Thank You Pamela Geller

[Trippy]

Lies and mischaracterization. I put up with enough of this from Jan and Wynn and the like. To the ignore list with you!

EDIT: Whaaat? You're a moderator?!

Ugh.

I suppose it figures. In any event, we're done here.

Yes. I moderate Earth Science, Chemistry, and General Science & Technology.

I must confess curiosity to what you think I have lied about or mischaracterized.

[Trippy]

She could charge that she was only referring to, as the poster said, "enemies of Israel." It was Trippy who drew the conclusion that she was corralling all Palestinians as savages and Jihadists. And in all likelihood, that's probably what she meant--but do you glean that simply from the sign, or from knowledge of her politics in general?

I consider that even if you consider the sign in a vacuum, it stands as a reasonable reading.

I consider that this reading is strengthened by considering the context provided by the campaign that it was in response to, and the usage of Ayn Rands words in the advertising campaign, that have just enough removed from them to make denial plausable.

“The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. WHEN YOU HAVE CIVILIZED MEN FIGHTING SAVAGES, YOU SUPPORT THE CIVILIZED MEN, no matter who they are.”

[quadraphonics]

But we're talking about legal definitions,

Right.

and it isn't on me to prove that it hasn't done harm.

It is if you want to assert that there was no defamation.

I'm not even saying it doesn't. I'm saying good luck proving it.

So you are not asserting that there was no defamation, as a matter of fact. You're only pursuing the much more limited claim that such would make for a difficult case in court.

And no, it is not a distinct question.

Sure it is. You just invoked exactly the distinction in question above, in your retreat from your prior assertion. Which, by the way, you'd do well to avoid this sort of tactic wherein you retreat while beating your chest and insisting that you aren't. It doesn't fool anybody.

It also applies to matters of public interest, and I don't believe I'm being too liberal by including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in that category.

You should be able to cite a precedent that tells us one way or the other, rather than waving your hands, on that question.

Regardless, you still haven't advanced any substantive argument that no harm was done. Which I guess is no problem now that you have given up arguing that there was no defamation, and only that it would be difficult to establish such in court.

Even the factual incorrectness part would be difficult, no?

You may recall that my whole original point in addressing you here was that you went too far in asserting that it was factually incorrect, or even a statement of fact at all.

She could charge that she was only referring to, as the poster said, "enemies of Israel." It was Trippy who drew the conclusion that she was corralling all Palestinians as savages and Jihadists. And in all likelihood, that's probably what she meant--but do you glean that simply from the sign, or from knowledge of her politics in general?

That consideration would only affect the details of which parties, exactly, could make a claim of defamation.

Also, the poster does not refer to "enemies of Israel." It refers to "savages" and "jihad."

I haven't been able to find the actual opinion of the judge, only some snarky article clippings misleadingly stating that "The judge agrees with her."

The NYTimes article has more significant quotes from the ruling. I'm sure you could simply look up the text of the ruling itself if you were so inclined.

But that could be one defense, sure. If it's her opinion, rather than a factual statement, then it's not defamation.

So you are renouncing your previous assertion that it was an (incorrect) statement of fact, then.

No it would not. Malice is the intention of harm. An insult would fall under the "mere vulgar abuse" defense.

That is an awfully obtuse response to what I said, considering that you edited out the material on "mere vulgar abuse" defense that immediately follows it. Considering the fact that you quoted everything else I said in its entirety, it is difficult to believe that said editing was not intentional and mendacious. Anyway, let me refresh your memory:

That would go to malice. If you are referring to the "mere vulgar abuse" defense to defamation charges, she would have to establish that her claims were not intended to be taken seriously or believed, which does not seem credible for an act of political speech consisting of an ad campaign.

Maybe you can actually respond to that, instead of editing it out of your quotes and then replying as if I'd never heard of it. Such being an inane, dishonorable tactic, after all.

Supposing, of course, that you don't make good on your whole crybaby threat to pick up and leave this thread, now that your bully tactics are backfiring on you.

No, I have also suggested that it is impossible to meet these criteria in this case, and therefore the ad is not defamatory.

Again, you are eliding between the question of "sufficient to establish guilt in a court of law," and "defamatory as a question of fact." ANd you have not established that such criteria are impossible to meet, you have simply raised various difficulties and outstanding questions.

I changed it because I suddenly realized that I'm not altogether sure how freedom of speech and defamation laws coexist. That is to say, the judge said plainly that it is a political ad and its message must be protected--does that not suggest that he has ruled out its potential as a defamatory ad? I'm not sure, so I took that out.

There is no direct consideration fo the question of defamation, as the policy the judge is ruling on does not deal with defamation. As I've already said, he does equate it with protected political speech and characterize the statements as pure opinion (not fact).

Is that not what was just addressed?

Nope. The MTA policy in question does not deal with defamation. It deals with "demeaning" individuals or various protected groups.

[Balerion]

Right.



It is if you want to assert that there was no defamation.



So you are not asserting that there was no defamation, as a matter of fact. You're only pursuing the much more limited claim that such would make for a difficult case in court.

I was speaking from a legal standpoint, which is the only relevant perspective. Can something be defaming without legal implications?

Sure it is. You just invoked exactly the distinction in question above, in your retreat from your prior assertion. Which, by the way, you'd do well to avoid this sort of tactic wherein you retreat while beating your chest and insisting that you aren't. It doesn't fool anybody.

Neither do false accusations of retreat. I've talked all along about defamation as a legal concept. If the act does not meet certain criteria, it is not defamation.

You should be able to cite a precedent that tells us one way or the other, rather than waving your hands, on that question.

Precedent for what? For actual malice?

Regardless, you still haven't advanced any substantive argument that no harm was done. Which I guess is no problem now that you have given up arguing that there was no defamation, and only that it would be difficult to establish such in court.

I have not given up arguing that there was no defamation. I have said that it would be impossible to prove harm, and without meeting that criteria, it is not defamation. As far as I am aware, there is no "defamation in fact" outside of the legal definition. And that's just one of at least three criteria that must be met.

And how am I to prove that no harm is done? How can I prove a negative?

You may recall that my whole original point in addressing you here was that you went too far in asserting that it was factually incorrect, or even a statement of fact at all.

Interesting that you didn't bring the same complaint to Trippy, who made the opposite claim I made. But again, I am not aware of something being defamation without meeting the legal definition. It's like calling a killing a murder when it is actually manslaughter. It's a killing, sure, but unless it's legally a murder, then it isn't a murder.

The NYTimes article has more significant quotes from the ruling. I'm sure you could simply look up the text of the ruling itself if you were so inclined.

I've since found some more. You can stop pretending that I'm not interested in the facts of the case.

So you are renouncing your previous assertion that it was an (incorrect) statement of fact, then.

I believe I've addressed this already.

That is an awfully obtuse response to what I said, considering that you edited out the material on "mere vulgar abuse" defense that immediately follows it. Considering the fact that you quoted everything else I said in its entirety, it is difficult to believe that said editing was not intentional and mendacious. Anyway, let me refresh your memory:

Maybe you can actually respond to that, instead of editing it out of your quotes and then replying as if I'd never heard of it. Such being an inane, dishonorable tactic, after all.

I did respond to it. Your assertion that it would not fall under "mere vulgar abuse" is incorrect. And you must know this, otherwise you wouldn't have been reduced to nitpicking the way in which I quote your post. It's not a good sign that you've already gotten off-topic.

Supposing, of course, that you don't make good on your whole crybaby threat to pick up and leave this thread, now that your bully tactics are backfiring on you.

Oh, so you're just trolling! I should have known. You are on my ignore list, but I figured I'd give you a chance. That was apparently a mistake, as I've now opened myself to yet another useless exchange with someone who is only interested in having the appearance of correctness. And my "threat" was directed at Trippy, not at you. I was still hoping for something substantive from you, but I should have guessed that this olive branch was merely a Trojan Horse. I should expect nothing less from you.

Again, you are eliding between the question of "sufficient to establish guilt in a court of law," and "defamatory as a question of fact." ANd you have not established that such criteria are impossible to meet, you have simply raised various difficulties and outstanding questions.

If you can't understand it, I can't help you. That's a 'you' problem. As for the "defamatory as a question of fact," I believe I've addressed that above.

There is no direct consideration fo the question of defamation, as the policy the judge is ruling on does not deal with defamation. As I've already said, he does equate it with protected political speech and characterize the statements as pure opinion (not fact).

But if it is protected political speech, how can it be defamatory?

Nope. The MTA policy in question does not deal with defamation. It deals with "demeaning" individuals or various protected groups.

If it isn't demeaning, then certainly it isn't defamatory, no?

[quadraphonics]

I was speaking from a legal standpoint, which is the only relevant perspective. Can something be defaming without legal implications?

It seems that you are intent on missing the point.

Neither do false accusations of retreat. I've talked all along about defamation as a legal concept. If the act does not meet certain criteria, it is not defamation.

Again: evading the point and misconstruing my position. Nobody (except yourself?) is fooled.

Precedent for what? For actual malice?

For the quoted supposition, obviously: that speech on the topic of Israel's security is a question of the public interest and so subject to reduced protections against defamation.

I have not given up arguing that there was no defamation.

Yes, you have. You are only arguing that it would be difficult to prove in court:

I have said that it would be impossible to prove harm, and without meeting that criteria, it is not defamation.

Doesn't follow. Difficulty in proving harm would mean that there would be no defamation conviction. That is a separate question from whether defamation occured as a matter of fact.

As far as I am aware, there is no "defamation in fact" outside of the legal definition.

That doesn't imply that difficulty in proving defamation in court means that no defamation occurred at all. Why are you going to such inane semantic lengths to avoid aknowledging this simple fact?

And how am I to prove that no harm is done? How can I prove a negative?

Proof is only a problem with existential negatives. You aren't being asked to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. You would need to do basically the same thing that is required to establish that harm did occur: for example, identify some measurable aspect of the interests of the aggrieved party, and show that this ad did not have a significant effect on them.

Are you going to insist that one can't prove that, say, a given beverage does not cause cancer? If I assert that water does not cause cancer, are you going to cry "you can't prove a negative!"? Do you really think that such is the standard of "proof" relevant to a court proceding?

Your position is merely that it would be difficult to prove, in the legal sense, that harm occurred. To assert that no defamation occurred, you'd need to prove that no harm occurred. Thus, you are arguing that a defamation suit would be difficult to win, not that no defamation occurred as a question of fact.

Interesting that you didn't bring the same complaint to Trippy, who made the opposite claim I made.

I am not addressing Trippy.

But again, I am not aware of something being defamation without meeting the legal definition.

Again, you are intentionally missing the point. There is no dispute over the legal definition of defamation. You are making statements about the difficulty of establishing the elements needed to meet the legal definition in a court of law. That is different from making statements about the presence of said elements as such.

You do aknowledge that it is possible for something to happen, but for it to be difficult to establish that in court, right? That courts rule on whether there is sufficient evidence to convict, on not on the underlying questions of fact directly? That the fact that OJ Simpson was found not guilty, does not mean he did not commit murder?

I've since found some more. You can stop pretending that I'm not interested in the facts of the case.

No pretense was involved in my vanilla, good-faith response to your open admission of ignorance of the facts of the case, nor the absence of due diligence implied by such. That you were embarassed by you own admission and acted on my suggestions as to where to find more information is hardly an indictment of me.

I believe I've addressed this already.

If you mean that you've doubled down on your overt point-missing as part of your ass-covering tactic as you retreat from your earlier claims, then sure. If you mean that you've provided a substantive, satisfactory response, then you have not.

I did respond to it.

You did not. You pretended that I never raised the issue, and then answered with a naked counter-assertion.

Your assertion that it would not fall under "mere vulgar abuse" is incorrect.

You have signally failed to address my reasoning there. That is one reason why I had to repeat it for you (the implied misconstrual of my position being the other). This is just more bluster on your part, as part of your bully troll approach.

And you must know this, otherwise you wouldn't have been reduced to nitpicking the way in which I quote your post. It's not a good sign that you've already gotten off-topic.

If that's the best bullying you can muster, you should just give up on your whole program of browbeating. You're all empty bluster.

Oh, so you're just trolling!

Well, counter-trolling or troll-baiting, to be precise. Upshot being that you are in no position to complain.

I should have known. You are on my ignore list, but I figured I'd give you a chance.

Given that your ignore list seems to consist entirely of people who throw wrenches into your trolling campaigns, I take that as a complement.

Also, ignore lists are for weaklings with ego problems.

That was apparently a mistake, as I've now opened myself to yet another useless exchange with someone who is only interested in having the appearance of correctness.

Is that what you tell youself? No wonder you need to rely on an ignore list to sustain your hypersenstive ego.

I was still hoping for something substantive from you,

You can't handle substance. You're out to bully, and when you encounter people who present substantial disagreement and aren't cowed by your tactics you throw a hissy fit and go into double-time on your ego-protection and hectoring tactics.

but I should have guessed that this olive branch was merely a Trojan Horse. I should expect nothing less from you.

I would describe it as a test. You failed - as expected - but it can't be said that you didn't have the chance to behave honorably.

One reason that I respect Trippy is that he has managed to pass such tests before. He is able to keep his ego in check, even in heated situations, admit honest mistakes and errors, and respond honorably.

If you can't understand it, I can't help you. That's a 'you' problem.

I am not having any difficulties understanding anything, nor have I evinced such. This is just more blustering tactics on your part.

As for the "defamatory as a question of fact," I believe I've addressed that above.

You have done nothing more than evade the point and attempt to browbeat me into letting you get away with it.

But if it is protected political speech, how can it be defamatory?

It can't, but that begs the question of whether it was defamatory. The judge did not consider that question, from what I can tell.

Moreover, there is the point that political speech is allowed extra leeway - things that would be clearly defamatory absent a political context, end up allowed. So if your position is simply that this stuff doesn't count as "defamation" because it's politics and our legal system says that politics is a "defame all you want!" zone, well, you're hanging your argument on a legal and semantic technicality that really won't impress anyone and which does not particularly address the objections of Trippy and others.

Are you happy to characterize the speech in question as "repugnant, harmful, immoral and disgusting, but not 'defamation' under the strict legal definition?" I think it would go a long way towards your position in this thread to balance your energetic, tenacious defense of the legality of this speech, with constant disclaimers that it is nevertheless reprehensible and that the world would be a better place if Geller never said anything like this in public ever again. The legality of this kind of disgusting shit is a cost of free speech, and not an example of its benefits - yes?

If it isn't demeaning, then certainly it isn't defamatory, no?

Misses the point: the MTA policy would allow defamatory speech, so long as it does not demean any particular individual or protected group. So the ruling that the MTA policy is unconstitutional does not say that a policy against defamatory speech would be unconstitutional.

Defamation, in general, does not need to be "demeaning." I can publish a lie about a business competitor charging high prices, and thereby harm his business and so incur a libel charge, without saying anything "demeaning" about him or his business, except possibly in the most tenous sense.

[Balerion]

*trolling*

Yep, just as I suspected.

Enjoy the silence, troll.

[Gustav]

burying your head in the sand, jdawg?

[Trippy]

Am example of not letting it go unopposed:

Source