboard in anger.
Damn ya’ll are slackin’!
Can I get in the receiving line for handing out warm cups of soup and hearty handshakes? I wonder now if my birthday gift was a little too presumptuous and gaudy, I really did think that a bright yellow mailbox door would add just the right pizzaz to a struggling company. I do hope it was received in the spirit of warm handshakes that it was sent in. edit no wives were harmed in the making of this comment.
In 1982 I could report a pigskin a quarter mile. How much you wanna bet I can report over them mountains?
No HTML? I wanted to embed Uncle Rico.
I’m with the donation button thingy.
I will be giving at my first opportunity and more as the God’s of finance allow.
I also will abide by TAH’s rules set up by the judge, simply because I will not allow my own behavior to cause any kind of harm to people I respect as much as I do Jonn and the rest of the crew that operates this crazy place.
I do agree that it is really an unlawful order restricting our freedom of speech, but, with the nation still trying to figure out how this new and seemingly miraculous method of communication is to be interpreted through the law.
I can imagine that we are actually embarking on further new legal ground.
This promises to be a very interesting and far reaching fight.
With that in mind it does no good to make the lives of anyone here even more miserable and expensive than they already are.
A sincere thank you and salute to the leaders of this den of crazy mofo’s and the people that see to it we have all kinds of other idiots to harass…
Either way, I will keep a lid on that too so it doesn’t get drawn into this struggle with the powers that wish all the rest of us harm.
“A fast ship, going In Harm’s Way…”
“Keep up the fire.”
What is the potentiality of the claimants and their friends in this case from abusing the judges ruling and spamming TAH specifically to get Jonn and Mark into trouble?
The report button is all well and good, but I can see how that would quickly get out of hand.
Just my two bits, but the only thing I can see to possibly prevent this scenario would be to either A) not allow commenting period (which would be unfortunate), or B) require commentors to be registered with TAH.
There’s always Twitter and Facebook. Apparently big organizations such as these don’t have to play by the same rules as the little guys.
I thought this was America?
Looks like some animals are more special than others.
I hope you guys realize some law clerk is going to be wandering up and down the halls of justice, reading these comments. If the clerk’s male, it’s going to be aloud.
Meanwhile, the judge has a little bit of my sympathy.
You might want to remember that the judge is not yet really up to speed on what has been happening here. There’s claim and counterclaim, and some very emotional person representing himself in court. Under these circumstances, judges feel a duty to make really, really sure there’s actually no case at all, before they dismiss the whole thing.
You all know the sequence of events, but the judge does not, just yet. She’s being careful.
Another objective is to calm things down, and see if something coherent surfaces. This is not a bad thing. If you think in terms of something like the hypocratic oath (first, do no harm), it is easier to see the judge’s present objectives.
In almost two years, nothing coherent ever emanated from the mouth or keyboard of the Luckiest Sperm On Earth. “Raw meth on the curb”? What the hell does that mean?
Also, did the judge rule a mutual cease fire for all parties, or does the $10,000 bounty. with a $5000 bonus for an evening capture (must be some Union requirement) for my capture, torture and murder still stand?
Maybe if everyone that he has threatened with death and/or bodily harm were to file a separate order for protection, he can spend the next several years going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction defending his comments.
I was thinking the same thing. Just call in everyone who was incorrectly identified by the DRC as a poster here. That alone should take a few years to get through.