• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    katiebird on We’re Royals and other…
    bernard jenkins on We’re Royals and other…
    churl on We’re Royals and other…
    r u reddy on We’re Royals and other…
    r u reddy on We’re Royals and other…
    mitzimuffin on We’re Royals and other…
    Sweet Sue on We’re Royals and other…
    Sweet Sue on We’re Royals and other…
    abc on We’re Royals and other…
    katiebird on We’re Royals and other…
    katiebird on We’re Royals and other…
    riverdaughter on We’re Royals and other…
    Monster from the Id on We’re Royals and other…
    cwaltz on Give Democrats a piece of your…
    Mr Mike on We’re Royals and other…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama big pharma Bill Clinton Chris Christie cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Joe Biden John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Keith Olbermann Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare occupy wall street OccupyWallStreet Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    October 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Sep    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • The Attack In Ottawa will be used to justify losing more rights
      Prime Minister Harper pretty much confirmed it: ‘Our laws and police powers need to be strengthened’ Yup.  Never let a crisis go to waste. I’m very sad that MPs and their staff were scared, and I’m sadder that a soldier lost his life.  But one attack does not justify increasing the police state.  However, if [...]
  • Top Posts

Free advice is worth what you pay for it


You may have heard that Harper Collins, the publisher of Sarah Palin’s yet unreleased new book, has obtained an injunction against the tabloid website Gawker for the unauthorized publication of some excerpts from the book.
Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection (wingnut warning) has some free advice for Sarah Palin:

And they bragged when they stole a partial copy of your book, and they dared you and taunted you to do something about it, and you did.

But please don’t stop there. Your TRO is the equivalent of a routine metal detector screening. You found the box-cutter, and confiscated it. Good so far, but not enough.

You need to have your lawyers give the people at Gawker a full nude-body scan and junk fondling.

Uncover the networks, Sarah. For all of our benefit and amusement.

It’s called discovery. In a litigation your lawyers are entitled to e-mails, and all Gawker’s internal documents regarding not only this theft, but you. Because you will want to prove that their intent was to harm you and damage you, so everything they ever have written off-the-record, everyone with whom they ever have communicated about you, every strategy they have employed to take you down, now is fair game.

And your lawyers also get to take depositions under oath of the people at Gawker, and to subpoena for testimony others who may have relevant evidence as to the issue in the case. The Palingate people would be a good start.

What the good professor from Cornell Law School is talking about is “malice.” If you really want to hit the jackpot in a civil suit you want punitive (aka exemplary) damages. To get punies a plaintiff needs to prove the defendant acted with “Fraud, Malice Or Oppression.”

Malice – The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; conscious violation of the law that injures another individual; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance.

Malice gets a public figure past the Sullivan standard too.

That gives Harper Collins and Sarah Palin the right to start digging through Gawker’s files and deposing their employees. If they uncover new causes of action, they can amend their complaint to allege new counts.

Even if Gawker wins they can end up paying boocoo simolians to their attorneys. “Nobody made any money except the attorneys” is what the legal profession calls a “happy ending.”



Gawker still doesn’t get it


As I’m sure you all know by now, the website Gawker published the salacious details of an alleged no-sex one night stand some guy claimed to have had with Christine O’Donnell. This was too much even for Andy Sullivan, and NOW as well as most feminist bloggers condemned the article.

So did Gawker apologize? Not hardly.

What’s missing from most of the criticism is this essential bit of context: Christine O’Donnell is seeking federal office based in part on her self-generated, and carefully tended, image as a sexually chaste woman. She lies about who she is; she tells that lie in service of an attempt to impose her private sexual values on her fellow citizens; and she’s running for Senate. We thought information documenting that lie—that O’Donnell does not live a chaste life as she defines the word, and in fact hops into bed, naked and drunk, with men that she’s just met—was of interest to our readers.

Much of the criticism leveled against us is based on the premise that we think hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women whenever one wants is “slutty,” and that therefore our publication of Anonymous’ story was intended to diminish O’Donnell on those terms. Any reader of this site ought to rather quickly gather that we are in fact avid supporters of hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women that one has just met.

Our problem with O’Donnell—and the reason that the information we published about her is relevant—is that she has repeatedly described herself and her beliefs in terms that suggest that there is something wrong with hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with a man or woman whom one has just met. So that fact that she behaves that way, while publicly condemning similar behavior, in the context of an attempt to win a seat in the United States Senate, is a story we thought people might like to know about. We also thought it would get us lots of clicks and money and attention. But we thought it would get us clicks and money and attention because it was exposing her lies.

Well then, since “exposing lies” justifies their publishing the lurid allegations about O’Donnell’s alleged sexual history, I guess candidates no longer have any right to privacy whatsoever. Everything is fair game.

Jeebus, can you imagine the can of worms that would be? But somehow I doubt we’ll ever see an unmarried male candidate slut-shamed for what was (even if true) legal and consensual sexual behavior.

Whoever this putz Dustin Dominiak is, I hope he never gets laid again in his entire life. It would serve him right.

One last note: Before anyone complains about me posting another defense of a evil wingnut racist homophobe anti-abortion Tea Partier, I ain’t happy about it either.

If these fucking so-called progressives would stop being sexist assholes, I wouldn’t have to defend people like Christine O’Donnell and Sarah Palin.

I don’t care if the Republicans do it too or did it first.

IT’S WRONG.



Yahoo Bans Flickr User for Criticizing Obama

obama_bigbro

Don’t store your photos on Flickr. You could lose everything just like Shephard Johnson did. Via Truthdig, Johnson’s paid Flickr-Pro account and more than 1,000 of his photos suddenly disappeared after he posted critical comments about Obama’s support for a bill to prevent release of torture photos. According to Gawker,

Johnson was browsing the official White House photostream one night when he decided to post a politically-charged comment. Then another, then another. Soon, without warning, Yahoo’s photo-sharing service deleted his account, complete with 1,200 pictures.

An unrepentant Yahoo won’t say what, exactly, Johnson did wrong. His comments were about Barack Obama’s support of a bill allowing the government to suppress torture photos. They were attached to seemingly relevant images from the president’s recent trip to Cairo to ring in a new era of U.S.-Middle Eastern relations.

“I thought, this is an opportunity I can use to let the administration know how I feel about some of its policies,” Johnson told us in a phone interview.

WTF?! Is this part of the Obama administration’s new “cybersecurity” program? Or does Yahoo think Dear Leader’s popularity is so soft that it can’t survive a little public protest from one guy on Flickr?


Please: DIGG! and SHARE!!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 468 other followers