Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is in federal prison. He's scheduled to remain there until September. He's held under the name "Nakoula Basseley Nakoula," not as "Sam Bacile" (the name he used make the anti-Islamic film "the Innocence of Muslims,") nor under the name "Mark Bassely Youssef" (which he now claims is his current correct name, notwithstanding that he pleaded guilty to a federal crime under the Nakoula name).

Why is he in prison? It depends on who's talking.

To hear some people talk, he's in prison because he made an anti-Islamic movie, because the Obama Administration is eager to cover up the root causes of the Benghazi catastrophe, and because the Obama Administration wants to appease censorious Islamists. Some people merely imply this with headlines: "The guy who made “Innocence of Muslims” is still in jail, and we still don’t know who attacked Benghazi" Some people, like National Review's Rich Lowry, come right out and say it, asserting that Nakoula would not have been arrested and charged with a supervised release revocation but for his speech:

He is not going to win any good citizenship awards and violated the terms of his probation by using an alias (something Nakoula admits).

A violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards. Not for Nakoula.

This wasn’t a case of nailing Al Capone on tax evasion. As Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute points out, Al Capone’s underlying offense was racketeering and gangland killings. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s underlying offense wasn’t an underlying offense. He exercised his First Amendment rights.

Some call him a political prisoner.

These people all have something in common. They've never prosecuted a supervised release revocation in federal court. They've never defended someone accused of violating supervised release in federal court. They've never worked as a federal probation officer or filed a petition to revoke a sueprvisee's release. They've never worked as a federal judge and approved or denied such a petition, or presided over such a hearing. They've never seen a supervised release revocation hearing. Moreover, I'd wager a substantial amount of money that before they opined about the proceedings against Nakoula they didn't talk to anyone who had ever done any of these things, or anyone reasonably well informed about how they are done.

I've observed, and participated in, federal supervised release revocation proceedings since 1995. In writing about Nakoula I've drawn not only on that experience but on the actual documents from his case and on the law. My premise has been this: anyone on supervised release for a federal fraud conviction and owing more than $700,000 in restitution would face supervised release revocation if the Probation Office discovered that they were using aliases, engaging in unreported financial transactions, and using computers in those transactions, all in violation of their terms of release. Most federal judges would issue arrest warrants, not summonses, and most federal judges would order jail time to such a person if they found he had obtained and used a false driver's license and concealed transactions from the Probation Officer. Rich Lowry's claim that "[a] violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards" is quite frankly pulled straight out of his ass. Supervisees are routinely arrested rather than summoned, particularly when there are indications they might be a flight risk — like using a false identity. Supervisees are routinely returned to prison for offenses that would never be prosecuted federally as separate crimes.

Is Nakoula in federal prison because he made the "Innocence of Muslims" video? Superficially, perhaps, in the sense that his behavior may have escaped detection if he hadn't become famous. It's even possible that someone in the Obama Administration tipped off — or pressured — the Probation Office about his conduct. (If that's what happened, there ought to be a Congressional investigation.) But Nakoula's conduct is the sort that would absolutely be pursued if detected by his Probation Office and would routinely result in a revocation of supervised release and a return to federal prison. People saying otherwise don't know what they are talking about or don't care, or both.

I support a vigorous Congressional inquiry into the attack at Benghazi. The most charitable interpretations of the inquiry to date raise grave concerns about the honesty and decency of Obama Administration officials. I support asking hard questions about whether anyone in the administration contacted the U.S. Probation Office in Los Angeles about Nakoula. But this inquiry doesn't require, and shouldn't encourage, lying about the law. We should absolutely fight, to our last breath, pressure to yield to unprincipled "hate speech" and "anti-blasphemy" norms of other countries. But the cause of freedom of expression is not advanced by cynical and dishonest partisan bullshit.

Edited to add:

Mr. Baldwin, you're completely awesome. But my days of taking you serious politically are certainly coming to a middle.

A common and tedious refrain amongst some modern conservatives is "these days you're not allowed to criticize X," where X is gays or African-Americans or whatever group the conservatives believe to be unreasonably elevated in modern society this week. By "not allowed to criticize," they don't mean that they'll be arrested or sued or deported; they mean they might be subjected to rough criticism, which as well all know is tyrannical.¹

On some occasions these conservatives may have a point: bad behavior should be criticized whatever the hue or orientation of a bad actor. Other times, they're wrong, and their logic absurd.

Take the strange case of Niall Ferguson.

Niall Ferguson is an historian and Harvard professor. If you teach at Harvard or study there, you'll find that you can coast a great distance on the Harvard name with little effort. Ferguson is determined to reject such complacency and make his own mark as an asshole entirely on his own merits. Asked about economist John Maynard Keynes, Ferguson had this explanation for why Keynes was insufficiently future-focused:

Ferguson responded to a question about Keynes’ famous philosophy of self-interest versus the economic philosophy of Edmund Burke, who believed there was a social contract among the living, as well as the dead. Ferguson asked the audience how many children Keynes had. He explained that Keynes had none because he was a homosexual and was married to a ballerina, with whom he likely talked of "poetry" rather than procreated.

. . .

Ferguson, who is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, and author of The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die, says it’s only logical that Keynes would take this selfish worldview because he was an "effete" member of society.

Ferguson later apologized abjectly. We can all say very stupid things sometimes. It's entirely possible his comments were a poorly-thought-out seat-of-the-pants response to a question, not a reflection of a genuine hostility to people based on sexual orientation. Perhaps he's not a irredeemable oaf like, say, Dean Chambers, who suggested that Nate Silver's electoral number-crunching ought not be trusted because he's "a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice."²

Whatever Ferguson is, and whatever he really meant, his apology and the criticism that preceded it has enraged some on the right, who have used it as an example of how you are just not allowed to criticize gays without, you know, people saying mean things about you, which is hurtful. Some have gone further to say that Keynes should be roundly damned because he was a racist and anti-Semite and supported eugenics. Take, as a sample, Robert Stacy McCain:

A friend on Twitter informs me that John Maynard Keynes was an anti-Semite who was also head of the British Eugenics Society, which under ordinary liberal custom would be enough to render someone historically radioactive. However it seems the new rule is that being gay — or, as was apparently the case with Keynes, being nominally bisexual — is sufficient to silence all criticism.

Niall Ferguson says, in effect, “John Maynard Keynes was a bad economist who was wrong about everything and also, he was gay, which might be relevant to the problem.” OUTRAGE!

Well, here you go: Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer and a cannibal, and also, he was gay, which might be relevant to the problem.

What's amazing is that McCain and people advancing the "Keynes was an awful person" argument don't seem to grasp that this makes Ferguson look worse, not better.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that Keynes was indeed a racist and an awful anti-Semite and an advocate of eugenics, the practice of compelled selective breeding to weed out "undesirables." Niall Ferguson was asked to offer a criticism of Keynes and his view of responsibility towards the future. Ferguson didn't say "Keynes' anti-Semitism, the rot at the root of many disordered economic theories, characterized his failed thinking about peoples and nations." Ferguson didn't say "Keynes was an advocate of eugenics, a sign that he saw people as instruments rather than as individuals whose autonomy is its own good end." No, instead, Ferguson went with the "he was a childless effete who read poetry rather than screwing his wife." That line of argument is not, in fact, a flattering defense of Niall Ferguson. Similarly, when someone who is black or gay is an utter cad, and your critique of them centers on their identity as black or gay, it's ridiculous to complain when people don't focus on your target being a cad.

Since McCain brought up serial killers, I'll now explain the title: what would you think of someone who, asked what they thought of John Wayne Gacy, said "I hate his clown paintings?"

Week 12.

Period One: Advanced Placement English. Discussion continues on Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Students will consider the moral ramifications of Adolf Eichmann's defense that he participated in genocide on orders from higher authority. The instructor is expected to question students on the distinction between lawful action and moral action, with emphasis on agency and personal responsibility. The lesson should lead into issues raised by the following reading assignments, Joseph Heller's Catch-22, and Franz Kafka's The Trial.

Period Two: American History. The study of the life of George Washington continues. Having concluded examination of Washington's policies as President, students will discuss the popular history and lore surrounding our nation's founding father. Parson Weems' story of the cherry tree, in which Washington honestly admitted to wrongdoing, will be discussed. Questions students should consider include: Was Washington's father right to forgive his son for cutting the cherry tree in light of the son's forthright admission? Is Washington to be admired for his integrity and honesty, or to be condemned as a tree killer? And how did this episode affect Washington's  future development as a general and statesman?

Period Three: Advanced Placement Mathematics. Symbolic logic is introduced. Through word problems, students will reduce complex concepts to mathematical formulae, with allowance for variables and contingencies. Sample problem:

North Carolina General Statute 14-269.2 makes it a Class I Felony to knowingly possess a weapon on school property. However, the charge shall be reduced to a Misdemeanor when the weapon is unloaded, is in a vehicle, and is kept locked. Cole mistakenly brings an unloaded shotgun to school after a weekend of sport shooting, in a vehicle which is locked. When Cole discovers his mistake, he confesses and asks for permission to return the shotgun to his home. Explain, in logical terms, why it is appropriate to charge Cole with a crime at all, and why it is appropriate to charge Cole with a Class I Felony, rather than a Misdemeanor?

Period Four: Film Criticism Elective. This week's material is Spike Lee's controversial 1989 film, Do The Right Thing. Parental consent is required to view the assignment. Matters to be explored include Lee's use of contemporary hip hop music as a leitmotif, Lee's cinematography as an exemplar of the early "New York independent" school of film editing, and the moral implications of the death of Radio Raheem and the burning of Sal's Pizzeria. Students should discuss how these tragedies could have been avoided, had the characters embraced the spirit of neighborhood and compromise that formerly characterized relations between the people who inhabit this city block.

Lunch Break: This week's cafeteria offerings: Monday, Salisbury Steak. Tuesday, Stuffed Cabbage. Wednesday, Ham Loaf. Thursday (in honor of National Sweet Potato Week), Yam Surprise. Friday, Salisbury Steak.

Period Five: Physical Education. Dodge Ball.

Period Six: Student Assembly and Study Hall. This week's assembly will feature an address from Principal Kirk Denning, on the topic, "With Actions Come Consequences." Principal Denning will also discuss our school's longstanding "zero tolerance" policy toward drugs, as applied to cough syrup.

Period Seven: Earth Science. Students will study metals, and their uses in technology and industry. The instructor will discuss the characteristics of iron as an exemplar metal, explaining its properties as the most rigid, unbending, inelastic, unyielding, obdurate, stern, unchanging, obstinate, stubborn, unswayable, hard, inflexible, and stupid of metals.

Some legal threats are so very foolish that they prompt me to look around suspiciously, wondering if I am being punked.

Take this one: a researcher thinks that that he can bring civil and criminal charges against the proprietors of a web site for their report about him, even though he concedes the report was true, because of the web site's name.

Continue Reading »

Blogging is by its nature self-promotion, so you may be thinking that I ought not be throwing the first stone at someone who is very impressed with himself. I can only say this in my defense: I'm not promoting myself with your tax dollars.

In this I am different than Tennessee state Representative John Lundberg.

Lundberg has introduced a resolution in the Tennessee legislature bragging on himself and his business, a PR outfit called The Corporate Image. It's nauseating.

WHEREAS, this General Assembly finds it appropriate to pause in its deliberations to acknowledge and applaud the owners and employees of The Corporate Image for their dedication to furthering the public relations industry in the State of Tennessee and throughout the region, the nation, and the world; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that we hereby honor and commend the owners and employees of The Corporate Image upon their celebration of the company’s 20th Anniversary, and extend to them
our best wishes for every future success.

Rep. Jon Lundberg views his position as an elected representative the way a 13-year-old boy views a tube sock. But I come not to bury Lundberg, but to praise him: he's just more honest about it than other legislators.

Via Radley Balko.

Colin Purrington made an error in judgment.

His error was this: he believed that simply because he had created something himself — specifically, a helpful guide for creating scientific posters — that it was safe to go about asking other people not to appropriate it for their own profit.

Colin was wrong. This is America, Colin. What were you thinking?

See, Colin saw that an outfit called the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research was using some of his language in appendices to its grant applications. Colin, as is his practice, sent a wry missive asking that they stop, with a humorous coda:

If you can cover the shipping charges, I would be grateful if you to send me the head of the person who did this.

Oh, Colin. You are too gentle for this world. We live in a world of money and laws, Colin, and laws are wielded and money is guarded by megalawfirms like Arnold & Porter. Arnold & Porter is one of the 800 pound gorillas of law — perhaps an unfair comparison, since gorillas do not generally charge $1000 per hour to throw feces. The Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research reacted to Colin's email by calling forth Arnold & Porter in the form of attorney David P. Metzger, who sent Colin a very threatening letter. The upshot of the letter was that the Consortium had copyrighted the language in question in 2005, and that unless Colin took it down from his website, he would be facing a lawsuit, statutory damages of up to $150,000, court costs, and attorney fees — Arnold & Porter-sized attorney fees. Mr. Metzger was also shocked, shocked, to the point of pearl-clutching over Colin's humorous salvo:

Finally, I wish to express CPBR's concern with your statement in the Purrington E-mail: "I would be grateful if you to send me (sic) the head of the person who did this." This language was interpreted by CPBR's staff as a physical threat against their personal safety. Should you make any further similar threats, CPBR staff will have no choice but to contact authorities to protect themselves.

This all seemed a bit unfair to Colin. I'll let The Chronicle of Higher Education explain why:

In the not-at-all-friendly letter sent to Purrington, the consortium’s lawyer explained that the material was created by the consortium itself in 2005. That would be a very strong and persuasive point if Purrington hadn’t posted his guide as early as 2001, a fact that can be verified by going to the date-stamped Internet archive.

. . .

He started writing the guide back in 1997 as part of a class he was teaching, made it available to his students, and later posted it for anybody who wanted to use it.

Oh Colin. Facts are facts, justice is justice, but in America, money is money. The Consortium has hired Arnold & Porter, and they can threaten whomever they want, the facts of it be damned.

Fortunately Colin seems to be a fighter and has hired counsel. The Consortium? It's not yet clear. I wrote Mr. Metzger asking for a comment. Somehow I think he might not write back, based on his response to the Chronicle:

The consortium’s lawyer, David Metzger, also hung up on me. In a follow-up e-mail, he said he was abiding by his client’s wishes.

No doubt.

Here's the thing about sending blustery threatening letters for clients: sometimes, to the regret of attorney and client, they backfire. This is a good thing. In the American legal system, clients and their lawyers can credibly threaten to inflict hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs and years of misery on their enemies without regard to whether they are in the right. The internet — and the Streisand Effect — can help counter that injustice. The internet can help impose reputational consequences upon litigants and their lawyers when they make unjust and bumptious threats. Are you doing your part?

Perhaps the Consortium has some innocent explanation for its conduct. Perhaps it can prove that it was the originator of the language in question and Colin somehow misappropriated it years earlier and posted it without their knowledge. Perhaps, against all appearances, the Consortium and their attorney conducted some sort of due diligence before making extravagant legal threats against Colin. Perhaps, against all appearances, some tender pussywillow at the Consortium actually was intimidated by Colin's obvious joke, and the closing threat in Metzger's letter is not merely the parting shot of a shameless prat.

On the other hand, perhaps it would have been much more prudent for the Consortium to have handled this situation some other way. Maybe the government agencies that give grants to the Consortium will have a viewpoint.

Last year I blogged quite a bit about the saga of the saga of attorney Charles Carreon's disputes with Matt Inman of The Oatmeal. I have an update. It is a minor one.

You may recall that Carreon uttered extravagant threats against a satirical blogger, only to settle the case in the blogger's favor when the blogger — aided by Public Citizen — sued for declaratory relief.

That case is now embroiled in a dispute over the blogger's request for attorney fees. Mr. Carreon, resisting any award of fees, served me with a subpeoena for communications with the blogger and the blogger's attorneys of record. I objected. Mr. Carreon has now filed his opposition to the motion for fees; you can read about his arguments at Techdirt or Adam Steinbaugh's blog.

I write not of the substance. I confine myself to noting footnote one of Mr. Carreon's brief:

White, a criminal defense lawyer with a Libertarian following, derides other lawyers at Popehat.com as “Censorious Asshats.” http://www.popehat.com/2012/12/26/vote-in-the-secondannual-popehat-censorious-asshat-of-the-year-poll/ White conceived a special dislike for the Lawyer, recruiting readers to play a “Twitter hashtag game: #charlescarreonnewcareers,” and recruited them as an “Army of Davids” to “take a screenshot or print … to pdf [any] web page” showing that the Lawyer had made “an inconsistent statement [or] shows hypocrisy.” (Carreon Dec. ¶ 5; Exhibit 1.) When served with a subpoena for documents in this case, White responded with the disclosure that he had exchanged over 200 emails with the Gripesite Operator, and refused to produce anything, claiming that the Lawyer possesses “animus” towards White. (Carreon Dec. ¶ 5; Exhibit 2.)

Much of the footnote is true. I am a criminal defense attorney. I have a libertarian following. I deride attorneys, including Mr. Carreon, as censorious asshats. I conceived a special dislike for Mr. Carreon. I made up a hashtag game about him, and recruited people to point out where Mr. Carreon and his wife had engaged in rhetoric that was inconsistent with his contrived pearl-clutching horror over the contents of Mr. Inman's blog.

But Mr. Carreon's last sentence suggests that I refused to produce documents a subpoena in a federal case on the grounds that the lawyer issuing it had animus against me.

That is, at the most charitable interpretation, misleading.

Here are the objections I filed to Mr. Carreon's subpoena. As you can see, I objected to the subpoena, and declined to produce documents, on the grounds that (1) some of the communications Mr. Carreon sought were protected by the attorney-client privilege, or by the attorney work product doctrine, and (2) some of them didn't exist and never, so far as I knew, had existed.

The only mention of animus came in the paragraph in which I refused to produce a privilege log. A privilege log is a time-consuming document that would identify each email, its date, its subject, its sender, its recipient, and the basis for the assertion of privilege. It is a burdensome task. In my objections, I refused to produce such a log, on the grounds that Mr. Carreon had no good faith basis to demand the documents, and that the demand was likely made to harass, in light of his animus against me. The point about animus is located in the discussion of the privilege log, after I have refused to produce the documents based on the privilege.

Mr. Carreon's suggestion that I refused to produce documents based on an argument about his animus is, therefore, misleading at best. At worst, it is a deliberate lie to a United States District Judge. Or perhaps it merely represents a failure of even minimal reading comprehension. Mr. Carreon attaches my objections as an exhibit, as the footnote quoted above suggests; whatever this is, it's clumsy.

I leave the decision about which one it is to the reader — and to the judge.

When a public official acts like a censorious asshat, and flogs one of my least-favorite stupid pro-censorship quotes, and is named "Nutter," my fundamentally suspicious and misanthropic nature leads me to look around nervously. Am I being Akbarred here? Or is this giddy warmth and pre-pounce quivering anticipation I feel further evidence of a God that loves me?

It's the giddy warmth one.

Continue Reading »

Late last year I wrote about the vile humiliation-porn and extortion website "Is Anybody Down?" and its thoroughly creepy and sociopathic founders Craig Brittain and Chance Trahan. I wrote about how they engaged in a mail and wire fraud scheme by inventing a fake lawyer "David Blade III" to whom victims could pay to have their pictures and information taken down, and how Craig Brittain — who fancies himself a champion of free speech — tried to abuse the DMCA to get posts about him taken down. My posts on the subject are collected here.

I haven't written about them since them, but they've remained in the news. Adam Steinbaugh has been doing good work keeping track of them. Craig Brittain has been on a sort of national douchebag tour, showing up on blogs all over and television and newspapers. Trahan, by contrast, has been trying to distance himself from the whole enterprise and, so far as I can tell, set up a "not competent to stand trial" strategy. Civil and criminal disputes are generally not settled by freestyle rap battles.

Some have been frustrated by the fact that, aside from infamy and the ugly reality of living every day as themselves, Brittain and Trahan seem to have escaped consequences to date. People frustrated by that aren't used to the law's delay. The wheels grind slowly, but my friends, they do grind.

Civil attorneys are gathering and interacting with victims. Meanwhile, CBS Denver reports that the federal government has taken an interest.

Last week, a staff attorney for the federal agency contacted CBS4 with numerous questions about the CBS4 investigation. She characterized the inquiry as a “preliminary investigation” and asked that her name and agency not be revealed until a decision had been made on whether to go forward with a full blown federal investigation.

. . . .

“It’s not good for him,” she said of her agency’s interest in Brittain’s Internet activities. She said if her agency presses forward, they would likely seek “injunctive relief” to take down the website, but she conceded that would likely take months.

From that information, based on my experience, I suspect that the agency in question is the Federal Trade Commission. You might be disappointed that it's not a local United States Attorney's Office pursuing criminal charges. Don't be. First of all, a civil suit by the FTC is often the vanguard of a later criminal investigation by the local U.S. Attorney's Office. Second — and this is a Very Bad Thing not just for Brittain and Trahan, but for American justice — FTC lawsuits tend to yield the most grotesque parody of due process you're likely to see in a federal civil proceeding. As I've said before, I haven't seen any criminal clients — even ones accused of terrible things — screwed the way people targeted by the FTC get screwed. Typical consequences include draconian preliminary injunctions issued based on half-assed government requests, global asset freezes, and offensively perfunctory proceedings. Plus, federal and state criminal authorities wait in the wings to glean what they can from the information produced in the case.

So: the wheels are grinding. Watch them grind. Do Brittain and Trahan "deserve" it? Everyone accused of wrongdoing deserves due process. But in deciding how to feel about this, consider Adam Steinbaugh's latest post, in which he examines the allegations in a restraining order proceeding against Brittain back in 2005:

According to records provided by a Colorado court, Brittain’s ex-girlfriend (who I am not naming) alleged that after she broke up with him online, Brittain took control of one of her Yahoo accounts and began posting her phone number and address in a chat room, suggesting sexual acts. At about 7 in the morning, a man Brittain’s ex did not know, identifying himself as “Nate,” showed up at her door. ”Nate” explained that he had talked with someone he thought was Brittain’s ex-girlfriend an hour earlier. Presumably, “Nate” was not there to have breakfast.

Speech has consequences. Some of these consequences are legitimate; they are reflections of other people's speech. You might disagree with them, but if you have any self-respect, you won't whine that they constitute censorship.

But some consequences — often, but not always, inflicted by the government — are illegitimate. Warren, a business owner who writes at Coyote Blog, encountered such a consequence. When he expressed himself on his blog and linked to a negative Yelp review of a government agency, a functionary from that agency threatened him with loss of government contracts:

Well, one day I got a letter via email from a regional manager of the state parks agency whose park was the subject of that Yelp review I linked. I was notified that I had 48 hours to remove that blog post or I would lose all my contracts with that state. In particular, they did not like a) the fact that I linked to a negative Yelp review of one of their parks and b) that I impugned the incredibly noble idea that state parks are all operated by law enforcement officials.

There are a lot of things Warren could have done. I'm sure there are a lot of things he was tempted to do, as I would have been. Instead of doing the most viscerally satisfying thing, the most "just" thing, or the most "righteous" thing, Warren did the most effective thing for his business and for the immediate preservation of his freedom of speech: he engaged with the grown-up in the room.

Fortunately, I was able to write the acting General Counsel of the agency that afternoon. Rather than sending something fiery as the first salve, I sent a coy letter observing innocently that her agency seemed to believe that my contracts with the state imposed a prior restraint on my speech and I asked her to clarify the boundaries of that prior restraint so I would know what speech I was to be allowed. To her credit, she called me back about 6 minutes after having received the letter and told me that it was void and asking me to please, please pretend I had never received it. So I did, and I reward her personally for her quick and intelligent response by not naming her agency in the story.

When you deal with government agencies, you often deal with people who are entitled, or stupid, or indifferent. But there are also people who are capable, dedicated, and principled. There are grown-ups in the room. You can rail against the government — as I do here — but, if you want quick and painless results, you can also look for and politely engage the grown-up. Maybe the grown-up is genuinely concerned with your rights. Maybe the grown-up is genuinely concerned with the government agency staying out of the headlines, or out of unnecessary trouble. Maybe both. You could vent your spleen to them — you could point out that they are surrounded by thugs and jackasses. That would be satisfying. That would be true. That would be just. But it wouldn't be effective.

Sometimes you just want a swift, effective outcome. When in doubt, find the grown-up in the room, and be civil and understated to him or her.

MEMORANDUM

TO: SINCLAIR COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY, STAFF, AND SECURITY OFFICERS

FROM: PRESIDENT STEVEN L. JOHNSON

RE: I WASH MY HANDS OF THIS, AND MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOULS

Dear Sinclair Community:

I have done all I can. But I am only one man.

Last year I alerted you to to the clear and present danger created by signs, posters, fliers, and other weaponized expression wielded by fanatics intent on inflicting idea-crimes on our community. I have struggled to protect Sinclair's right to ban signs and posters and other dangerous items that menace the physical and emotional and psycho-sexual security of our students and that threaten to continue the bloody heritage of 9/11, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and that time someone tried to organize a Young Republicans Club.

I come today to say I have failed you. But your blood will not be on my hands. I did what I could.

As you can see from the crowing of hate groups like the Thomas More Society and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Sinclair has been forced into a settlement of a lawsuit brought by angry student dissidents. We have been backed into amending our Code of Conduct and Campus Access Policy, both of which had been bravely drafted by some of the finest and most progressive minds of the Theater and Sociology Departments. We have no choice but to yield. We are up against the retrograde policies imposed upon us by the so-called First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a document drafted by privileged landowners without any diversity committee input or Faculty Senate debate whatsoever.

So: have your bloody victory, "free speech advocates." Be it on your heads, not on mine, when "protestors" start swinging signs like Viking battleaxes and reaping innocent freshpersons like Autumn wheat.

I take comfort in this: though I have failed in defending an official policy limiting expression that might be hurtful to students, I have nurtured in their hearts the seed of an idea — that they have a right not to have their feelings hurt or offended. I see that hopeful shoot taking root and growing across the country. Those children are surely our future.

I am not a fan of Mitch McConnell, even though I am impressed that he has a lifespan of over 100 years and is the 10th-heaviest living reptile. However, I lack any animus against him based on the ethnic background of his wife. This distinguishes me from a PAC called Progress Kentucky

This attitude earned Progress Kentucky not only the anger of conservatives, but the scorn of the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and Talking Points Memo. And you know what they say — if you've lost the New York Times, then you're not going to get a trend story about you, even if a New York Times reporter hears about you from her Pilates instructor.

Progress Kentucky's response to criticism has not been exactly on message. They've gone with a modified sorry-if-you're-offended-by-our-intern:

A spokesman, Curtis Morrison, told WFPL, “It’s not an official statement. It’s a Tweet. And we will remove if it’s wrong.”

They've also asserted that accusing them of race-baiting is unfair, because when we accuse them of emphasizing McConnell is married to a woman of Chinese descent, we ignore that her father is also Chinese and is reputed to have gone to school with Chinese people.

As you can see from that tweet above, Progress Kentucky cites and promotes — and might have picked up its public relations skills from — Rense.com, a site that stands for a great American political truth: the more fearless and truth-seeking a political organization, the more likely it is to advertise questionable herbal supplements. Give Rense.com its due — would non-Progressive sites promote and link you to multiple posts disclosing the alien threat, or would they conceal it from you?

Hi, welcome back to 1996.

And what can you learn through those links?

Why would humans, (no matter how psychopathic), poison our environment with radiation, crude oil & chemtrails and put cancer causing GMO’s in our food? Answer, they wouldn’t, and they aren’t. These things are being done by the same cold, calculating pernicious evil that has controlled the course of events on this planet for thousands and thousands of years. Evidently the talking monkeys figure things out after enough time goes by, and they revolt, and have to be put down, hard. No problem, pernicious evil is patient, and will begin all over again after each mass extermination, uh, er, extinction event.

We are in Progress Kentucky's debt for its willingness to point out the threat of each and every type of alien.

But you probably shouldn't take my word for it. Like McConnell, I'm in league with them.

The members of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church are coming to Los Angeles and planning to picket at Santa Monica High School.

WBC will picket Santa Monica High School to tell these students the Gospel truth which their parents, teachers and preachers try desperately to hide from them. Every adult in their lives has taught them that they can disobey God and still go to Heaven, that it is OK to be gay, and that God is not cursing this doomed nation for the sin of embracing sodomy. Believing these lies will send these children straight to Hell so WBC must deliver the only message of hope and redemption they will ever receive: that you must repent and obey, for there is no other way!

We come with weeping and sorrow that the parents, teachers, preachers and leaders of St. Louis and of that school, hate their children and have stolen all hope from them. They are without God in this earth. How horrible and sad is that?!

They are also protesting at Malibu Presbyterian Church, Waveside Church in Malibu, and Our Lady of Malibu, all for not being sufficiently anti-gay.

My response will be governed by the good example of Congregation Beth Simchat Torah of New York — I'm going to donate to causes of decency and justice for every hour that the WBC people protest at these places.

(They're also protesting at the Oscars. I think the stars can arrange their own donations. Also, sweet merciful Lord those things drag on forever. I'd be bankrupt.)

For every hour they protest at the high school or the churches, I'll be donating fifty bucks to a charity that provides support and love and affirmation to gay and lesbian teens — especially organizations that provide outreach to troubled and suicidal and bullied teens. Here are the charities I am looking at:

The It Gets Better Project
The Trevor Project
Colors Youth
LA Gay And Lesbian Center

I don't know if the WBC people are sincere, or money-seeking trolls. I don't particularly care; I don't imagine the impact on a teen at Santa Monica High School would be any different.

Will you join me? If so, kindly announce your pledge here in comments, or on Twitter, or Facebook, or your favorite blog or forum, and spread the word.

That's not all.

For every hour the WBC protest at the school or the churches, I'm going to spend an hour reading and considering the viewpoints of people with whom I vehemently disagree on political and social and moral topics. It won't necessarily be on this topic. It won't necessarily change my mind on anything — though I hope it will educate me and sharpen my positions and help me articulate opposition to actual positions rather than my characterization of those positions. It's not going to make me a supporter of going to a school and gleefully telling the students there that they deserve to suffer. But considering the opinions of others, and acknowledging their humanity, is an act of defiance against the WBCs of the world.

Yesterday I discussed the strange case of "On Press, Inc.", a name used to make feckless and frequently incoherent threats against people who quoted "poet" "Shaun Shane."

Investigation results to date suggest that the "On Press, Inc." staffed by illiterates and making stupid threats is not — repeat not — the California corporation of that name. Moreover, though evidence suggests that the people using that name are in Texas, there is no record of such a corporation in Texas. Doing business under a false representation of corporate status is illegal in almost every jurisdiction.

On Twitter, I have repeatedly asked the threat accounts of "On Press, Inc." to identify the state in which they are incorporated, or identify the attorney representing them. I've received only misspelled abuse in response.

Yesterday I wrote an email address an apparent representative of "On Press, Inc." had used to leave a comment elsewhere. I've received no response. Here's the email:

Dear "On Press, Inc.":

I am a former federal prosecutor, a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association, and a blogger at www.Popehat.com on issues including free speech, bogus legal threats, and online fraud.

I have been following your legal threats and insults regarding poems by "Shaun Shane." I have written about your threats already, and will be writing more. I have some questions.

1. Is "On Press, Inc." actually a corporation? If so in what state is it incorporated?

2. Is "On Press, Inc." represented by an attorney in connection with your threats, or in connection with your claims to the copyright in the work of "Shaun Shane"? If so, who is that lawyer?

3. Will you share any documentation showing that "On Press, Inc." is the holder of the "Shaun Shane" copyright?

4. Who — that is, what human being — is operating the various "On Press, Inc." twitter accounts and making these threats?

5. Did "On Press, Inc." leave the comments by "Tammy" and "Michael Bradshaw" described in this post? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130217/18381022008/attribution-troll-press-inc-now-50-less-troll-like-also-not-yelling-people-sells-more-books.shtml

6. Did anyone from "On Press, Inc." call TechDirt pretending to be an attorney?

7. [Question redacted for strategic reasons]

8. Are you willing to discuss these issues?

Thanks,

Ken White
www.popehat.com

Meanwhile, unless trolls are impersonating them, "On Press, Inc." continues to use Twitter to threaten and insult. It appears that someone at "On Press, Inc." is attempting — to the best of their just precious ability — to make it appear they have a robust team conversing amongst themselves. Tim Cushing has collected some of the tweets illuminating the bizarre result.

Meanwhile, check out the #ShaunShane hashtag to observe attempts to write non-copyright-violating poetry.

Edited to add: in the comments, Corporal Lint finds a way to make Shaun Shane's poetry more palatable:

Translated by computer into Italian, then into French, then back into English, then into Urdu, then back into English, then into Azerbaijani, and then back to English again, it becomes evocative almost haunting:

We are
more careful
when it comes
to our language
if it can
be made ​​with glass,
we know that

Nearly eighteen years ago, the day O.J. Simpson was acquitted, the feds began their attempt to train me as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. One of the first things my supervisor told me was never to flash my modest federal prosecutor badge for any private purpose. That's an automatic 60-day unpaid vacation, she said.

I was a little insulted. What kind of moron has to be told that? What sort of self-involved twit uses a prosecutor's badge for private gain?

So: in my years as a federal prosecutor I never used my badge to intimidate or impress or harass, and therefore never got that 60-day unpaid leave. I did once absent-mindedly use it as identification while checking in for a flight. I realized my mistake and ran to the bathroom and hyperventilated for ten minutes. It's possible I'm not cut out for a life of crime.

But they gave us those stern warnings for a reason. Prosecutors are human, some of them are morons, and some of them abuse their badge for silly things like drunkenly demanding a free hot dog.

Case in point: Ari Pregen.

Ari Pregen was, until recently, a Miami-Dade Assistant State Attorney. Not anymore. Pregen has been fired. Pregen, witnesses claimed and an investigation determined, flashed his badge for personal purposes.

How personal? Getting into a strip club without paying the cover, and then avoiding a credit card surcharge for lap dances personal.

This invokes what I call the Gary Hart Rule: some behavior does not merely show bad character. It displays a level of stupidity so alarming as to render the bad character secondary. It raises a serious question as to whether emergency personnel should be rushed to the scene to equip the subject with a ventilator in case he forgets to breathe.

Doubling down, Pregen denied misusing his badge, only to be confronted with photographic proof:

According to a termination letter written by Salomon, Pregen "denied having engaged in any inappropriate conduct and denied violating any office policies." However, his bosses subsequently received additional information from Levy such as a still image of Pregen flashing his badge inside Goldrush. Levy also told Mansfield that, despite being told not to return to the club, Pregen visited Goldrush February 2 "and repeated the unbecoming conduct."

On February 8, for the second time in two days, Pregen falsely denied acting a fool and abusing his position. "Because we had proof that Mr. Pregen's assertions were false and we found his statements not to be credible, Mr. Pregen was terminated," Salomon wrote.

By now you may be thinking that Ari Pregen is a pathetic figure, and that I'm rubble-bouncing.

Before you decide, consider this: Ari Pregen was the prosecutor who pursued photographer-rights activist and Photography Is Not A Crime blogger Carlos Miller — unsuccessfully. Ari Pregen is the one who argued this:

A real journalist, he explained, was supposed to follow police orders without a second thought. A real journalist would never back talk to police. A real journalist would never question a direct police order as to why he was not allowed to stand on a public sidewalk.

Character is destiny, you statist thug.