Check out this screenshot. Someone at the website-that-cannot-be-named posted this Saturday. I don’t know who posted it. It has since been deleted. Again, I don’t know by whom – the original poster or by the website’s management? But it has left traces all over the Internet. Anyone who searches my name, years from now, might find it. It damages me. It is irresponsible. And needless to say, every single word is untrue.
“I literally cried when I read this,” my ass. You cried over something that you couldn’t have read because no one ever wrote it? Literally?
Things have gone too far. Criticism is one thing, libel is another. The owner of that website has been irresponsible and has encouraged this by his statements and his actions throughout this mess. I had hoped that this whole thing was over, but unless immediate meeting full concrete action is forthcoming, clearly more significant remedies are called for.
23 Comments.
Ted – You do whatever you want, but i actually think that this kind of thing is actually better handled by people who aren’t trying to benefit from it. Do you really believe that we can’t see the crap for what it is – or are you gong for broke over it? I’s already been covered a dozen times – do we have to turn this into a George Zimmerman type of crud? But wait – maybe we do ! We have to turn every wrong into a completely overwritten issue that obfuscates everything else, huh? everyone doesn’t agree with uour about everything – stop whining! Stop whining!
I make my living based on my good name. If someone else is ruining it, they’re taking money out of my pocket. It’s very serious. It’s not whining.
What are you trying to say?
(1) “I actually think that this kind of thing is actually better handled by people who aren’t trying to benefit from it.”
I actually think that this is an actually insane characterization, that Ted Rall is “trying to benefit from it”, and actually think that its not actually BEING handled by “those who aren’t trying to benefit from it”.
Note that your premise amounts to, “people cannot defend themselves, they can only be defended by others who have no skin in the game.” Which is a just a complicated way of saying “people have no right to defend themselves”.
(2) ” Do you really believe that we can’t see the crap for what it is – or are you gong for broke over it?”
Its quite clear that LARGE NUMEBERS are not able to see the crap for what it is, based on the support that the crap gets on Agent Orange.
(3) “We have to turn every wrong into a completely overwritten issue that obfuscates everything else, huh?”
Its actually not actually clear what this is trying to say ~ whatever “a completely overwritten issue that obfuscates everything else” intends to say, it doesn’t succeed in saying it.
(4) ‘everyone doesn’t agree with uour about everything – stop whining!”
The topic here is not about who does and who does not agree with Ted, the issue is that someone objectively lied about what Ted said, assuming that they were doing so on a platform at Agent Orange that would give them a safe harbor for the lie.
Thank you, Bruce. Indeed, if it was so obvious that these accusations were false, then they wouldn’t be a problem. The problem is, a lot of people read this stuff in a hurry and they think it is true.
It’s coming up in searches but the pages are 404’ed. Wreak mighty and terrible vengeance, my man…
I don’t want vengeance, just fairness.
As you like. Call me cynical but, personally, I really wouldn’t expect fairness from people who tried to commit libel against me.
Either way, if you’re upsetting them this much you must be doing something right.
I didn’t say I expected it. Just that I want it.
rikster,
Try this out for size. Wife and husband get divorced. Wife decides that the easiest way to win is to accuse husband of something. Child abuse, spousal abuse, whatever.
She calls up the police, screaming and crying (ask some actors, you can learn to cry on command with very little effort; and it is REMARKABLY effective). They come. The husband stands there professing his innocence.
Guess who goes downtown? And that’s how easy it is. The next day’s paper’s blotter will report John Smith was arrested for wifebeating. If he’s lucky, he’ll keep his job. At least until the wife has the sheriff show up at his place of work and hand him a restraining order. “John, I’m sorry. But I gotta let you go. I can’t have you savagely attacking the women here.”
Yes, this is a little simplified, but we do not live in a society that is interested in nuance, analysis or following up on situations years later. Some labels do not come off: child molester, wife-beater, drunk-driver. Those cases such as the Duke Lacrosse team being completely vindicated and widely publicized come along once in a blue moon. Young drunk males? Had to be rape. Couldn’t possibly be anything else. Let’s get out the tar and feathers. …
Googling for “obama-worshipping mammies” or “DNC house-negroes”, the only places those phrases have ever been used is in that diary on DK. So those quotes are direct inventions of an irresponsible person who committed libel (at the worst) or was just being reckless about your reputation (at the best).
That said… DK does not do much regulation of what people can post, and the fact that the diary is no longer up may mean that DK staff took it down.
The Internet makes people’s stupid actions more likely to cause intentional or unintentional damage.
@artiofab, I agree. I strongly doubt that the website that shall not be named approved of what was posted. However, they created this atmosphere from the very top when the owner of the site specifically endorsed the accusation that I was racist. In essence, he created the online equivalent of a hostile work environment.
He knows I’m not racist and he should have said so.
If someone had been responsible for posting such tripe here on my blog, I would ban them and chastise them in no uncertain terms. However, over there, dozens, scores, possibly hundreds of people were allowed to run loose with such wild accusations.
The someone created their profile and wrote that diary on the same day: http://www.dailykos.com/user/Two%20Shoes
I’ll agree that the owner of DK has created the equivalent of a hostile work environment, and diaries like those of “Two Shoes” are what can now happen there.
it was up for at *least* an hour; enough time for a few dozen comments in it and plenty of people to see it.
in fact, the sites legal advisor was the second comment in it and that comment was made 6 minutes after the diary posted. so site legal advisor did not advise admin to take it down either as it was up for at least another hour.
@poligirl: Do you remember what was the tenor of the legal advisor’s comment? Do you remember what was the general tone of the comments in general? Did anybody question the veracity of the diary?
i’ll do you one better. here’s the link: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1265747/52234487
he had 2 comments in the diary, both in that thread.
and quite a few people did question the accuracy of the claim FWIW.
Ted, I say you should have a lawyer send a certified letter to Markos himself. Demand a front-page retraction, acknowledging that the post in question was malicious, false and derogatory. Require an apology and a permanent link on the DK site to the apology.
If that fails, take him to court. Get yourself a lawyer who knows how to fight, and file in Suffolk County (that is where you live, right)? Have Markos drag his ass all over the country having to respond to his site’s obscene behavior.
I learned it a long time ago, Ted. This sort of stuff happens. And it’s a pain in the ass to deal with it. But if you don’t respond forcefully to it — giving the other side their one opportunity to step up and take responsibility — before you know it, the damage will be so widespread, you won’t be able to understand why everyone thinks you’re a racist sumbitch.
Find out how much it’ll cost and start a “I want to sue DK” kickstarter campaign. I’ll chip in. I’ll have to eat rice for a week, but I’ll chip in. Maybe those simpletons at the ACLU could actually step up and do what they’re supposed to: clearly you’re being attacked, and the attacks will continue until you compel the attackers to stop.
@Alex, We think a lot alike, and this topic is one of those times. You may recall that I sued an asshole for libel back in 1999. Still waiting for my day in court because the douche knew he’d lose, so he kept filing delaying motions. I’m out $140,000. I don’t regret it because he never would have stopped, not ever – he was impersonating me in emails to my editors to destroy my career.
You’re right, these smears have to be addressed aggressively.
By the way, my lawyer told me fundraising for a lawsuit is only legal if the funders don’t stand to receive any goodies.
I don’t think the ACLU would touch this since it isn’t a civil liberties case. It’s libel.
Just saw this. Markos made his own bed and now he’s lying in it. I didn’t catch that post myself. But people who don’t like that blog will look for ways to mess with it, and this is likely exactly that.
This kind of thing is also why we’re getting Facebook enforcement all over the place, because site owners want accountability when libelous situations such as this arise. Or more to the point to discourage this from happening in the first place.
The big fail, to me, is that it wasn’t instantly removed. Potentially libelous claims without substantiating links should be jumped on. That was sloppy of them and it will bite them in the ass yet.
I’m not going to give Ted legal advice here as IANAL and the Internet is a legally murky place. One could send Markos a cease and desist letter, but cease and desist doing what? Having trolls?
More comments to the piece:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1265747/52234776
http://www.dailykos.com/comment/1265747/52234687#c20
I think the admins probably deleted it, no reason to believe the author did himself.
Here’s the one person who recommended the piece, didn’t comment in it, but was around when it was posted.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1258914/52011726
It’s also worth noting that this person has not been banned for recommending a libelous post, when people are routinely banned for much more minor infractions.
The second round of comments is most elucidating. Notice how, when one commentor notes that I never said that – and I never did – someone else says that I must have said it in print. Which I didn’t. These people will say and do anything to smear opponents of their beloved drone-murderer president.