Levine's First Rule of Law: "It is inherently illegitimate for courts to use subjective artistic interpretations in order to decide substantive issues of law."
I have previously expounded on the mess that is created when lawyers and judges ignore Levine's First Rule of Law.
More examples here.
The ensuing debate over this issue is sad.
After all,
this isn't a reasonable debate over how to interpret the text of a law. Rather, it is an debate over how to personally interpret the underlying meanings of creative works, and then deciding if such works should be deemed "unlawful" based on one's own subjective artistic interpretations.
Mr. Coleman is right about one thing - Schwimmer's interpretation of the "Pretty Woman" case would indeed craft an exception which swallows the rule. Coleman's only problem is that he seems to imply that this would be a bad thing. After all, this otherwise intelligent lawyer seems to endorse (or at least tolerate) the ridiculous lawsuit against the "Dick and Jane" parody (or is it the Dick and Jane "satire"???).
The "Dick and Jane" lawsuit may be legally valid - but that's the problem.
Levine's First Rule of Law....Read it. Know it. Live it.
As others point out, better late than never to join the conversation.
Kudos to John Fund for also giving credit where credit is due (even though he somewhat pulls his punches by suggesting that certain solutions aren't "desirable" without spelling out what alternatives might be).
There are of course many voices driving the debate, but its good when high profile personalities step up to the plate and help to organize potential strategies.
Some will continue to deny recognizing the forces that are helping to drive this debate as well as disagreeing about the potential solutions - that is why the GOP might get itself into trouble if they don't wake up to the realities of the situation.
Au contraire Mr. Olson. Mine is not a "pessimistic" view as you put it. Rather, it is a realistic view. ;-)
Exhibit 1 for the coming legal superstorm against bloggers - trademarks & trade secrets. (Look for more exhibits in the future when time allows me to point them out.)
I also must take respectful issue with my good friend the SoCalLawyer who takes a (I'm sorry to say) naively optmistic view of the future.
There will be
some lawyers stepping up to defend a few instances of threatened litigation to be sure (as I stated in my original post, there will be a few "David vs. Goliath" cases that get attention), but there will be no broad systematic defense that will prevent a deep chill over blogging speech.
First off, as some commenters point out, the mere offering of free legal services will not stem all the costs associated with litigation (and it certainly will not stem the stress).
But even more significantly, such lawyers will not offer an across the board defense of blogging as SoCalLawyer seems to imply. They will cherry-pick who they want to defend (or attack) - not based on the outrage of frivolous litigation mind you, but based on their political alliances.
Conservative lawyers might come to the defense of some high profile conservative bloggers. Liberal lawyers might do the same to their blogging counterparts. But there will unlikely be an broad alliance of lawyers willing to tackle the bigger picture - the needed overhaul of the entire intellectual property establishment.
Indeed, many people both within and outside of the blogging world have seen fit to use such litigious weapons against their ideological enemies while ignoring equally frivolous threats against the other side of the political isle.
Liberals like the current intellectual property status quo because it helps them hang on to the last gasps of their monopoly over the means of information production (i.e., motion pictures and mainstream media publications).
Conservatives like the current intellectual property status quo because they (incorrectly) think that "intellectual property" should be equated to "real property" and they have traditionally been defenders of rights relating to real property. Plus, intellectual property also enhances the creation of corporate wealth (which admittedly is not always a bad thing, but conservatives don't consider the other costs involved in this particular instance).
The result will be a piecemeal defense posture at best - wholly inadequate to combat the much broader legal superstorm which will surely chill speech.
Ted Kennedy's Iraq policy. (h/t)
Background for the inquiring …
The cartoon linked above was born of a speech Kennedy gave three days before the crucial Iraqi elections. Specifically, he advocated:
At least 12,000 American troops and probably more should leave at once ...
America’s goal should be to complete our military withdrawal as early as possible in 2006.
When America's mainstream media scrambles to find something, anything negative to say about the Iraqi elections, remember the words of two Iraqis (h/t) who are are living a part of the historic victory that the media seems so desperate to deny ...
The people have won.
[...]
We had all kinds of feelings in our minds while we were on our way to the ballot box except one feeling that never came to us, that was fear.
We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center.
I couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that.
From the early hours of the morning, People filled the street to the voting center in my neighborhood; youths, elders, women and men. Women's turn out was higher by the way. And by 11 am the boxes where I live were almost full!
Anyone watching that scene cannot but have tears of happiness, hope, pride and triumph.
[...]
I saw an old woman that I thought would get startled by the loud sound of a close explosion but she didn't seem to care, instead she was busy verifying her voting station's location as she found out that her name wasn't listed in this center.
How can I describe it!? Take my eyes and look through them my friends, you have supported the day of Iraq's freedom and today, Iraqis have proven that they're not going to disappoint their country or their friends.
Is there a bigger victory than this? I believe not.
[...]
Could any bravery match the Iraqis'!?
Let the remaining tyrants of the world learn the lesson from this day.
The media is reporting only explosions and suicide attacks that killed and injured many Iraqis s far but this hasn't stopped the Iraqis from marching towards their voting stations with more determination. Iraqis have truly raced the sun.
I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.
I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn".
Yes brothers, proceed and fill the box!
These are stories that will be written on the brightest pages of history.
It was hard for us to leave the center but we were happy because we were sure that we will stand here in front of the box again and again and again.
Today, there's no voice louder than that of freedom.
No more confusion about what the people want, they have said their word and they said it loud and the world has got to respct and support the people's will.
God bless your brave steps sons of Iraq and God bless the defenders of freedom.
Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq.
Mohammed and Omar.
________
UPDATE:
Powerline has a great Iraqi Blog Roundup, from which I've gleaned the following gems:
Greetings Friends,
I bow in respect and awe to the men and women of our people who, armed only with faith and hope are going to the polls under the very real threats of being blown to pieces. These are the real braves; not the miserable creatures of hate who are attacking one of the noblest things that has ever happened to us. Have you ever seen anything like this? I am just filled with pride and moved beyond words. People are turning up not only under the present threat to polling stations but also under future threats to themselves and their families; yet they are coming, and keep coming. Behold the Iraqi people; now you know their true metal.
[…]
My condolences to the Great American people for the tragic recent losses of soldiers. The blood of Iraqis and Americans is being shed on the soil of Mesopotamia; a baptism with blood. A baptism of a lasting friendship and alliance, for many years to come, through thick and thin, we shall never forget the brave soldiers fallen while defending our freedom and future.
This is a very hurried message, while we are witnessing something quite extraordinary. I myself have voted and so did members of my family. Thank God for giving us the chance.
Salaam for now
And finally this from Ali, the Free Iraqi:
Last night I couldn't sleep well. I was so excited and I wanted to be at the voting center before it even opens its door. […] This was my way to stand against those who humiliated me, my family and my friends. It was my way of saying," You're history and you don't scare me anymore". It was my way to scream in the face of all tyrants, not just Saddam and his Ba'athists and tell them, "I don't want to be your, or anyone's slave. You have kept me in your jail all my life but you never owned my soul". It was my way of finally facing my fears and finding my courage and my humanity again.
[…]
As I left one of the gurads said to me as he handed me back my cellular phone,"God bless you and your beloved ones. We don't know how to thank you. Please excuse any inconvinience on our part. We wish we didn't have to search you or limit your freedom. You are heroes" I was struck with surprise and felt ashamed. This man was risking his life all these hours in what has become the utmost target for all terrorists in Iraq and yet he's apologizing and calling us heroes. I thanked him back and told him that he and his comrads are the true heroes and that we can never be grateful enough for their services.
If you've been listening at all to the likes of such pathetic Senators as Boxer, Kennedy, or Byrd, bad quotes of the month have been a dime a dozen. January's good quote of the month comes from one of America's many heroes serving in Iraq:
I am tired of hearing the crap, the whole, well, "We are barely hanging on, we're losing, the insurgency is growing." All that. We are doing fine. It's just a small, a small amount of people out there causing the problems. I mean, it is a small number, and we’re killing them. —Marine Sgt Kevin Lewis (h/t)
In November, I had what turned out to a life-changing experience. It was one of those events that I thought would be interesting and, in addition, it changed the way I think about things. I spent 5 days in Wisconsin as a roving attorney watching the polls and assisting the Republican pollwatchers. Since my return, I have promised various people all the details but have not been able to get them down on paper. Recounting the facts of the days there doesn't begin to do justice to what I learned.
We have heard the platitudes. Democracy matters. Individual votes count. 2000 showed us how close it can be.
Much of the trip was as I expected. I arrived early and got preliminary training in Wisconsin election law. By the time I was done I had accumulated a couple hundred pages of manuals, statutes and cases, all of which I read and basically learned and only a fraction of which was helpful. In between studying, we helped the local Republican headquarters get out the vote. Wisconsin had been heavily campaigned by both parties and by the weekend before the election, no one wanted to see any more doorknockers or talk to any more telephoners. I was worried. No one in the neighborhoods seemed to care and the preparation I was doing seemed so focussed on minutiae.
Much of election day was spent arguing with our attorney counterparts from the Democratic party. They, too, had manuals and statutes and cases, much of which was the same but there were parts that differed when our interpretation of statutes differed. We also discovered midmorning that there was a significant difference in opinion on the applicability of federal Help America Vote statutes to elections governed by state law. That was a difference that, while intellectually interesting and essentially important, could not be resolved on the ground standing around a polling place. The disputes led to angry words, frayed nerves and a lot of paperwork.
Here's the life-changing part: The disputes did not stop people from voting. Nothing stopped people from voting. What was most amazing about this election is how important the average American thinks it is to vote. They may have been tired of the electioneering. they may have been sick of polls, campaign speeches and talking heads but the election mattered.
Lines began forming a half hour before the polls opened. They were a block long in most of the polling places when the doors opened. Wisconsin has same day registration. You can walk into the polls with certain identification and register and vote the same day. The parties and the non-partisan pollwatchers argued endlessly about what was good enough identification. In the polls I watched, the voters just wanted to vote. Faced with a problem, many -- more than I ever would have guessed -- just went back to their car, went home, and came back in an hour or more or less with proper identification, sometimes rummaging through who knows how much paper to find a lease that showed they had moved into the precinct.
Two Latina women, apparently voting for the first time, ran into a glitch where their address did not appear on any polling roster. One was pregnant and the other ill. They spent three hours going from polling place to polling place. Unaware that their circumstances would have justified moving to the head of the line, they stood on line for 30-60 minutes at each place. Finally, someone (in the wrong polling place) determined the right polling place and gave me the telephone number of the "official" who could authorize it if these women did not appear on those rolls. I drove behind them, escorted them through a crowd -- every polling place had a crowd -- and delivered them into the hands of the Republican attorney staffing that polling place. He could explain the situation to the election officials. When I checked back later, they had voted. Democratic pollwatchers, apparently unaware I was the "enemy," were exuberant.
Polls closed at 8. If you were in line at 8, you got to vote. At 8:30 pm, I was back at headquarters calling all the stationary attorneys to make sure all was closing down smoothly. Someone came and sat down across from me, a desperate look on his face. I hung up. A precinct about 10 miles south had a huge line and watchers that had to leave. Off we went.
I checked in at the precinct. They had shut the doors at 8 and the line wrapped around as if there was a Disneyland ride at the end. A good ride too. This was no "It's a Small World". I grabbed a chair. It took 3 hours. People stood in line for three hours, standing, waiting, never complaining, determined to get their vote in, even if the close of polls meant that somewhere, outside our doors, someone was already declaring winners.
That determination of the individual voter dented my consciousness. Those people who are tired of the doorknockers, who don't sit around writing blog entries or even letters to the editor, who think the blowhards on TV are just that, are willing to stand on line for hours and jump through extra hoops to make sure they can vote.
I saw that commitment to democracy again in the Ukraine a month later. Yes, there were lawsuits and pressure from world leaders. What I saw that convinced me that a fair vote would happen were the people standing in the square night after night, in the bitter Ukraine cold, making it clear that they would not be denied their vote.
I stayed up late last night watching the beginning of the Iraqi election. At first, turnout was low. One polling place had no one in the first hour. Then they started to come, until the polling places all had lines. I saw people arrive despite physical infirmaties. I saw voters exit jubilant. I heard one man in good but not perfect English tell a reporter that he didn't care if al-Zarqawi threatened to behead his family. It was worth it.
I think he is right. Democracy is worth it. Bush may sound like he has lost touch with reality when he says that freedom is what it's all about but I have gone around the bend with him. I think the vote can't be overhyped. Voting is what it's about. Voting is how the individual becomes part of the democratic whole. It's more than a tool, it's a goal. Every time a society has a free and fair election we are doing good. Bring on the platitudes.
Patterico can hope all he wants, but the sobering words he quotes will likely be proven correct in the coming years as blogging influence grows. The amount of litigation aimed at blogging will be in direct proportion to its overall impact in society.
It won't just be libel suits (though that will certainly be a strong weapon in the anti-blogging arsenal), it will also be the recent convergence of copyright, trademark, "publicity" rights, and trade secret claims that have converged in recent years to make free speech an ephemeral notion.
Even the technology of linking that blogs thrive on will be assaulted by the legal establishment - as it has assaulted everything in the past that challenges the supremacy of the status quo.
I also regret to say that
some of Patterico's commenters to his post are being a bit naive. Civil suits are powerful weapons against people with little resources. Lawsuits regarding libel, intellectual property and related claims are not about being financially compensated (well, not usually anyway) - they are about shutting down another's speech. It is a censorship tool to bully the competition with. Many (even most) bloggers will back down in the face of a lawsuit they likely know to be frivolous since they don't have neither the time or resources to fight in the first place.
Even if actual opinions aren't stifled, these laws will clearly retard any maturation of the blogosphere - slowing the growth (or even preventing) the development of video blogging or technology that allows easy multi-media attachments to blog posts. Such improvements would greatly enhance the blogoshpere and public debate (Can you imagine linking to the actual Dan Rather "memogate" broadcasts to be able to dissect them without having to rely on CBS to provide the video for you?). But it will not be possible in the face of an avalanche of copyright, trademark, and publicity rights lawsuits.
While its true that California has an anti-SLAPP law that helps protect its citizens, and that law has been applied in federal diversity cases, it is still unclear just how far the protections will be applied in the jurisdictional realm of cyberspace.
But regardless of how broad the anti-SLAPP protections might be, Raphil's faith in such protections comes from his perspective as a lawyer. SLAPP motions often grant attorneys lawyer fees from the other side, so they play up the fact that disputes can be won with such motions. But its not the ultimate outcomes of these lawsuits that worry most bloggers - it is the fact that they will be dragged into the legal process to begin with. Most lawyers do not appreciate the daily stress that most people go through simply in having to answer a complaint. Most bloggers won't want to deal with the potential years of appeals that it might take merely to be compensated for the time wasted being deposed and showing up in court.
That is why coportations or entities with vast resources aren't fearful of filing claims that might ultimately be dismissed by anti-SLAPP motions. They can afford it - and the risk investment is quite paltry compared to the chances of getting a defendent to back down before he even considers filing such a motion. Again, it isn't the ultimate outcomes of potential cases that will work against bloggers - it is the legal process itself.
There will no doubt be a few success stories here and there of "the little guy standing up for his free speech rights in the face of pressure" from legal Goliaths. But what will go unreported is how many others will silently take down blog posts, or hesitate in hitting that "publish" button out of growing fear of the legal community.
That coming legal superstorm against blogging is inevitable. And because bloggers rightly fear it, free speech will be chilled in the blogosphere as it has already in so many other realms due to the legal shock-troops of our age.
Addendum: After posting this, I realized I forgot to include what is sure to be one of the biggest weapons in the legal arsenal of the superstorm - the all encompasing catch-all "right of privacy". Let's say you blog about an interesting conversation that you had with someone who assumed that the contents of which would be private...Do you see where I am going with this??
Some desperate/creative laywers are sure to argue that the posting of a transcript of a private conversation on to a public blog is the functional equivalent of tape recording a conversation.
Surely even now I am leaving out many tools that this coming assault will use ("unfair business practices" anyone?).
As all successful lawyers know - you don't look to the law to determine orderly and uniform results. Instead, you determine the desired results first, then creatively pick whatever broad flexible laws are needed as a tool to acheive such results in the specific instances where you desire them.
You split hairs about the facts. You distinguish cases. And viola! What was though of to be free speech in one sector of the world suddenly becomes "an outrageous intrusion into one's personal privacy" in the bloggging world....
I'm assuming that Ken Reich is joking when he says, "(William) Safire...has to be regarded as one of the country's most successful columnists, almost as successful as the (LA Times') Steve Lopez."
But since Internet writing doesn't allow for elements such as voice cadence or body language, its hard to tell if he is being serious in regards to the second part of that statement.
You be the judge...
First, Carolyn Condit unsuccessfully tried to sue for defamation in New Mexico (see the Aug. 3, 2004 entry in the previous link).
Now, the "Dazed and Confused" plaintiffs in another libel suit are being accused of forum shopping in New Mexico which has a much longer statute of limitations for libel than the most other venues.
Perhaps its time for New Mexico to rethink its law in this regard? It might free up their courts to serve the people of New Mexico rather than everyone else in the nation looking to make a buck through the legal lottery.
Last year, I was invited to guestpost here at Calblog. Justene had seen some of my writing and was impressed enough to allow me to join a small handful of people on her site, and for that I was not only honored, but thrilled that I would be able to hone my skills as a blogger for the first time. I finally was able to step out of the reader's circle and join the blog writer's community. But I never told Justene that I am actually a registered Democrat, and she never asked. I get the feeling, and I certainly hope, that it was less important to her than what I had to say, which is true for myself as well.
However, party affiliation is not as important to me as how a particular issue affects me and what I feel should be the reaction to it. A case in point is our recent gubernatorial election in which I crossed party lines for the first time and voted for McClintock. I felt he was the candidate most suited to pull California out of her economic tailspin. I am happy to say that I don't feel that Schwarzenegger is doing such a bad job, either.
I don't understand people who vote the party line on any and all issues. In my heart of hearts I will probably always be a Democrat, but the self-employed side of me has very well defined right-wing leanings. As I told one friend who chastised me for this, saying, "I suppose you have your reasons," well, eating and keeping a roof over my head are pretty compelling reasons.
I have many Republican friends. I have many Democrat and Green Party friends. They are my friends because I can have reasonable discussions about the issues with them. And I am proud to count Justene among them. We can agree to disagree, and remain friends. We can agree on many points and if I happen to see a particular issue from a Republican's point of view my more liberal friends don't flog me for it, and vise-versa. I refuse to argue a point with someone whose sole underlying motivation stems from blind hatred of the Bush Administration and all things Republican. The same holds true of any Republican who sees fit to respond in kind towards Democrats.
Our local news station ran an excerpt from the David Letterman show this morning which was a string of outtakes of President Bush in various moments of stumbling, the whole designed to portray him as a graceless oaf. It occurred to me that I do not recall anyone doing the same of Clinton on the night of his inauguration, although I am sure that in his first four years there were plenty of times in which he had stumbled, flubbed his words, and bumped his head while the cameras were rolling.
Aside from the fact that I am having a hard time discerning how this was newsworthy, more to the point, I am embarrassed to admit that I am a member of the political party that seems to find the humor in this sort of inanity, the level of which would not become an elementary school child. And I am angered that my fellow party members do not seem to understand the irreparable harm that this kind of stupidity does to us all as Americans. If we seek to earn the respect of the rest of the world can we really expect that such childish antics will help?
I feel that my very first effort at blogging, a piece I wrote for Calblog, is more relevant than ever. And I think that Justene's site, for the most part, is a treasure trove of reasonable, passionate discourse on a wide variety of issues. You may not agree with everything you read here, (I don't), but I think that Justene and her guest bloggers provide a wealth of information and food for thought, especially if you are not a Republican. G-d forbid I should ever narrow my focus that I am not willing to try to understand the viewpoint of "the other side". After all, isn't open-mindedness the hallmark of the true liberal?
Michele recently assured us without reservation that the "Dumbest Statement of the Year Contest [is] Officially Over," citing a quote by Army Spc. Charles Graner's attorney in the opening arguments at Graner's courtmartial:
"Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?"
Barely over a week later, Slow Joe Biden has is giving Graner's attorney beat stiff competition. Speaking today during the US Senate Confirmation Hearings for Condoleezza Rice, Biden confided:
[Qaddafi's] the most candid guy I ever spoke with.
One less murderer is infesting the planet as of 12:01am PST. :-D
[Body of post later edited for content by author.]
[Author is in ultimate agreement with post's first comment.]
A statute was unveiled this week at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery for Johnny Ramone of the punk rock pioneers The Ramones.
At the unveiling, Nicolas Cage remarked, "The first step to being free is to not care what others think of you, Johnny Ramone was free. He had huge opinions, not all of which I agreed with, but he stuck to them honestly and he never wavered from them, he was a rock, he was a diamond."
What might have those "opinions" been that Cage disagreed with? Read for yourself.
I remember when rabid-leftist Ted Rall interviewed Johnny on KFI in 2000. I can still see Rall's jaw hitting the floor when Johnnie said (on the air no-less) that he could never support President Clinton because he raped Juanita Broaddrick. Poor Ted was shocked to find that his punk idol didn't subscribe to the correct orthodoxy that he assumed all punk rockers were supposed to inhabit.
Rest easy Johnny.
Gary Condit is really parsing his words in his deposition.
Condit, for his part, denied having a "romantic" relationship with Levy.
"When you say you were friends, did it ever become more than just friendship?" Dunne's attorney, Paul LiCalsi, asked Condit.
"No," Condit replied.
Asked to explain further, Condit said he probably spoke with Levy once a week on the telephone, or possibly more.
"It wasn't a romantic relationship," Condit said, elaborating that by romantic he meant a relationship of "unusual affection."
For the follow-up deposition next month, Dunne's attorney shouldn't leave anything to chance. Let's forget using phrases such as "romantic relationship" or even "sex" in the questions posed to Condit.
He should flat-out ask the following:
"Did any part of Chandra Levy's body ever touch your genitals or buttocks?"
"Did you ever orgasm in the presence of Chandra Levy?"
"Since you were first married, who else has ever touched your genitialia besides your wife?"
It may sound silly, but Condit's obfuscations demand this approach. When Condit's attorney objects (as they are sure to do), please tell the court of Condit's obvious word-games as justification.
Detailed news & commentary of Condit v. Dunne can be found here.
See Dick write.
See Jane parody Dick's writing. (Or is it "satire")?
See Dick sue.
See Dicks in the courts encourage extortion by violating Levine's First Rule of Law.
Back in July of 2001, scandal-ridden Congressman Gary Condit became involved in an incident that received far less news coverage than its importance dictated since it had far ranging implications for freedom of speech in this country. Kansas-based artist Terry Aley had created an artistic collage commenting on Condit's connection to the uproar involving the Congressman's missing 24-year-old concubine Chandra Levy.
Aley put the work up for sale on the Internet auction site eBay, only to have the item removed from site by eBay officials.
The reason for the removal? Condit threatened to sue for violation of his "right of publicity" under California law.
The prospect of a lawsuit would have been intimidating enough to many people such that they would have simply backed down and forgotten about the incident. Fortunately, Mr. Aley had the fortitude to write Mr. Condit back claiming that he would consider filing his own lawsuit alleging that Condit was using the powers of his office to suppress an artist's Constitutional rights. Soon after Mr. Aley sent his letter, eBay officials informed him that Mr. Condit had withdrawn his complaint and that they had agreed to reinstate the listing for the painting on their website.
In a way, it is quite a pity that Mr. Aley didn't simply sue Condit outright, instead of merely threatening to do so. Lawsuits are certainly a hassle, and of course can be quite costly. By suing Condit however, Aley would have drawn some much needed attention to the Congressman's chicanery in attempting to stifle criticism. It also would have given courts the starkest reason yet to strike down a California statute that is in desperate need of being declared unconstitutional.
While he may have backed down in the instance of Mr. Aley's artistic commentary, Gary Condit, along with his wife Carolyn, have signaled a willingness to abuse the legal system by using it as tool to suppress legitimate criticism and inquiries into their affairs. As if that weren't bad enough, they now seem to be looking towards lawsuits as their primary means of income these days. Here is partial chronology of legal action instigated by the Condits since the Aley episode:
July 26, 2001 - The National Enquirer publishes an article on their website alleging that Mrs. Condit had a heated phone conversation with Levy, days before her disappearance. Several other newspapers report on the Enquirer article later that week, including USA Today, the New York Post, Washington Times, in addition to Australia's Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun publications.
August 7, 2001 - The Enquirer republishes the article in their traditional print publication with the headlines, "Cops: Condit's Wife Attacked Chandra. The furious phone call. What the wife is hiding."
February 22, 2002 - In the last remaining weeks of her husband's campaign which finds him trailing badly in the polls, Carolyn Condit sues the National Enquirer for $10 million over the article published almost seven months earlier. Mrs. Condit claims that she had never spoken to Levy, and that the article's headline falsely implied that she physically assaulted her. (The lawsuit also recounts the timeline of the publications from July and August 2001.)The Condits employed the firm of Johnson & Rishwain to file the lawsuit in federal court near Fresno, CA. But for good measure, they use their political connections to also employ Virginia law professor Rodney Smolla. (This is on top of Gary Condit having already felt the need to employ criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos of Scott Peterson/Wynona Ryder/Michael Jackson fame regarding his role in the Levy investigation.)
With Johnson & Rishwain having offices in California, there was certainly no reason to bring in an extra attorney from Virginia to take part in case filed in California. But Smolla's inclusion was surely intended as a subtle PR coup within legal circles that Condit could afford with his contacts and resources. Smolla is a known expert in Constitutional and Libel law and had previously written about how libel laws had been abused in the past to try and crush debate concerning the civil rights movement in a book he had written entitled "Suing the Press".
By having Smolla put his name on their lawsuit the Condits were already trying to convey the unspoken message that press inquiries into Carolyn Condit's conduct while her Congressman husband was at the center of a missing person's investigation should not be compared to any such "lofty" goals as a debate over civil rights. Smolla now lends his name to the notion that speculation and conjecture regarding Condit’s role in Levy's disappearance should be considered illegitimate and unfit for public discussion.
February 26, 2002 - Lawyers for Carolyn Condit issue a "Demand for Retraction" letter to NBC over an episode of Law & Order that aired earlier in the month. The episode in question contained a fictional story line featuring the disappearance of a 24-year-old aide to a state senator from her Manhattan apartment. The show's ending implies that the wife of another official was involved in her death.Condit's lawyers insist that the show is a thinly veiled reference to their client and threaten to sue the show unless a retraction and apology is aired at the start of the next episode. NBC and the show's producers reject the letter and no legal action is filed.
March 5, 2002 - Gary Condit loses his primary reelection bid to remain a U.S. Congressman.
July 10, 2002 - U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger issues a ruling that refuses to throw out the Enquirer lawsuit and allows it to go forward for trial. In the ruling, Wagner staggeringly rules that Carolyn Condit is not a public figure (despite clear evidence to the contrary), and further makes the baffling claim that the Enquirer is not to be considered a "newspaper" for the purposes of California law.The Washington Post wrote a lengthy profile of Carolyn Condit and her Public Relations / Damage Control role after news of the Levy affair broke. The paper concluded that she had become “a local ambassador for her husband”. Despite this overwhelming evidence, Wagner did not even see fit to label Carolyn Condit as a “limited purpose public figure”. (It is unclear exactly what evidence the Enquirer presented in its arguments, but it borders on the inconceivable that this ruling was the result of the Enquirer’s failure to present a proper case for such a relatively simple finding.)
Judge Wagner’s insult doesn’t stop with his shoddy analysis of who constitutes a “public figure” for purposes of libel law. In rejecting The Enquirer's claim that the lawsuit should be dismissed under a California libel-defense statute, Wagner further writes the jaw-dropping statement that, "The disappearance of Ms. Levy does not concern the performance of duties by Mr. Condit in his capacity as a public official. The criminal investigation of the disappearance of Ms. Levy is not necessarily a political or community issue in which public opinion and input is inherent and desirable…" (?!!)
August 19, 2002 - No doubt emboldened by Judge Wagner's ruling, Carolyn Condit sues the Star tabloid for $15-million, claiming that it knowingly published a false story reporting that she threatened to commit suicide over her husband's relationship with the murdered intern Chandra Levy.
December 16, 2002 - Gary Condit sues writer Dominick Dunne in federal court in New York for defamation over comments made nearly a year earlier suggesting that he may have been involved with Levy's abduction. The lawsuit is filed just 4 days before the New York statute of limitations expires and asks for $11 million in damages.
July 2003 - The Enquirer settles the Carolyn Condit suit out of court. The settlement also apparently applies to the Star lawsuit from August 2002.While the terms of the settlement are declared confidential, speculation in some quarters suggests that the Condits walked away with anywhere from thousands to millions of dollars. Carolyn Condit also receives a formal apology from the Enquirer as part of the settlement and the Condit's then move to Arizona.
Roughly two weeks after the Enquirer/Star settlement, Carolyn Condit files suit in New Mexico against USA Today, the Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun newspapers for reprinting the allegations from the original Enquirer article. Condit's attorney states that the complaints were filed in New Mexico because of its three-year statute of limitations concerning libel claims, whereas California's one-year statute of limitations has already expired. The lawsuits seek "unspecified" damages.
December 2003 – Taking a cue from his wife, Gary Condit now slaps the Enquirer, Star, and Globe tabloids with a flurry of defamation suits asking for a ridiculous $209 million.
April 2004 – Carolyn Condit voluntarily dismisses her July 2003 lawsuits against the Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun newspapers (both of which are based overseas).However, Gary Condit’s lawsuit against Dominick Dunne manages to survive a dismissal motion. In ruling on the motion though, the judge said it was possible Dunne could prevail later in the legal process - suggesting that Dunne was speaking on a matter of public controversy about a public official.
August 3, 2004 (approx.) – A federal judge dismisses Carolyn Condit’s lawsuit against USA Today, saying that New Mexico had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The judge tellingly writes that Carolyn Condit's interest in litigating in New Mexico "appears to be a belief that this forum may offer more generous statute of limitations. Indeed, it is possible that New Mexico may be the only jurisdiction in which Condit's suit is not time-barred." In dismissing the case, the judge further stated that the case's lack of connection with New Mexico was striking.
August 18, 2004 – Gary Condit settles with the Enquirer, Star, and Globe publications out of court. Details of the settlement remained confidential. Upon hearing the news, Dominick Dunne’s lawyer says, "I know Condit settled before he had to answer any questions under oath. I wonder about any connection between those two facts."
People have often wondered what a lifelong politician like Gary Condit would do for a living if he were ever thrown out of office.
Now we know.
Condit and his family are intent on suing every critic and investigative journalist into oblivion. Apart from the abuse of the legal system, the Condits' new found vocation also happens to pose serious problems for First Amendment and journalistic freedoms in this country.
Judge Wagner deserves his share of criticism for his ridiculous ruling in not tossing Condit's case in the first place. But apart from the Condit’s themselves, much of the blame must fall on the Enquirer for not appealing its ruling and then settling a frivolous case. In so doing, it has encouraged the Condits and potential future litigants to continue a campaign of using courts to silence news coverage that they don't like. Although the amounts still remain unclear, the first settlement may very well have provided them with seed money to expand their litigious campaign.
Just as in nature, feeding a shark in the legal world only causes it to engage in a greater feeding frenzy rather than satisfying it.
Make no mistake about it. These lawsuits have not been about the Condits' attempts to redress legitimate wrongs. These suits are about using the courts as leverage to coerce parties into softening their criticisms and investigations of a shameless political family that will contemplate any legal tactic in their attempts to restore power and income streams cut off by Gary Condit's election loss. Rather than embodying a quest for justice, these actions are merely another offshoot of Gary Condit’s self-obsessed narcissism.
The supposed purpose of libel suits is to receive compensation for damage to one's reputation in the community. Mrs. Condit's reputation may indeed be trashed, but its not because of anything the Enquirer or other publications may have published. Let's leave aside the fact that nobody seriously believes that Mrs. Condit was responsible for Levy's disappearance, regardless of any selective interpretation of a headline taken out of context. I don't know about you, but I would expect a wife to attack someone having an affair with her husband - verbally or otherwise. So a charge of “attacking” a husband’s concubine should hardly seem to be a charge that is damaging to one’s reputation. Perhaps I am a bit old-fashioned in that regard.
Mrs. Condit's reputation problems have stemmed from the fact that she seems so eager to defend a husband who has humiliated and used her for the purpose of projecting a certain campaign image. The reason that she has the PR problems she does is because she has freely chosen to be a part of her husband's cynical rehabilitation campaign. This campaign involves a multi-pronged effort to keep a lid on information that public has a right to know about concerning their elected officials. It is no accident that Mrs. Condit waited a full six months after the Enquirer's publication to file suit against it. The suit's timing corresponded to the last remaining weeks of a political campaign that found her husband trailing desperately in the polls. They knew that their only shot was to play the role of victims at the hands of an overzealous media. (The Condit’s had undoubtedly read the earlier poll information that showed Gary Condit with high unfavorable ratings - although the voters in his specific district were sharply divided on the question of if the media had acted responsibly or not.)
Regardless of Mrs. Condit's perceived reputation, she had almost no chance of winning her lawsuit if the Enquirer had been willing to mount a continued defense.
The fact of the matter is that most courts don't like libel suits. It's one thing to muse about abstract theories concerning the value of one's "reputation" in the community. But when you put such a grievance in concrete form on paper and present it to court asking for millions of dollars as compensation, many judges can't help but conjure up images of a playground tiff among kindergarteners. Judge Wagner might have been an exception in this instance, but it is extremely doubtful that an appellate court would have been as well - if only the Enquirer had showed some spine.
So what now?
Despite being the only remaining defendant in this charade, Dominick Dunne can play the hero’s role by taking steps to turn the tables on his accuser. In so doing, he would perform a public service not only by potentially shedding more light on the Condit/Levy mystery, but also by sending a strong message to future sue-happy individuals that abusing the legal system will come at a steep price. Hopefully, there is still enough time left in this case’s legal process to do so. Though I suspect Dunne and his attorneys are in no need of any free advice from outside quarters, there are a few strategies that I would try to impress upon them if so asked (and if they are bold enough):
First, be aggressive in collecting as much evidence as possible in your defense. Many lawyers mistakenly think that the first line of defense in a libel suit is proving that their client did not act "maliciously" in publishing allegations against a public figure, or "negligently" in the case of a non-public figure. They would be wrong in either case. The first line of defense in any libel suit should be trying to prove that the allegations in question are in fact true (no matter how fanciful some may think them to be).
In the context of the Condit libel suits, this would allow for quite a wide investigation into that family's affairs.
The lawyers for the Enquirer claimed that they deposed Gary Condit and didn’t get very far. This time, think outside of the box. Don’t just depose Condit. Depose his entire family.
Get them under oath and explore every facet about what they knew about Levy including Gary Condit's relationship with her, Carolyn Condit's knowledge of or contact with her, the nature of the Condit marriage, and other relationships that Condit might have had that caused Carolyn to blow up. Cast as wide of a net as possible.
Subpoena all phone records from both the Condit family as well as Chandra Levy for the several months leading up to Levy's disappearance. The phone records should not be confined to Condit's home in California. They should demand all phone records from all residences of the entire Condit family, including cel phone records.
Find out where those listed phone numbers go to. Then consider deposing anyone on that list that might have information on Condit’s relationship with Levy, his family, or others that might shed light on the issue in the broadest possible sense.
After that, go ahead and depose anyone who has ever been rumored to have been linked with Condit sexually. Try and push the envelope of discovery limits here. The judge has already suggested that he will give you at least some leeway in this regard. Depose the Levy family and have them remind the court (and the public) the amount of disdain that they hold the Congressman in for abusing his position of power in getting Chandra to provide sexual favors for him.
If Condit actually denies even ever having an affair with Levy, go ahead and track down every one of her friends and acquaintances who she might have confided in. Go ahead and depose them to expose Condit to his lies and obfuscations. Start with Levy’s Aunt, Linda Zamsky who is clearly under the impression that her niece had an affair with Condit. Be sure to keep in mind that he previously refused to answer questions regarding extra-marital affairs to reporters. (Make sure the court knows that too. Obfuscation of questions lead to legitimate speculations. The greater excuse people have to speculate on public matters, the less likely a court will find an environment of “actual malice”…but more on that later.)
Also remember that President Clinton flatly denied his affair with Monica Lewisnky because he wrongly figured that he and Monica were the only two people who would know the truth. Show that Condit is playing the same game here, only he is using an even more cynical tactic since he knows the only other person who can contradict him with direct eyewitness evidence about his affair is dead. The more contradictions that can be shown, the less chance anyone will think that he is entitled to money for a “damaged reputation”. And let’s not also forget that any “contradictions” in Condit’s testimony will be from statements made under oath with at least the theoretical threat of a perjury charge.
After deposing Levy’s friends and acquaintances, try and depose all of Condit’s friends and contacts at every Middle Eastern Embassy that Condit had visited during his Congressional tenure. Admittedly, many of these witnesses might be able to avoid depositions or interrogatories through some form of claimed immunity. But the mere notion that they might be dragged into an inquiry regarding the Condit affair might start its own dynamic which puts extra pressure on the Ex-Congressman to reconsider pursuing his case. Besides, Dunne’s inability to subpoena such potential witnesses could ultimately help with his defense that he did not act with legal “malice”.
These lawsuits provide an opportunity for Dunne and journalists to delve into Condit's life using much more invasive tools than standard investigative journalism. You would think that a defendant like the Enquirer would have considered that in deciding to settle its case prematurely.
Remember all of the Jane Does that were questioned in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit against President Clinton? Dunne would do well to use that playbook. He can find out every alleged affair that Gary Condit might have had and track those people down. Then they will be able to force every such woman to state under penalty of perjury the nature of their affair with Gary Condit and his specific sexual proclivities.
Condit might move to exclude such testimony from ultimately reaching a trial stage, but it would be a much higher hurdle for him to prevent such witnesses from merely being deposed outside of the courthouse. Once the testimony is down on paper, there is always the possibility of it being released publicly sometime in the future.
Casting a wide net in the discovery process can be an expensive process to be sure. That unfortunate realty will likely prove to be the largest threat to an individual such as Dunne – even more so than the unlikely prospect of a large court judgment against him that stands up to appeal. As with all defendants, he needs to weigh the economic costs of settlement versus the financial burdens that the system puts on a defendant in the court system. (While the Enquirer no doubt went through the same considerations, one has to wonder why they still chose not to appeal the trail court’s ruling since they likely had financial resources through their insurance. They are accustomed to paying large sums for news information. It is curious as to why they didn’t see their legal defense as merely newsgathering for their publication through other means. I’d be curious to know the thinking of the Enquirer counsel on this point. There may be some considerations that the public is not privy to. But with the ill-considered confidentiality agreements, we probably will never know.)
Once you have collected all of the testimony and facts from your discovery, release as much it to the public as you can. I don’t know who released part of Condit’s deposition that has already been taken, but this is a good start.
Expect Condit to pull every legal string to prevent any embarrassing testimony or evidence from being released. Since much of the evidence will deal with the time when Condit was a Congressman, you would think that courts would realize that the public has a right to know this information. After all, a former U.S. Congressman is asking another branch of the federal government to order a private citizen to fork over a boatload of money to him. Unfortunately though, many courts are too quick to order evidence and depositions sealed simply because it can be embarrassing for one of the parties or witnesses. (I could write an even lengthier article on why I feel courts often abuse the use of sealed filings, secret proceedings and gag orders – but I will save that topic for another time.)
There are strategies that one can use to circumvent overly restrictive gag orders. Many judges still aren’t hip to the idea that information is too fungible in today’s tech-driven world. Let’s say a judge orders that a deposition transcript be sealed. One idea would be to file a motion related to the deposition (say perhaps, a motion to compel testimony from a witness who refuses to answer a question). The normal procedure would be to attach the relevant page or pages of the transcript related to your motion as an exhibit of evidence. This time though, go ahead and attached the entire deposition transcript, then go ahead and file your motion through standard channels such that they would be accessible to the media requesting the court file from the clerk. Find a co-worker in your office who has a friend of a friend in the media who might just so happen to tell the media friend about the filed motion containing the full transcript. The fact that the full transcript was attached and filed openly was clerical error as we all know. Two words: “Plausible Deniability”.
Of course I am not suggesting that you directly disobey a court order. That would be unethical (at least in the “legal” sense of the term). I am merely pointing out theoretical ways that information can manage to circumvent overbroad (and sometimes even arguably unconstitutional) judicial controls. Hopefully, you won’t need to contemplate these notions all that much since a fair judge would recognize that turnabout is fair play.
But enough of tactics for now. Let’s get back to strategy.
You need to remind the court that Condit previously threatened to sue newspapers for libel for merely reporting that Condit had been having an affair with Levy. He should also remind the court of Condit’s previous efforts to try and bully witnesses into signing false affidavits. Once again, this might not be deemed directly “relevant” by the court in terms of the current lawsuit against Dunne, but this can still subtly play out in Dunne’s favor in getting the judge to see the bigger picture when it comes time for Condit to prove his case. After all, if it is proven that a plaintiff is willing to sue over statements that most believe to be true (i.e., the affair with Levy), and it is also shown that he is willing to get witnesses to commit perjury as to testimony regarding his previous actions, reasonable jurists should be able to conclude that he comes to the table with unclean hands in a libel suit.
The Prime Directive in this instance is that you want to make the legal process itself far more painful for the Condits than any potential rewards could bring them down the line.
No doubt, this will be a messy and distasteful process for everyone involved. But if a plaintiff honestly feels that his reputation had been unfairly impugned by false claims such that he deserves a couple of million dollars for it, then those who made the claims are entitled to a vigorous defense. In this case, that means allowing Dunne an opportunity to prove that Condit is a lying, unscrupulous sexual deviant who is willing to abuse the court system to help silence his critics. Once that is shown to be the case, his “reputation” shouldn’t be worth enough to deserve compensation for – even if specific claims about a conspiracy to kidnap and get rid of Levy turn out to be a pure speculative fantasy.
After you have obtained some useful information through discovery, file a motion to have the case be decided through summary judgment. Even someone as brazen as Gary Condit would be unable seriously argue that he is not a “public figure” for purposes of his lawsuit. Condit will therefore have to show at least some evidence suggesting “actual malice” in order to overcome a summary judgment motion - knowing that such defense motions are granted in a majority of libel lawsuits.
A quick note here - Don’t just assume that judges really understand the meaning of “actual malice” in a libel case. Even many veteran lawyers will (knowingly or not) end up distorting the description of the term in their summary judgment briefs.
I would respectfully submit that the best, most complete, most accurate case-law definition of “actual malice” ever printed is to be found in the 7th Circuit’s J.H. Desnick v. ABC. Feel free to quote liberally from it. Copy the relevant paragraphs verbatim. It will save you a lot of time when constructing your brief and decrease the likelihood that Condit will be able to impress the much broader “tort” definition of “malice” on an unwary judge. (Don’t worry about the fact that your court is outside of the 7th Circuit. The definition of “malice” is a federal concept mandated by the Constitution. In this instance, court decisions are pretty much interchangeable between circuits.)
Go ahead and argue the evidence (or lack thereof) regarding the “malice” issue. But also be sure to subtly argue the bigger picture in this case to the judge. Document the lies and inconsistencies by Condit in the past. The intimidation of potential witnesses. The forum shopping to get around statute of limitation problems. The history of attempting to sue everyone in sight who posited even the slightest speculation of what may have happened in light of Condit’s refusal to be more forthcoming to the public about his relationship with Levy. Condit’s history of threatening legal action even to artists and television producers who wish to state an opinion regarding Condit’s character. And once again, be sure that the judge knows just what the Levy family (still grieving over their murdered loved one) thinks of Congressman Gary Condit in as blunt language as they can muster in a legal document (and make it clear that their opinions do not stem from any comments that you may have made about the Condit affair).
Explain that if Condit were to succeed in this lawsuit, it would open the door for Presidents to sue critics who have often engaged in speculation that is far more unlikely than anything that Dominick Dunne has said about an elected official.
Find a way to subtly ask the judge: As outrageous as some of these claims can get, do we really want to live in a country where each successive President can successfully haul Oliver Stone into court and reap a financial windfall? Some might. But hopefully most don’t (And while some might be tempted to say “yes” specifically in regards to Mr. Stone’s fate, hopefully they will be able to see the bigger picture as well as to why this would be a bad idea.)
Also, be sure to remind the judge that Condit’s reputation was already well trashed months before you opened your mouth about him. (And for that matter, evidence clearly shows that Condit’s reputation was trashed even before the National Enquirer publications in late July 2001 which led to the separate and earlier libel suit against them.)
Explain to the court that Condit “has a better chance for meaningful vindication in the court of public opinion through vigorous debate about the background and details” of his affairs “than by suing those whose reporting (includes) some less than favorable inferences” about him. (And be sure to check the look on the face of Condit’s attorney L. Lin Wood when you use that quote – he should be familiar with it since he first encountered those words when his libel suit on behalf of the parents of JonBenet Ramsey was tossed out of court. That was another instance of public speculation being directly caused by people who refused to be as forthcoming as they could be to the public regarding a murder investigation. Hopefully it will give Wood some nice déjà vu.)
In the mind of a wise judge, all of these factors can potentially add up to give you an extra edge in a summary judgment motion – even if the elements only deal tangentially with the specific complaint you are defending in this instance.
Should it become one of those rare libel cases to reach a jury, this same strategy will be in order as far as what you want to remind those jurors about.
There are some out there who want Condit to succeed in this lawsuit because they don’t like the fact that the public should be able to speculate on matters when government officials decide to stonewall the public. They too are offering advice to Condit and his attorneys. While you naturally shouldn’t dismiss their plan out of hand, I still wouldn’t sweat it too much. Their analysis ultimately rests on what they think the concept of “malice” should be, rather than what it actually is (if I have more time in the future I’ll be happy to explain this in further detail). Their arguments are ultimately a mere plea to return to a previous era when powerful men with financial resources could more easily silence their critics. Just stick with the game plan and you should be fine.
The Enquirer had the best chance to deal with the problem of a Congressional scoundrel who now makes his financial living through lawsuits. They had the resources and the motivation (i.e., news discovery via the judicial process) to put a stop to this once and for all in the appellate courts. But for whatever reason, they chose to punt. So now it is up to you Mr. Dunne. With the financial costs of the legal system, nobody could fault you too much for making an attempt at a modest settlement. But if you choose to be bold, you can help stop a megalomaniac, strike a strong blow for free speech in this country, and help protect many potential future defendants who wish to post their own theories when faced with information vacuums created by stonewalling politicians.
As they say, the ball is in your court.
Update on Condit's deposition here.
Update II (Feb. 14, 2005): Condit claims to be sick in order to back out of his scheduled second deposition.
Feb. 18, 2005: More recent comments from one of the Condit Stepford children speaking out about the case.
Update III (Mar. 14, 2005): Condit has apparently settled with Dunne so that he doesn't have to be subjected to a more thorough legal deposition which would expose some facts that he would rather keep secret.
He also doesn't have to lie under oath again, like the whopper he laid on Dunne's attorney when he said he never conducted polls during his campaign. Or the time when he insisted under oath that he never had an affair with Levy.
As usual, the financial terms of the settlement are "undisclosed". I realize that it's easy to say since it's not my time and money on the line, but I only hope that Dunne didn't cave and only offered him a nominal amount.
I recently posted that "Michael Moore's Gonna Get His Lard A$$ Whooped One Day."
Well, here's someone that disgusting butterball isn't going to ambush with a camera any time soon:
"Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's free expression," [Clint] Eastwood was quoted as telling the National Board of Review awards dinner in New York Tuesday night.
With a cold glare Eastwood took notice of Moore sitting in the audience and said bluntly and without a smile: "But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you."
The Daily News reports the audience erupted in laughter, and Eastwood grinned. "I mean it," Eastwood said again.
One look down the bore of that .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, [that could] blow [his] head clean off, and I guarantee you Moore would be peeing himself.
The article ends with the simple and deliciously appropriate declaration:
"Go ahead, punk, make my day."
Moore's cruising to an easy and most well-deserved victory in the Idiotarian of the Year award for 2004.
The preeminence of Moore's idiocy is stunning in its vastness, even among the stark-ravingly rabid moonbat left.
Ok. I admit that the above title is my own wording. But that is the inescapable conclusion based on what IBM's Senior VP said.
Blogging excellence must be recognized and encouraged.
'Nuff said.
Good to see a solid blogger like Patterico wax poetic on an issue that touches on your humble blogger's favorite rant: How intellectual property laws perpetuate media bias and stifle the competition for truthful debate in this country.
As regular readers know, that theme is an oldie-but-a-goodie for me. The above links provide a growing list of evidence that the problems of media bias are inexorably linked to the current intellectual property schemes.
The question remains - Will conservatives ever see the bigger picture (especially when liberals remain in control of the traditional companies that create media content)? Or will they continue to twist the concept of "private property" to apply towards the basic tools of public speech in the information age?
President Bush locked up Ohio by more than 118,000 votes after a definitive election victory, followed then by a clearly pointless recount that cost Ohioans $1.5 million, and was nothing more than spoiled children stamping their feet when they don't get their way.
The Democrat House and Senate crossed another line Thursday in their seemingly unending freefall into stark-raving lunacy. They interrupted the Congressional certification of the electoral votes so that they could utter one last pitiable whine about having lost the 2004 elections.
Boxer and Tubbs were spokesidiots for the procedure. That the Dems didn’t pull them aside and personally take the two of them to the woodshed speaks to the derangement of the Party as a whole. Of course the real problem is that Boxer & Tubbs are not lone freaks; they too closely reflect the kool-aid caucus steering them as a Titanic into the night. Apparently the whole Democratic Senate needs to be taken to the woodshed, but there’s no one sane enough in their ranks to administer the whoopin.’ The Dems don’t even have Zell anymore to chasten them when they need it. Where was Lieberman—professed Dem of conscience—to raise a voice of correction within the Party? What?; no cojones, Joe? In one sense I can hardly blame him; the Party seems beyond redemption—still, he's complicit as a member (especially as a quiescent one) of the monstrosity. I know of no House or Senate Democrat that stood up and apologized to the larger Congress or the Nation for the parade of insanity put on by Democrat after Democrat that got up and parroted support for Boxer/Tubbs.
Lifting some rhetoric from Moore, we know that Dems like Boxer and Tubbs eat partisanism for breakfast, and that they get up at six in the morning trying to figure out which Republicans to screw today. A Party can be partisan, however, without being insane. Had the Dems a grip on sanity, Senate minority leader Harry ‘Loose Slots’ Reid could have pulled Boxer aside and said, “Look, Babs, there’s a 1,001 ways we can screw Bush in the next four years, and—oh my yesssss—believe you me we’re gonna use ‘em all … in spades, but this cockamamie idea of yours isn’t one of them.” The minority leader didn’t head this off at the pass, and it’s because he—and the rest of the Party—is along for the ride.
Smash provides in-depth coverage of the floor debate via live blogging. He includes a gem note that the bar-none dumbest member of the House, Maxine Waters, dedicated her moment of diatribe to Michael Moore. Well, that pretty much sums it up, now doesn’t it?
Also, don't miss Xrlq doing what he does so well, dismantling Boxer's prepared statement.
[Body of post later edited for content by author.]
More Senate Confirmation Hearings. Of course the Dems have the long knives out, attempting to disembowel the latest Bush appointee. Today’s Democratic punching bag du jour is Alberto Gonzalez, who’s up for Attorney General.
While hounding Gonzalez, Teddy ‘Swimmer’ Kennedy uncorked one of the most incredible quotes you will ever hear:
Now, the [Washington] Post article states you chaired several meetings at which various interrogation techniques were discussed. These techniques included the threat of live burial and water boarding, whereby the detainee is strapped to a board, forcibly pushed under water, wrapped in a wet towel, and made to believe he might drown.
I guarantee you some producer for Saturday Night Live peed himself when he heard it. You can’t make this stuff up. Absolutely priceless! As Rush has opined:
"What about automobile boarding at Chappaquiddick, senator? More Americans have died, more people have died at Chappaquiddick than have died from water boarding in American prisons."
And how 'bout them Trojans? In case you hadn’t heard, they stomped the Sooners 55-19 last night, and are now back to back National Champs of college football. Pretty heady stuff.
ESPN had recently put up some silly twaddle about Auburn having made a strong case for being named co-champion. Hah! The Trojans put all such notions to rest long before the end of the first half.
On yesterday’s Hugh Hewitt Show, Hugh must have devoted nearly half his air to trashing the "powder puff" Trojan football team. As USC mopped the field with OU, I wondered how Hugh would talk his way out of it during his next show.
To Hugh's credit, he's already ‘fessed to the thick, steaming mass of egg coating his face:
Congratulations to the USC Trojans. I appear to have underestimated the Trojans and overestimated the Sooners' relative strengths, since I predicted a 3 touchdown Sooner triumph. Tune in today after Mark Steyn opens the program to hear what the taste of crow sounds like.
“[A] 3 touchdown Sooner triumph?!!,” that puts Hugh’s prediction off by only 57 points! D’Oh! :-O
Trojan fans—ever magnanimous—will accept Hugh’s apology, while noting that his admission of having “appeared to have underestimated” USC is hypobole after having often dissed the Trojans as “powder puff.” The ‘sound of crow’ on Hugh’s show today will taste delicious.
PS—Don't miss Boi's bragadoccio & analysis of the game.
John Hawkins has done great work putting together The 40 Most Obnoxious Quotes Of 2004 Get over there and read the whole thing. (h/t Michelle)
John has compiled 40 doozies, but below are the ones I find to be the very worst of the worst. John and I seem to be pretty much on the same wavelength, as the top five I’ve chosen (and arranged in descending order) fall within the first seven of his list. …
"Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them." -- Markos Moulitsas Zúniga on the four Americans who were murdered by terrorists and then had their corpses desecrated in Fallujah, IraqProbably the most despicable notable quote uttered in 2004—said as the charred, mutilated remains of four American contractors were still strung from a bridge like obscene death-cult trophies. I don’t see how it gets any worse than this. Zúniga will forever be execrated for his two words, “Screw them.” Screw him.
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." -- Michael MooreIn Moore’s world, Zarqawi is a freakin’ Paul Revere!; Bin Laden is General Washington crossing the Delaware; sawing heads off of writhing, shrieking victims on video is as innocuous as ‘one if by land; two if by sea.’ The b*stard’s rooting for them to “win.” It’s plain enough whose side he’s on; but what do you suppose a blood-lusting pack of his beloved Islamofascist
"Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm." -- The Village Voice's Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all placesAn ‘I wish they were dead,’ is not enough; no, he thinks roughly half of all Americans should be “exterminated” because to him they’re ‘the enemy.’ Sweet guy.
"I root for hurricanes. When, courtesy of the Weather Channel, I see one forming in the ocean off the coast of Africa, I find myself longing for it to become big and strong--Mother Nature's fist of fury, Gaia's stern rebuke. Considering the havoc mankind has wreaked upon nature with deforesting, stripmining, and the destruction of animal habitat, it only seems fair that nature get some of its own back and teach us that there are forces greater than our own." -- James Wolcott, Vanity Fair Contributing EditorPeople died in the hurricanes he rooted for; many people. This wish for the death of innocent people puts Wolcott—along with the likes of Zúniga, Moore, Feingold, etc—on a whole other order of vileness that eclipses even the sick and twisted leftist boilerplate references to Bush as Hitler.
"...And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq 'We have our good days and our bad days.' We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days' and pull the trigger. Do you want to salvage our country? Be a savior of our country? Then vote for John Kerry and get rid of the whole Bush Bunch." -- From a fund raising ad put out by the St. Petersburg Democratic ClubLet’s recap: Call the Sec. of Defense an S.O.B., and advocate he be shot. Brought to you by your amiable and tolerant, friendly neighborhood Democratic Party.
________
A special honorable mention goes to:
"Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management." -- Ted Kennedy
Kennedy—and fellow Dems like him—give the impression that Democrats would have welcomed a crushing American defeat in Iraq if it brought with it a Bush defeat in ’04. It seems they would have taken this ‘package deal’ in a heartbeat, and without compunction. Such statements as Kennedy’s c
