Donald Kent Douglas Wins The Internet!!

After a whole lotta reflection, I'm giving up. Throwing in the towel. I'm forfeiting the game, and letting Dr. Douglas take home the trophy, such as it is...

While our friend Donalde is welcome to make any heroic claims he wants about his victory and the reasons for it, the fact is, this has been building for awhile.
What started out as one thing became another. In some ways, I started behaving like my opponent--mostly by thinking all this personal bullshit actually mattered, and believing that my online worth was somehow tied into "winning" this competition, but also in some of the actions I took--and I was having more trouble squaring who I wanted to be with who and how I actually was. There came a point where my heart wasn't in it anymore, but I felt roped in in general, and that I had no choice but to defend myself and my honor when attacked, especially.

There have been a few people, words, and incidents (or some combination thereof) that have brought me to the post I'm making, here...

This whole legal fiasco of Donald's has a lot to do with it, but not for the reasons he will likely claim. I'll get to that, below.

But even before that, there was:

1) the general decline in posting by all of the authors, here... Whether spoken or unspoken, our hearts just weren't in it, anymore... I suspect we all had our reasons, but we all pretty much slowed to a crawl (except me, but only when legalistically defending myself against attacks...)

2) This comment from xpatPHD (or "splat," according to my spellcheck) about the place lacking in the fun it used to have, was also instrumental. It made a whole lotta sense (even if I never was one of the fun ones, really... I still maintain I'm the cute one in the group, but opinions differ.) While stupid pride and the feeling that I had to defend my good name kept me posting those legalistic tour duh forces (yeah, I know...) anyway, I knew he was right...

3) I found myself spending more time AFTK in that big scary real world, or online AFTP (away from the politics), reading music blogs, literary sites, and all manner of nerdy, fun, non-confrontational whatnot... ...and 1) really enjoying it, and 2) not giving a thought to this confrontational bullshit. Like it wasn't even there.

There were probably a few other "pre-legal freakout" factors, but I can't think of 'em just now. Even so, I'm sure they were just as special and life-changing...whatever they may've been....

And then came Donalde's freakout, culminating (so far, and so far as I know, anyway) in his visits to the Irvine Police, and his congressman...

Though it's very likely that Dr Douglas will claim otherwise, it isn't about my fearing the awesome american power that is him, himself, or my facing up to my supposed "crimes," but yes, the fact that Donald Douglas actually walked into a police station (& perhaps more than one, as well as a congressman's office, and maybe a DOJ or FBI office, taboot) to complain because someone was submitting comments to his moderated blog against his wishes did affect me. To put it plainly, I realized that Donald Douglas is fucking disturbed in a way that I just hadn't seen, before. (People told me, going clear all the way back to Octopus in 2008 or so--a man to whom I owe a heartfelt apology in this regard--but until Donald went and did this, I didn't really believe he was, well, actually disturbed. I just thought he was really wrong, and maybe a bit too "passionate" about some things.)
But anyone who would be crazy/brave enough to waste the time of first responders and political officials over blog comments that he was already perfectly capable of controlling, and insisting that laws designed to protect battered women apply to him and his blog, is really pretty. far. out. there.

And it wasn't just me thinkin' it... Folks online said so... Folks I spoke to offline said so, too, including some of the folks I consulted with about the laws that do and don't apply to the situation--folks who have more real-world experience with these kinda things than I do... Over and over, I heard essentially the same message... Only the wording would change:

Any guy crazy enough to think he's entitled to have police officers and the FBI enforce the rules of his blog is likely crazy enough to be dangerous when he discovers that they cannot. In any case, it's probably not a good idea to put yourself in the position of finding out.

---

Then there was having to talk to people about what went on... It didn't really occur to me until I was about to go talk to my friend, the lawyer, but not everybody blogs... ...and even fewer blog politically... And very few do the kind of crap in the name of political blogging that Donalde and I have been doing with and to each other for the last several years. I can't speak for Donalde--obviously--but I was pretty embarrassed to have to explain it all, but especially that last part...

The bullshit I subjected myself to...
The bullshit I did...
The whole stupid stereotypical male pissing contest aspect of the thing...
Like I said above, this isn't who I want to be, and having to admit out loud that it's who I've been was a real wake-up call...

The final straws came in the last 36-48 hours. First, was a post by one of Donalde's online blogging friends: Saberpoint: Strange Things Are Happening....Donald Douglas Annoyed by Leftwing Blogger. In his post, Stogie says:

"One thing is apparent. Casper has won.

Donald has allowed this individual to get under his skin in a very big way. All Casper has to do now is make any small remark and Donald has a mental breakdown...or so it seems.

Donald, there is much truth to the saying "Don't feed the trolls." You have been serving Casper a 16 oz steak on a daily basis. You have rewarded his efforts. Stop commenting about Respac3 aka Walter James Casper III. Stop reacting to him. Stop referring to him as "hate blogger Walter James Casper III." Is he a hate blogger? Who knows? Who cares, but why give him such a fearsome reputation?"

And in kinda the same vein, a few comments by (very) occasional nihilist Doctor Biobrain, attached to a post at his blog. ...And like Stogie's words above, they were addressed to Donald Douglas. Here's a representative sample, taken from several comments there:

Frankly, I've never understood why they bother with you. You're a boring clown who doesn't deserve to have a blog named American Nihilist dedicated to denouncing you. Exposing your hypocrisy, errors, and lies is like trying to count sand. After awhile, you realize it's pointless and just give up. - And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: 11:30 PM

"Again, that's why you shouldn't mess with people. You never know who is crazy and who might cross lines you don't want crossed. And if you treated people with more respect, you wouldn't be having these problems." - And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: 11:48 AM

"I mean, like the claims of me being a nihilist. What the fuck did that even mean? I'm a CPA who has his own business, a family man, completely trustworthy, and widely regarded as a nice guy by everyone. I'm one of the most optimistic people you'll ever meet and rightly so, because my life is good and I'm having fun about 99.9% of the time. I believe America is great and want it to be even better for everyone.

And so the idea that I'm a nihilist was soooooo ridiculous that I eventually turned it into its own thing. I really enjoy writing those nihilist posts and I owe it all to you, for being my inspiration.

And yet you stand by those claims, as well as all the other smears you've thrown at me over the years. And what did you gain from it? Nothing. Not a damn thing, except a lot of hassle and a blog devoted to denouncing you.

So how about you change your ways? Stop the personal smears and start making amends by acknowledging that you were wrong for personally attacking all the people you attacked. I'm telling you, these people aren't monsters. Or I hope they're not anyway. And maybe it's too late and they'll just pounce on you, but you shouldn't let it bother you because it shouldn't be personal. And more likely than not, you'll find that they're just regular people like everyone else.

The way I see things, if you're not having fun in life, then you're doing it wrong. And I don't see how you're having fun with this. There's a solution and you're the only one who can do it. You can never insult someone into submission, but you can certainly win them over with a little friendliness and understanding.

Liberals aren't evil nihilists, Donald and we never were. Life isn't nearly that exciting." - And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: 2:12 AM

"As I keep saying, there are scary people in this world and you shouldn't fuck with people you don't know. That's why you should be respectful to everyone, because you never know when someone might go crazy and kill you. And so if you go around insulting people all the time and making personal attacks, you don't DESERVE to be pummeled, but you wouldn't be entirely blameless for it either. And that's why we don't go around insulting people and making personal attacks, because we don't want to piss off the crazies." - And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: 12:21 AM

While I don't agree with every last word either of 'em said in their comments, both of 'em spoke to me, even though--coincidentally--they were both actually talking to Donald.

There is no reason why Donalde should have a blog devoted to refudiating everything he says... Why should anyone care? Why should I treat him as though he's worthy of that kind of attention? Why should I bother with what he says or thinks about me or anything else, when it's clear that the people who value his opinions are people I don't give a damned about in the first place...

Stogie's right, but Donalde isn't the only one reacting to the other like Pavlov's dog... I was doing it, too, responding here to every mention of my name there, pretty much on sight...

Bio's right... Debating Donalde and dealing with his lies and ever-shifting hypocrisies is like counting grains of sand... Wet sand. In the snow. With gale force winds.
And when you come right down to it, it serves no legitimate purpose. Why wallow in the mud and slime with this clod? "...you both get dirty, but only the pig likes it."

I'd rather accentuate the positive, thanks... ...and it's time I start...

So, though Donald Douglas seemingly won't listen to 'em, I will.

The fact is, I want no part of it, anymore...

I'm done.

If this is what Donalde wants to call "winning," he can have it, with all the blessings and good wishes I can muster...
Maybe my leaving the dance floor will indirectly curtail Donald's hateful tango of derision, distraction and destruction... (It takes two, you know... Even if Donald's still not willing to stop, finding a new dance partner stupid and pig-headed enough to take over for me will take time...)
---

Here's what I'm intending, at least right now...

The. Blog. Stays. Up.

That's a promise I won't go back on. I'm a stickler for the written record, besides, so it just makes sense... I'll probably adjust a few things... ...and maybe even repurpose the place, perhaps... We shall see... (Unless/until I do repurpose the place or whatever, the other authors continue to be free to post as they wish... Any topic--even the one I'm giving up on, even. (As always, I only speak for myself. They can post as they please, according to their own consciences.)--whenever and however they wish...)

The one exception to my declaration above is this legal business... I'll continue to discuss that here and wherever else necessary, online or off, for as long as it's a going concern, but once it's gone, so is Donald Douglas, man and myth, as a topic of my blogging. (And Donald... If you secretly have even the slightest misgivings about calling your congressman, the police, & who-knows-who-fuck-all over blog comments, I'm offering you an easy, blame-free (blame-me) way out... Say you're stopping because it's unnecessary, seeing as how I gave in, defeated... It's all up to you, Bud, and I won't call you out... You'll never get a better opportunity to slink out of such a stupid, crazy, bone-headed, CRAZY (and did I say crazy?) f@ck%ng move, without even having to admit either fault or failure. If I was you, I'd think about it.)

That isn't to say I won't discuss the same topics as him, or even quote and cite American Power, sometimes... But to the extent that it's possible, I'll avoid mentioning his name, or discussing him, personally. (While my phrasing may seem a tad weaselly, I don't much go in for absolute statements and zero tolerance policies... There are circumstances that would warrant my talking about Donald personally--especially given the current situation--and I'm not going to swear to do / not do something that could at some later point turn out to be unreasonable.)

In true Donalde Kent Douglas fashion though, he is now and forevermore BANNED!!! from commenting on any/all blogs under my control... No whining, threats or fretting... All future submissions disappeared on sight, without further notice or comment. Persona non grata, gone-a, goodbye...
---

That's it, least as far as I can think of just now...

Given the intended finality of this post and it's subject, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks as needed, for a reasonable slice of the future... (whatever that means...), and to bump this post topwards whenever I feel it needs it... ...at least until the (possible) repurposing of AmNi... Folks who drop by later have a right to know why the posts dried up...

So congratulations Donald... You "won"... Commence declaring victory.
I'll be... ...well... ...somewhere else, and likely having more fun than you.
----------

Originally posted 2/8/12, 11:34 AM
Bumped 2/23/12, 6:00 PM

A Last Gift To Professor Douglas

Being the kind, gentle and empathetic soul I am, I can't leave the Nutty Professor without a kind parting gift. And what neocon heterosexual male wouldn't appreciate the fantasy of two neocon hotties like Bertha and Donetta.


Don's given me far more enjoyment than perhaps anyone else on the American Nihilist roster and it's commenters. Maybe that's why he's shied away from engaging me. He has no way to penetrate my shields of truth, wisdom and humor. This does give him more energy to fantasize about penetrating Bertha and Donetta and for that Donald I say, you're welcome.


Don's been smarting for nearly two years since I defeated him with my "Shithead Gambit." I told him he was a shithead and declared victory over him and his neocon forces of shitheadness. He never recovered. And his pathetic "banning" of me was in fact his way of surrender while trying to save face with other neocon shitheads.




I abandoned the cerebral approach of engaging with righties years ago. You cannot reason intellectually with someone who thinks Michelle Bachman has an IQ higher than the average turnip. Just you can't argue with someone who has no health insurance and is against universal health insurance. They're idiots.


To sum it up though, I really think Don's idiocy is not in believing all the crap he spouts on his blog and wherever else he goes. I really don't think he believes all that crap. He just saw it as a way to achieve fame or some measure of success in a field that in reality is of no benefit to mankind. And seeing as how righties will go anywhere in their attempts to affirm their deluded ideas, Don figured he could cash in on their bigotry and ignorance. From what I've seen from those who have visited Don's blog, Don's financial situation is not in the best of shape. And while I wish nobody financial hardship, it is telling that Don is struggling while kooks like Eric Ericson and Andrew Breitbart seem to be doing well.


Just as Reppy has decided to end his posting at AN, perhaps Don should end his at American Power. It's doing him no good. Pam Gellar isn't going to show him her naughty bits. Mitt Romney isn't going to have him as his guest at the republican convention. And Jerry Brown will continue to cut funding which puts Don even loser to the unemployment line.


So Professor, ride off into the sunset with Repsac. Make sure you're resume and list of job references are in order. Practice saying "Would you like fries with that" and always remember Bertha and Donetta will be here for you.

Nobody Loves a Nihilist

Criminalizing the Internet - The Ongoing Saga

A repository of the laws being cited by Donald Kent Douglas, in his attempts to legally bar me from responding to his posts (and teach me a lesson about daring to oppose him, of course)...((and with this, on 2/8/12, only the latter remains as a viable motive.)) ...and my responses to them. (The reason(s) each law doesn't apply to our situation is emboldened. Newest additions at the top...)

All this, because I submitted comments to posts at his moderated American Power blog (often, posts where he attacks me by name) against his wishes... Yeesh... (That and because he disagrees with me politically... Can't forget that...)
---

Added Tuesday, February 7, 2012, 6:30 AM (PDST):

Today's offering, "American Power: Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III," wasn't so much a citation of law as an "If I Were King Of The Internets" statement. On some level, I'd probably prefer that the law said whatever I needed it to for me to smite my enemies, too... ...but that's just not how the world works...

Even in today's post though, there's this, cited from HaltAbuse.org:

First, you need to determine whether or not what you're experiencing is truly harassment.

Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply. The legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is:

"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person."

This is of course a very broad definition, which state and federal legislation and common law have narrowed and refined in various ways. However, for our purposes, WHOA defines online harassment as any actions that meet the qualifications of the above definition after the harasser has been told to cease.

If someone simply disagrees with you, however strongly or unpleasantly, that isn't harassment. Someone who sends you a single email message that isn't overtly threatening probably hasn't harassed you. Spam, while very annoying, isn't harassment. And messages posted to any open venue, such as a newsgroup, a web-based board, an AOL discussion forum or a chat room, are seldom truly harassing unless they're forged to appear to come from you or contain direct threats or libelous statements. The same goes for things said on someone else's web site. Harassment usually involves repeated communications via email or some sort of instant messaging program after the harasser has clearly been told to go away.

My records indicate I sent three e-mails to Dr Douglas' blog e-mail address, all of which were more or less on topic, and only after reading this invitation: "Comments are closed. Readers who'd like to comment may reply to me by e-mail (at my Blogger profile) and I'll add comments in updates to this post." Everything else have been comments submitted to his "open venue" blog, intending that they be posted publicly, and did not contain any threats or libelous statements.

***

Below as posted 2/6/12, 10:00 AM (...mostly... I think I made a few grammatical edits and definitely link additions, since...)
From: American Power: Federal Investigation of Walter James Casper III Could Involve Civil Rights Abuses, Monday, February 6, 2012, 7:00 AM (PDST)

Federal statute 47 U.S.C. 223 prohibits anonymous harassment on the Internet and general harassment with the intent to annoy. As one writer indicates:

Ok, let me put this in plain English for you, using the language of section 223 itself:

Anybody who uses the Internet to post or email any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person has just committed a Federal crime, for which they can be imprisoned, fined, or both.

(Note: the terms "lewd", "lascivious", "filthy", and "indecent" were struck from the law subsequent to this blogger's opinion piece from 2006. Not that anything I submitted to Dr. Douglas' American Power blog was lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, either...)

There has been no obscene content, and no intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass anyone. I submitted generally on-topic comments to a moderated blog.

Just to be clear, the rest of 47 U.S.C. 223:

(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;

Nope, for what should be obvious reasons...

(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

Nope... no anonymity, and no intent... (also read legal opinions that say a computer is not covered under "telecommunications device," unless one is using VOIP.)

(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

Nope. (Do I need to explain?)

(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or

There has been no pattern or repetition, and no contact solely to harass. (And then there's that "telecommunications device" question, again...)

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

Again, no... (Whatever Donald Douglas' claims are, he most assuredly is making them about me...)

***

From: American Power: Update On Big Talking Harassment-Blogger Capt. Fogg of 'Human Voices', Sunday, February 5, 2012, 1:00 AM (PDST)

US Code 18 Section 2261A:

Whoever--

(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(2) with the intent--

(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or

(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--

(i) that person;
(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 [1] of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;


uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); [2] shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title.

This one seems pretty obvious... there has been no travel, and/or no intent to to kill, injure, harass, place anyone under surveillance, or cause anyone substantial emotional distress, by any means.

ALSO:

§ 223. OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS
(a) Prohibited acts generally

Whoever—

(1) in interstate or foreign communications—

(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—

(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person...

No obscenity or child pornography, and no intent...

***

From: American Power: California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III, Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 6:00 AM (PDST)

SEC. 5. Section 653m of the California Penal Code

a. Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

b. Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with intent to annoy another person at his or her residence, is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

c. Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

Aside from the jurisdictional issues, (see below), there has been no intent to annoy or repeated contact, and no obscene language or threat to inflict injury to person or property.

***

From: American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III, Friday, January 27, 2012, 9:45 PM (PDST)

SEC. 4. Section 646.9 of the California Penal Code is amended to read:

646.9.

a. Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
b. Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
c. Every person who, having been convicted of a felony under this section, commits a second or subsequent violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
d. In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the sentencing court may order a person convicted of a felony under this section to register as a sex offender pursuant to subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290.
e. For the purposes of this section, "harasses" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
f. For purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."
g. For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section.
h. For purposes of this section, the term "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Aside from the jurisdictional issues--alleged crimes are committed where the alleged criminal is, not where the alleged victim is--there have been no willful and repeated behaviors, or any credible threat with intent to place anyone in fear for his/her safety. Rather, we're talking about non-threatening, on-topic comments submitted to a public blog for moderator approval.

***

September 22, 2011, 12:28 AM (EDST)

"And you might be careful about sponsoring your workplace attacks against me at this blog. You, as the admin, published calls to contact my employers, and that's called "tortious interference" with someone's work, and a judge recently ruled against a blogger in Minnesota. My lawyer raised the references, so we're on to you, and you are not on sound legal ground. And no, you haven't been contacted, because I never claimed I was going to contact you or have law enforcement contact you. The point is that you ARE on the radar and what you are doing is wrong. And you keep doing it, against your own interests. So, WISE UP, idiot ASFL. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMMENT AND HARASS ME IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY REPORTING ON YOUR PROGRESSIVE CAMPAIGNS OF HATE." - American Nihilist: Pizza and The Same Old Douglas Whine, September 22, 2011, 12:28 AM

"I read up on this "tortious interference" business... With all respect due your fine lawyer, I'm pretty sure you must suffer some visible harm (like for instance, being fired as a result of something I myself posted) before you can make any such claim against me.

Specifically (from the link above, and with particular attention to numbers 3 and 5 in the first case, and 1-3 in the second):

To establish a claim for tortious interference of contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of the contract’s breach; (4) absence of justification; and (5) damages caused by the breach. Similarly, a claim for tortious interference with prospective advantage requires a showing that: (l) the defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the prospective contractual relation, (2) causing pecuniary harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, and (3) the interference either induced or otherwise caused a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or prevented the continuance of the prospective relation...." - American Nihilist: Pizza and The Same Old Douglas Whine September 22, 2011 1:25 PM

---

Relevant / on topic / interesting links:
Schneier on Security: Anonymous Internet Annoying Is Illegal in the U.S.
Concurring Opinions � Annoy someone online (anonymously); go to jail
Anonymous Internet annoyance illegal? Yes and no.

IN May Want Me; CA, Not So Much...

Regarding all this...

American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III
American Power: California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III

...this...

American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III
American Power: California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III.

I have it on extremely good and virtually unimpeachable authority that CA law enforcement has zero interest in what two bloggers (or at the very least, these particular two bloggers) say or do to or about each other on their respective blogs, including in/at their comment sections. The elements of the crime(s) have not been met, and CA has no jurisdiction over a NY blogger. NY and CA lawyers (the latter, a specialist in internet defamation/harassment/stalking/??? cases--and a real ambulance chaser... He's trying to convince me I have a case.) concur. (And for the record, IN really doesn't want me, either... Sometimes I wonder whether NY even cares...)

Maybe I'll have more to say about it all in future, but then again, maybe I won't... (It didn't deserve the attention it's already gotten...) ((OTOH, I mighta said more now, if I didn't have someplace I had to be...))

Thanks for the support, dear readers... (...all three or four of you...including the Berlusconi troll, even...) You folks is OK... ...for nihilist henchmen, anyway...

Donald Seeks Death Penalty for Gary Ruppert

And likely for much of the internet. Enabling blogsite owners to bring civil or criminal action against anyone posting dissenting comments on their blogs has to be the very definition of frivolous lawsuit. Donald indicates the Long Beach PD has taken his complaints seriously. If that is the case then either their officers have never read blogs or there is a lack of real crime in the Long Beach area.

Not really sure what Don's beef is with Reppy. Truth and I are content to merely walk by and laugh at Donald as if he were the mental and moral equivalent of the elephant man. Repsac actually stops and tries to help him by pointing out the fallacies in his thinking, his bigotry and just general wrongheadedness. The three of us all were commenters at AmPow a few years back. We all went there to engage in debate in good faith. At that time Donald's profile indicated that he encouraged debate at his blog. That, I suppose, has changed and he no longer encourages debate. If the situation is now that he encourages only sycophantic agreement then why bother with comments.

I believe my falling out over there was around the time he accused Libby Spencer of cheering the use of women with Down's Syndrome as suicide bombers. I do remember agreeing with the hoi polloi over there to the extent that she had worded what she said badly. And yes, at that time Donald actually had regular commenters and I got jumped on pretty good by them in pushing the insane notion that Libby was for this barbarity. That was also around the time he started referring to anyone who disagreed as a nihilist, communist, socialist or whatever other epithet popped into his head.

I would think that here in the lovely Empire State we are a little out of LBPD's jurisdiction. But, of course, the Google police are everywhere (like the Dream Police). So if the Google authorities decide we've overstepped the bounds of internet etiquette (does it exist?) then maybe we'll be forced to close shop here. Can't believe it wouldn't put a real chill on the rest of the web if we were silenced over the softballs we toss at Don here, though.

If I were Donald I might worry more about our Googly overlords taking a look at the Erin Andrews affair or some of the slanderous comments he's made toward some of his former comrades in the conservative movement. Those who live in glass houses yadda yadda. Guess we'll all stay tuned.
---

Added by repsac3, 2/2/12: Just noticed Kevin didn't include the link to the story... (Hopefully, he won't mind my barging in to add it to his post.): American Power: California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III