Disqus - Latest Comments for chetlyzarko

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:11:00 -0000

I have an addendum where I think we can agree.

If this story is about:

when you pay a bunch of underage kids to come to the conference, allow them in to parties that you paid for and arranged with an open bar and then don't take the proper precautions to prevent them from being served. We do not know which, if any, of the campaigns actually did this. That's why we didn't accuse any of them of doing it and that's why we made clear that at least one campaign had denied and another had taken positive steps to prevent it.

Only one campaign paid a bunch of kids to come to the conference. It's well known - a google search would have turned it up. You could have interviewed me, for that matter (the Republican campaigns ignore you for reasons I'm sure you're well aware of - they involve a libel suit last year). Snyder. He denies having any party. That's probably true. The other campaigns had fairly tight staffs of (mostly) mid-aged folks. The Snyder people didn't come to other Governor's candidates parties - at least in significant numbers (the shirts, as you note, are what I base that on). Should the other 4 Gub candidates be responsible for Snyder's decision to bring a few hundred students on the island? Did the candidates that had open bars have the bars take normal precautions to comply with the law? Yes, or at least no evidence they didn't. And if the "open bars" were so "open" -- why would the students have needed to go to their hotels rooms to get more alcohol -- which we know they did? When I was young (and over 21), I always drank what was free before tapping into my own reserves.

But as I said two comments above, if this is what you want to criticize ... paying a bunch of underage kids to come to the island ... then the pox is on Snyder's campaign (its not a particularly huge one, since even he has apparently dispersed responsibility, but ...). That we agree on, albeit its not as big a story as "Underaged drinking problems for GOP". MM may not have "known" which campaigns did what because many chose not to respond to you, so MM effectively accused them all of doing it in the general way of writing the story. That's why I reacted to it the way I did.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:46:22 -0000

Actually, I do note how her report was written in such a way as to have not-credible portions of it. The overall tone is hyperbolic, it lacks key specifics, and the one specific we do have - rubbing off x's is both unusual and rules out at least two candidate parties (I can't attest to the third, Bouchard party).

Mr. Heywood's article goes far beyond the mere reporting you and I agree on would be reasonable. Just one example would be the second paragraph:

...had been served alcohol at official parties sponsored by several Republican candidates for governor ...

I don't see where Oblinger claimed SEVERAL Republican candidates for governor served her alcohol, let alone claimed any gubernatorial candidate did. She refers to "open bars" in the generic in her tirade, but doesn't identify any bar. The more I read it, the more I think ... this is a girl trying to brag to her peers about drinking more than she really did. Perhaps she deserves some investigation here, and if it rubs off on a candidate so be it, but I don't see that as likely and there is no evidence of any candidate being responsible at this point.

I also don't see where she's "named names" - unless you're talking about a few of her friends (which I don't see in this article or any other). She named no candidates, no bars or bartenders, no friends over 21 that got her the "drank". You haven't shown us any of the photos, in your journalistic excellence, probably because they had little editorial value to the conclusions you'd like to draw. Don't introduce into evidence concepts from evidence you haven't introduced into the debate. I can't reasonably respond to it.

Finally, if you don't want to be viewed as a George Soros hack, stop writing stories that act as that. Stop attacking your readers for raising fair questions. And when you're losing the argument, stop attacking them with ad homimens, like we're both doing now.

If this story were running in reverse and it was a young Democrat, you'd be accusing those doing the story writers of being on a witch-hunt ... that is, if it even saw the light of day in the media at all, which I suspect it wouldn't. Don't be surprised when a sting-with-video is done at the next Jefferson-Jack dinner, and I expect the writer to get the MM award for good journalism if it turns something up.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:59:17 -0000

You know, this whole "You're a Republican consultant" line is wearing thin. It has no logical bearing on the arguments, Ed, and you should be ashamed to make it as an argument. Attack the arguments, not the messenger.

If it works against me, it works the other way. Your words would then mean nothing because your a George Soros funded operative, and Soros only funds Democrat and left causes.

Bias information can have some relevance in a discussion, but I've never concealed my history and it has no relevance to most arguments of logic anyway. It also doesn't ring true because I have an independent streak and have criticized the party where appropriate. I'm an individual who believes in the sovereignty of the individual, with conservative and liberty principles FIRST, before being a member of any party.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:46:06 -0000

Yeah, Ed, I can think of a reason.

Teenagers try to impress other teenagers. They occasionally tell "tall tales" - even on, or perhaps now especially on, blogs and facebook. Young men are reknowned for this - but society has evolved and even young woman get into it as well. I think the LCC and local police know that too, and when they don't have specific facts, as they don't here, their investigation, as the MIRS quote of Island police chief points out, is unlikely to result in anything. Everyone here talks of Oblinger's writing as gospel truth ... that's far from apparent.

Cut the bull-turd argument that I think "news" should avoid Republicans. My point was that the "journalism" here in this article lacked evidence for its claims, as does Brewer. You get evidence one of the candidates or campaigns did something active or negligent to encourage underage drinking, and I'll slam them hard. Publicly and behind the scenes. It's not there. Perhaps MM should have covered it - its certainly news in the sense that Brewer had a press conference. But that's it - so far.

That Snyder hired Oblinger explains a few things, which you seem to have come up with late in the game here, and it then becomes a pox on HIS campaign to some extent then, even if he denies his campaign admitted her to a party. Other campaigns had "teams", but most of a cadre of active CRs, loyal staff members, and older younger R's that were relatively small. Snyder's was the most vast I've ever seen, and he rightfully took some criticism for that based on their lack of knowledge about their candidate or politics, according to one video (ooh, I'm criticizing a Republican here.... something's out of place).

One uses stamps of some kind (some inks are very hard to transfer, contrary to your suggestion) as part of a larger system. The responsibilty, as you note, still devolves to the bartender at point of service - open bar or normal sales. I was carded once on the island at a bar and saw one person carded - so I know that happened too. Not in every case, but most cases involved clearly older people, as most of the attendance at these "parties" was 30 plus. Unless the other four campaigns did something special to discourage carding or encourage underaged folks in, I don't see their culpability. We don't even know they got in, or succeeded. Snyder's people were very visible because of their shirts - the underaged ones also disappeared from the island each night on the final ferry at midnight, according to the story-line. I saw no Snyder people at any other Gub. candidate event and some of Snyder's older staff at Bishop's event. Is it possible a small number slipped in somewhere or did other events? Sure - I can't prove a negative, and I'm not even sure where the moral culpability would be if the campaigns took reasonable pre-cautions in their dealings with the bartenders. Fortunately, criminal law is no longer based on Salem witch-hunt rules where a negative has to be proven. That's either your job or the LCC's.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:00:27 -0000

Of course we know she exists. Nice strawman. We don't know WHO she is. The news contacts I've seen are pretty hazy including the MIRS quip, in which they got the "sick" quote probably about one second before they got the no comment quote. It's hard for me to be defending "Republicans from their own conduct" when you don't even have a specific Republican action to attack - unless you mean the girl is a Republican, and we aren't sure of that. If you want me to defend the girl, I'm not. But I don't know she's a Republican, her conduct hasn't implicated other individuals (YET, with more evidence I CONCEDE IT MIGHT), and even she was your guilt by association reeks of witch-hunt and over-reaction.

You look incredibly silly trying to use this silly issue and the girl to your own political ends as a weapon in the Governors race. Get some evidence of a crime, or maybe work on trying to figure out budget solutions. This is a brutal waste of time and you and Brewer deserve to be called out for it - and to the extent the MSM has bit into the hook on it, it deserves blame too, although their reporting has been fairer than MM or you.

Why would a girl we know nothing about, other than that she's sick about the publicity, maybe not be credible? 1) she could have been exaggerating to impress other teenagers. that's pretty common, and the most likely explanation. with Occam's Razor, I pick that explanation without other evidence.. 2) the x's story doesn't fit - kind of like OJ's glove - because she talks of rubbing them off, as opposed to getting them. 3) at two parties, I can verify there were no x's - Bishop and Cox - there were logo stamps and door ID 4) she might be even an operative of Brewer, we simply don't know her. the story is written with curious rhetoric "rich Republicans", with vagueness to details other than the story Brewer wants to sell, etc.

Speaking of MIRS, right before that "sick" quote you point out, it wrote this:
---
Marks did tell MIRS, though, that without specific information on the names of the parties and bars at which this underage drinking took place, it may be difficult to take any official action. The Island's police department arrested nobody for underage drinking the weekend of Sept. 25 to 27, the dates of the Michigan Republican Party's (MRP) biennial leadership conference.
---
No one arrested! I saw island police several times. They were out in force, as they are every year. You'd think in such a target rich environment they'd pick someone up? And they are non-partisan.

There are many explanations that involve no crime by Republicans. Including the evidence that no arrests were made.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:36:30 -0000

A) We don't know who the blog ramblings came from. We don't even know that the named woman really did write them, as this is the internet. I suspect the latter is true, but I have no idea who she is, whether she's a Republican, how she got to the island, whether indeed she was on the island. Ask a lawyer, Eric, if this diary would meet evidence requirements -- it would at least require some authenticating testimony.

The diary does raise some questions.
B) Ah, "general complicity". You are reduced to this. OK. Sounds like "guilt by association", but I'll let you have this. What I won't let you have is that Cox and Bishop's party's are not implicated, even by this blog rambling. Maybe Bouchard's, but you have no real evidence then. Snyder apparently didn't host a party with alcohol. No mention of Hoekstra - I don't recall he had one either. Quit tarring Republicans generally. It's bad logic and reflects badly on you. You have the barest thread of an attack on Bouchard, and even then its pretty bare.

C) Again, all of it depends on the accuracy of the story. The story doesn't seem credible in my mind because she writes of rubbing off stamps, but it is the stamp which gets you the alcohol in most bars I've been to. No stamp would be a red flag to card. The rest of the writing was so exaggerated as to be childish "bragging" that is often not true (we all did that as kids), or a good old-fashioned set-up, which Brewer is easily capable of. Ask Butch Hollowell about that.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:24:23 -0000

I think RM "admitted" that young people generally "beat the system", not that he witnessed it at the conference. You might do what a reporter does when making such assertions - ask him for clarification, rather than twisting his words.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:22:52 -0000

Yes, Todd, if I saw a minor drinking I not only would admit it, I'd have dealt with the situation at the time by reporting the minor to an authority. You are a piece of work to suggest otherwise.

You are paid by George Soros money - would you blow the whistle on a Democratic cause? I don't know you well enough ... Give me a break. We've been through this before about argument and bias.

Investigate? Go for it. It's a witch-hunt and distraction from the budget situation. I suppose all crime should be investigated, but prosecutors and police use some discretion with limited resources. It's the Governor's jurisdiction though (DNR/state police) so I'm sure the outcome will be unbiased. Report back when she's done.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:47:16 -0000

Actually, Eric, I think there may be a legal difference if the person you hire owns the liquor license. If I buy a round of drinks for everyone at a bar informally, the bar still has the legal obligation not to serve in both underage and known overintoxication liability cases, and I'd be mighty surprised that my decision to foot the tab on the round would subject me to liability. I'd like to see your legal authority for your assertion.

Of course, if the buyer did something actively or negligently didn't do something that caused the improper service, there might be liability. From the testimony of RepublicanMichigander, and I think you find him an honest source if I recall, Bouchard's party did have ID at door. I can't see what he didn't negligently - if a minor defrauded the system most of the onus is on the minor, and some on the bartender who handed it to them (for not double checking at point of service).

But we don't even have evidence of a single illegal service. We have the blog ramblings of someone ... someone who can barely write, got key facts wrong, etc.

Give me a break.

Re: Underage drinking at Mackinac causes problems for GOP

chetlyzarko — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:34:34 -0000

With all due respect, you don't have any evidence, other than the blog post ramblings of a self-proclaimed (we don't even have evidence this person was on the island, is a dem plant, etc.) CMU College Republican, of any underage drinking anywhere. When the State Police (which is under a Democratic Governor's jurisdiction) prosecute someone for this - let the ethical journalism world know.

Further, there is something that damages the credibility of the alleged blog author. I read the blogger's archived writing - she states they "rubbed off x's" on their hands to get free drinks. The standard security at a bar puts a stamp on everyone's hands and the stamp is the pass - rubbing off the stamp would inform the bartender not to serve. Of course, some bar could have messed that up with a bad system, I suppose, but I personally attended and vividly remember a stamp placed on my hand (I'm in my 30s) at Bishop and Cox's parties. I also know about 50% of the Republicans on the island - and remember only seeing a couple of Snyder people (whom I knew to be of age) at the Bishop party and none at the Cox party (stands to reason, he's running against Snyder). I can't personally attest to the Bishop or Snyder events - didn't attend them. I also only had a few beers each night - I'm well beyond the age where excessive alcohol has an allure, other than to create a nasty hangover.

So Bishop and Cox are off the hook, in many ways. The blogger mentions not being there, and the parties used the opposite hand-stamp (also, I remember it was a square logo stamp, not an "x") method, so there goes the "chief law enforcement officer responsible" fiction. Brewer's clearly trying to tar all Republicans by association here.

Finally, Mark Brewer was all over the island, with spies and video cameras. If it happened, I'd think he'd have YouTube video evidence and this would be a real story. Where's the evidence? Also, if it happened, why didn't Brewer come forward a week ago?

Re: Lansing city attorney’s office still grappling with FOIA practices

chetlyzarko — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:17:19 -0000

It's not a violation of STATE law ... Cox is right. If you want to figure out if it violates HIPPA, contact the US AG.

That's not saying this wasn't an error, but errors in the favor of openness are more tolerable than ones favoring secrecy, which is a plausible reason for Cox's ruling? FOIA has a provision protecting disclosure as an option even if "exempt" ... only other laws would require non-disclosure in certain cases. One would have to closely look at HIPAA, etc. to determine if there is liability here.

And its hard to sympathize with a guy who filed a false police report when his information is disclosed., although this article isn't written clearly enough for me to be sure that's whose medical info. was involved.

Re: Grebner lawsuit highlights recent pattern of young Republican scandals

chetlyzarko — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:01:27 -0000

Ed, you have seriously misread the facebook data, I believe. I'm sure it's an accident, and hope you retract below, admitting the numbers favor the explanation I offer.

You apparently did a search of Dennis Lennox - and found 17 people with the words Dennis Lennox in their name, not that Dennis Lennox only has 17 friends. How do I know - Dennis and I have 259 MUTUAL FRIENDS (which shows up on my page as his facebook friend) when I duplicated the search. You then did a search in a pop up box of only his friends for "Brad Dennis," and found the one and only one friend so named. When I look at Dennis Lennox's home page, I see he has 3436 friends. If indeed he had only 17 friends and Brad Dennis was one, the numbers would favor your interpretation. Brad Dennis has fewer friends, but I only know he has 42 "mutual friends" with me (I can't see his total because I'm not his friend on facebook, yet) - including Ron Weiser (I presume you don't believe Ron is guilty now) ironically. 42 mutual implies hundreds of friends though.

I commend you on condemnation of Byrd, et al (although Byrd never left the party) and your claim of not voting Democrat. But your articles that are anti-Republican, without correspondingly being anti-Democrat, betray something. Functionally, its irrelevant whether you pull a Green or Libertarian lever - you are paid by Soros to do anti-Republican bidding (lest that not really be important, which it isn't, your editor set the precedent of noting how important my sources of income are allegedly to my reasoning) and effectively that taints the body of your work. You claim your publication reports on Democratic scandals - but it does so differently than it does on Republican ones. First, I don't see original stuff coming from MM - the Detroit scandals came from MSM sources. Second, you're going after much smaller fish - which is fine - small stories are important. But you allege a "pattern" of "young Republican" conduct with six alleged bad apples? There are millions of young Republicans and millions of young Democrats ... you've found something that says anything about a pattern in six? Come on.

I also don't see you writing articles on the bad things said by Democrat precinct delegates - admit it, Ed, your publication choose what the issues and people it prefers to investigate. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that - Fox and MSNBC do it too and its part of democracy. But don't lay claim to the holy ground of neutrality either, which this site does attempt.

On that note, I'll try to fade away as the issue and protagonists aren't worthy of protracted thought. Hopefully you can understand my pov, at least, and you agree about the facebook numbers.

Re: Grebner lawsuit highlights recent pattern of young Republican scandals

chetlyzarko — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:28:53 -0000

I got the Byrd quote from Wikipedia. Who cares whence it came from - will Osama bin Laden's terrorist rhetoric, if surviving 65 years from now, be acceptable? Suggesting that Robert Byrd's association with the Klan is an unacceptable way for the Democratic Party to associate itself - regardless of what's in Byrd's heart - is not unreasonable. And its not like saying you're still (or you were ever) homophobic because you uttered an anti-gay word 20 years ago - it'd be like saying the homosexual lobby shouldn't accept you because you beat the snot out of homosexuals 20 years ago. I don't think many blacks (or whites) would think Klan membership = saying the word gay, or even saying the n-word, in degree of severity.

That said, I'll retreat somewhat from this issue. None of the protagonists are much worthy of engaging my time further.

Re: Grebner lawsuit highlights recent pattern of young Republican scandals

chetlyzarko — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:27:58 -0000

Erding, comments that point out the fallacy of attacking a group by pawning up the indiscretions of individuals loosely affiliated with it?

Pointing out that Democratic Senators ELECTED - in 2009 - a Klan member to lead the Senate? or that "Facebook friend" is hardly evidence of anything?

Ride high on your victory, Erding. Wish the demise of the R's - the "end of history" was written about when the Cold War ended, but it seemed to chug along in different ways anyway. You may be right - the GOP may be at a low point in the political cycle - but power corrupts and the political cycle is born.

Re: Grebner lawsuit highlights recent pattern of young Republican scandals

chetlyzarko — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:15:20 -0000

Oh, I lost it in my being appalled at the central grotesque-logic tenet of the story.

You are actually using Facebook friend status to try to prove a connection between two individuals? I have nearly 600 "friends" on facebook - I rarely request new ones and almost always say yes to friend requests because I'm in an outreach business. I know politicians who just started who get 600 friends in a few weeks. Most of these folks are not people I've met - most but not all are people I have some vague knowledge of it - some I've never met but have a coincidental shared interest - etc. Lennox, an elected official, no surprise, has over 3000 friends. That Bradley Dennis would friend request him, or vice versa, doesn't mean they knew each other.

You're tech-savvy enough to know that, which makes your use of the point here - if that was the extent of the "evidence" you hinted at last week - pathetic. If MM has been reduced to documenting the facebook connections of college republicans, it has no doubt lived up to its financiers dreams.

Re: Grebner lawsuit highlights recent pattern of young Republican scandals

chetlyzarko — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:58:23 -0000

Ah, I see Ed. You've (and MM) lost all pretense of "journalism" here, and even in the realm of opinion have transcended the bounds of fairness and crossed lines. Now we see the "big brush" I predicted in the comments a few days ago - this time blending the paint with the race card - that you're going to paint all Republicans with. Now you link the Lennox story to these other race stories because they're all young? Can't you see the ridiculousness of this?

Well, you clearly support (or lean to or avoid painting with the same brushes) the Party (Democratic) that spawned the Klu Klux Klan. Mark Brewer, chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, represented the Klan. The Democrats still proudly seat and recently elected as President Pro tem pore (third in presidential succession) former-Klan member - Robert Byrd - in the United States Senate.

“ I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ”
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944.

That, my friend, is racist. For the Democrats to elevate this man to third in the line of presidential success - by choice - in 2009 - is the hidden race story you should be covering. The Klan - mostly white southern Democrats - murdered thousands of blacks and perhaps hundreds of white Republicans in its early days, as purely political terrorism to prevent them from being elected or to deny them political representation and power. It worked for 90 years.

Should all other Democrats be guilty of the sins of previous and current Democrats?

By the way, Gray was removed from the party shortly after his racist rants. Bristow's case, I understand, is different - and while his behavior has been stupid and may be deplorable the Southern Poverty Law Center label is just a label. Since they won't answer questions on their process and they've expanded their definitions, it's lost the value in my mind and others it used to have. I suspect now they're just satisfying donors - I believe they did good work at one time though. Regardless, removing an elected position should require a high bar of evidence - Gray clearly met that standard (walking in the street after the election with a Klan hood - by the way, a symbol of the old Democratic Party) of when a person should be removed but other than an SPLC label which refused to delineate its standards I don't see evidence for Bristow's removal.

I'm proud to be a member of the Party of Lincoln, whose inaugural Bible President Obama swore his oath to - the party of abolitionism and the end of slavery. I'm actually proud Obama was elected, despite my policy disagreement with him on many issues, because occasionally I see a larger march of history and Obama's election and presidency has many positive things to contribute in that evolution.

Re: Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits

chetlyzarko — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:20:06 -0000

No, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe a general doctrine of an obligation to mitigate damages. If you're a landlord and a tenant backs out on the contract, you have an obligation to at least try to rent the place in the interim, for example.

Re: Hoekstra: For fighting apple blight after he was against it?

chetlyzarko — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:37:39 -0000

What was Hoekstra's office's comment?

Re: Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits

chetlyzarko — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:11:42 -0000

Speak about strawmen and twisting words. You are the master of that generally, and do it in the very response you falsely accuse me of doing it. I assert that your comment here constitutes libel as it misstates as fact my statements, although I'll accept you did so in error and accept your apology. If I'm wrong and you've correctly stated my position, please provide a citation to the statement and I'll apologize.

You assert that I have "stated position that someone should be given access to any piece of information he or she wants...". Where have I ever made such a statement on open records issues? I certainly concur that (certain) national security issues, law enforcement techniques, privacy issues, and a few other exemptions are more than appropriate inclusions into any FOIA or open records law or doctrine. If it doesn't fall within an exemption though, I believe and the courts currently concur, that the requestors motives and potential uses are irrelevant (except to the extent a potential use of disclosure to anyone relates to say the exemption analysis). Still, you strawman my argument, then as distraction accuse me of somehow strawmanning you.

As to "victim Grebner", he's hardly someone I'd perceive as a victim in the sense you portray him. And I have indeed criticized the "these people for acting like children" - I think my term for the Giarraminaro (sp) guy was "punk" (see first response by me). There's no question the false molestation charges were over the top legally and ethically as I've repeatedly condemned. As to the Lennox statement, I'd certainly agree that "homosexual politician" is worthy of condemnation, but am not sure it should be illlegal or its in society's best interest to elevate Grebner to dollar-compensated "victim-hood" for it.

Re: Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits

chetlyzarko — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:42:00 -0000

Kelly, some great points. Grebner's failure to mitigate damages is going to be a defense argument, no doubt. But it doesn't cut to the core of the case - the core of the case leads to some sympathy for Grebner, particularly regarding the Giarrarino (sp) defendant's claim on the false child molestation conviction. But Grebner over-reaches, no doubt in my mind because Lennox has been elevated, probably somewhat deservingly, to target by the left; and Grebner wants to paint this as a grand conspiracy against him for other reasons.

Civil lawsuit doesn't require "reasonable doubt," only preponderance of the evidence standard, however, libel lawsuits have a special "reckless disregard for the truth or knowing the falsity" standard, which is perhaps a higher bar than reasonable doubt in some ways.

Re: Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits

chetlyzarko — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:36:36 -0000

"Childish" shouldn't be illegal. Libelous should.

Childish should be punished by moral suasion, which I think is already happening in this case.

I hope Grebner wins something in the Giammarinaro case. That would send a signal to the community that truly libelous activity on the net is subject to disclipline and within the reach of punishment. On the other hand, as RepublicanMichigander noted on MichiganLiberal's cite (Eric, I know you have some respect for him), the lawsuit against Bradley Dennis for the tax criticism might subject Grebner to counter-litigation for "Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation" (SLAPP laws). Agreeing with RM, the Lennox case may not be frivolous (or SLAPP violative, which is a specific form of frivolousness), but will probably be tossed out.

So, ironically, I agree in large part. I hope Grebner wins. But I also hope he loses for overreaching too far , and draws.

Ed,
If there was truly a conspiracy here, it'd be mildly interesting. But where's the evidence? I look forward to your follow-up. I also look forward to you asking Grebner some questions.

Re: Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits

chetlyzarko — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:24:59 -0000

Eric,
You assume that I must assume that the "mess" should be "cleaned" up - you assume that if there is a "mess" the "job of government" ..."to clean up the mess."

I by all means don't see the First Amendment as something that is particularly "neat and orderly" - it was designed to protect the messy, the ugly, and especially the criticisms or "saying whatever they about government and government officials." There's no need - no would it be positive to try - to "clean" that up. It's like nature - as beautiful as nature is, there is alot of messiness and ugliness along with it.

This is not to say that I don't believe in boundaries. 200 years of common-law evolution has produced a reasonably good, and limited, libel law that doesn't intrude deeply into an open speech environment.

As to open access to government information, I don't support strings because the information already belongs to the people by moral right and even if not so, who gets to define what the strings are poses a practical question. Open information acts a check and balance on the system as well, and frankly I'm surprised to see a liberal Democrat argue as you have. It's the one area I used to have in common with Democrats - but I guess power and parties evolve. The problem with "responsible use" of information is who defines "responsible," and what does that mean - - I'd most certainly concur though that there again are limits - - individuals should be barred and punished for precisely defined irresponsible uses (libel law being), but a positive affirmative duty to use government information "responsibly" (by which you've previously argued "must provide context", something the political process and debate is supposed to do, not necessarily the initial reporter) is again an affront to the First Amendment. There should also be limits to the types of information the government collects (before it even considers disclosing it under FOIA or open records doctiine), and certainly I agree with 90% of the exemptions in principle (though in practice governments treat them like loopholes and distort the honest intent of things like the privacy or in the case of federal FOIA national security by using it as a justification for anything under the sun or reason to expand fee charges).

Re: Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits

chetlyzarko — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:08:14 -0000

Eric,
I don't think the question of whether libel law has application to publishings made in the wiki environment is in dispute here. I'm not disputing it. I don't think there's much novel legal questioning about libel application to the electronic environment. On the other hand, there is a long-running American internal dispute with speech rights, public figures, and chilling speech, even if it is "childish". Grebner is a public official. He's suing private individuals and seeking to use the court system to "send this message." In the case of the tax criticism, the chilling effect of that is so obvious as to defy sensibility. In the case of the bin-Laden photo/endorsement, the substitution is clearly (very poor taste) satire (no rational person would believe bin-Laden endorses Grebner). In the case of the Ben Franklin photo, satire again, with no damages (Grebner, in my opinion, looks quite a bit like Franklin, and besides, I'd take likeness to Franklin as a compliment, and no reasonable person would interpret a Franklin photo as a real representation of Grebner). Grebner has a legitimate beef with the false child-molestation allegation, but I doubt he can prove damages; and the homosexual statement is marginally interesting but I'm pretty sure he can't prove damages.

To me, it sounds like you are itching to see wiki-speech chilled. Perhaps Grebner should have had the courage to sue Wiki along with these three individuals - someone above pointed out that they may not have service provider protection for a number of reasons. Alas, Grebner knows that would bring down a brickload of lawyers on his face from a superior opponent with more financial arms and means. That'd be interesting litigation with real precedent, though.

Re: Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits

chetlyzarko — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:56:51 -0000

thekosher, Grebner is doing this for his own personal political reasons and gain, as the author just further confirmed indirectly, not for some master precedent in the wiki publication environment. That a few students may or may not have went slightly overboard is a distraction.

Ed, thanks for the confirmation that Grebner is on a discovery fishing expedition - his motives then are clearly frivolous and abusive, even though an actual frivolous finding is as rare as you say and unlikely. "Free association" - the other half of the First Amendment - even if it were true that these folks were somehow loosely associated, so what? Using the legal process to unearth associations is McCarthyist. They were hardly engaged in racketeering or some grand conspiracy even in the best interpretation - it's interesting to you because it would give you some wild seed of an argument to paint whole organizations (I presume college Republicans, etc.) with?

Any evidence of connection beforehand? Probable cause so to speak justifying the Grebner fishing? You, as a reporter, could find it with a few google searches and other older investigative techniques. Maybe I'll sue Eric Baerren for the pigs fu**ing statement so I can dig around in his e-mails? I should have filed assault charges against Mark Brewer when he swiped at my camera in 2005 - imagine the discovery I could do? Would I be justified in that? There's a role for litigation in life, but there's also a time to step back.

If I were these defendants, I'd avoid the discovery route and make Grebner prove up damages. That's what Bill Clinton should have done. Of course, the lawyers won't want to give up the good defenses they have.

And yes, the "tax hiker = libel" claim is so abusive as to be offensive. I don't even know that it meets the clear fact test, but lets presume there's a measurable way of defining it. How's Grebner going to prove malice? And being a tax hiker is a positive to many in the Democratic party (not all, I'll admit) - just read several major blogs praising them - and that's where Greb's money mostly comes from.

ps - Grebner's voter file litigation and FOIA work in the 90s were good uses of the courts. This is not. Mark, get some perspective and drop the case.

Re: Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits

chetlyzarko — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:10:29 -0000

Ed, you do a fairly good job of extricating the facts here, but I think the story and you miss the larger points. Is it newsworthy that Grebner is going after three students or former students for some wiki entries during the middle of a political campaign that Grebner later won? Maybe I should sue Michigan Liberal for saying that I - yes, he Eric Baerren said it - "fu** pigs." I'll grant you that it may be that there is some interest in why Grebner would do this, at least the way he has - by waiting two months to serve process and nearly a year after the events? Is he just bored in the off-year? Run out of legitimate lawsuits against the Parties for trying to keep voter files secret? The biggest missing thing is questions to Grebner - I'd have at least half a dozen with why being the lead. I find that odd since I can only imagine that your lead for the story was probably Grebner himself sending you a press release or the lawsuit (no doubt after no other media outlet would bite), unless I'm wrong and you do a beat at the Ingham County Court house and ran across this case.

Except for the child-molestation part, it seems to me to be frivolous, "SLAPP" litigation, designed to chill speech. At least a solid case can be made for the attack on Grebner's political opponent in last year's County Commission race. That's the most outrageous abuse of process I've seen since ... BAMN.

That is - a lawsuit for libel against your opponent for saying you're a tax hiker? Come on. That's so much into the realm of opinion or mixed opinion/fact, and so relevant to the election that Grebner is at the apex of his public-figureness. He'd have to prove actual malice or recklessness - the quote itself hardly seems reckless. Plus, Grebner won his race handily - where's the damage?

The "homosexual" thing is marginally more interesting legally on the question of damage, as you note, but 1) was Grebner damaged? Even if being labeled homosexual is damaging in some contexts, Grebner's career specifically is an unlikely context for such damage and certainly I didn't even know of the accusation until this article, so its unlikely the damage comes from Lennox. Grebner is more likely to experience that type of damage from this very lawsuit's driving of the publicity. That is - who were the readers of this statement - and how many people did they transmit to this allegedly false knowledge. That, I think, is a much harder thing for Grebner to prove. Then that raises 2) Grebner opens himself up to the possibility of truth as a defense, so he'll have to answer interesting deposition questions, at the least.

As to the Giammarinaro punk, if Grebner had limited his lawsuit to him, I wouldn't think it frivolous (though probably a waste of Grebner's time and likely to backfire by drawing attention to the matter). Going after a guy who says you've been convicted of something you haven't - particularly a sex-crime - seems just and might be worth it just to discourage future similar behavior. But lumping him in with others who haven't really committed libel should result in bar complaints against the lawyers bold enough to sign the complaints and have them served. Perhaps that is Grebner's strategy here - lumping them together?