Posts Tagged ‘honor’

…regarding libel law:

While I am not litigious by nature — my views being rather Jacksonian in that regard — perhaps Governor Palin, Mrs. Vincent and their publishers have different views. It is my understanding that British libel law is far more inclined toward the plaintiffs than is true here in the United States, especially for “public figures” as covered under the U.S. Sullivan precedent.

Should Mrs. Vincent retain the services of a British attorney, I suspect that your publisher would be advised to settle the suit at any sum asked, as it would be quite impossible to prove that Mrs. Vincent is “closely associated with a well-known white supremacist,” which I most assuredly am not, no matter what any particular idiot has published to that effect or how often it has been repeated.

Think of the cost to your publisher, Felix Dennis, of flying Charles Johnson, Michelangelo Signorile, Rachel Maddow, et al., to London for a libel trial, sir. Ask yourself how such witnesses might stand up under cross-examination,

How do I know this is good advice? As Chris Hitchens reminds us Polanski won such a case in England :

In July 2005, Polanski took advantage of the notorious British libel laws to sue my colleagues at Vanity Fair and collect damages for his hurt feelings. It doesn’t matter much what the supposed complaint was—he had allegedly propositioned a Scandinavian model while purring about making her the next Sharon Tate—so much as it mattered that Polanski would dare to sue on a question of his own moral standing and reputation. “I don’t think,” he was quoted as saying of the allegation, “you could find a man who could behave in such a way.” Say what? Anxious for his thin skin, the British courts did not even put Polanski to the trouble of appearing in a country where he has never lived. They allowed him to pout his outraged susceptibilities by video link before heaping him with fresh money.

That being the case a certain Little Green Flake should be happy Mr. McCain is Jacksonian by nature. I’d say the same about Maddow but she doesn’t have to worry as Robert Stacy somehow thinks she is a handsomer woman than Mika. I beg to differ.

Frankly I think he should be more worried about Todd Palin. He has a lot more free time to avenge his wife’s honor.

On Sept 30th I wrote this:

I personally would be shocked if MSNBC doesn’t pick this up sometime before the week is out.

5 days later we see Rachel Maddow using it without mentioning Robert Stacy by name on Meet the Press. Clever move too, by being ambiguous it allows the accusation to dangle there against Palin and her co-author and doesn’t require any of the people present to confirm her opinion on Robert Stacy she states it as a fact and instead of people having to say it’s BS they talk about “association” as if the charge was true.

Now because it was on Meet the Press it gives MSNBC an excuse to cover it and assures Charles of some screen time.

What a bunch of dishonorable people.

Update: If it only takes place online does it count as a Lesbian Rule 5 Catfight?

… lend me your eyes.
I come to speak of Stacy, not to praise him.
The evil that men do rises like a Hannah Giles google bomb;
The good is oft lost disposed like an unwanted cache.
So let it be with Robert Stacy. The noble Charles
Hath told you Stacy is a Racist.
If it were so, it is a grievous fault,
And grievously hath he answered it at the top of LGF for all to see.
Here, under leave of Charles and the rest —
For Charles is an honorable man,
So are they all, Killgore Trout, Wild Irish Rose and Shamutra all honorable lizzards —
Come I to speak in McCain’s past.
He is my friend, faithful and sent me hits.
But Charles insists he is a Racist ,
And Charles is an reputable blogger.
Stacy hath Supported Israel in Gaza,
Vs Hamas and with humor did he defend Israel.
Did this in Stacy seem a Supremacist?
He hath associated with Steven Green, and Moe Lane, hath prayed with Baldilocks and befriended Lesbians and Gays.
Racism should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet Charles says he is a racist,
And Charles is an honorable man.
You all did see that he did reject
tossing allies purges to build support,
Was this racism?
Yet Charles says he is a racist,
And sure he is an honorable blogger.
I speak not to disprove what Charles posted,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
Charles did once scorn Friedman, Media Matters and Moyers. He defended Palin vs smears and make Rush an honorary Lizzardiod , not without cause.
What cause withholds his attack on the RoP, Chavez and Soros?
His Judgment, thou art fled to avenge vs Beck,
And revenge hast cost his reason!
Bear with me.
My heart is Sad since April there with McCain,
When first he defended Geller and Charles changed crying Racist.

…and what fits your template, can be illustrated by a simple YouTube video:

Note: Stacy really deserves the hits on this has he has done the legwork while I’m sitting on a couch a thousand miles away, but I’m posting it here in case you are unwilling to go to his site because Charles says you can’t.

Now tell me, you might believe her you might not but which is more solid reporting? The AP story quoted in the post, or the actual film of what she claims to have said. Given the choice which report would you believe?

I’ll bet that if the AP guy knew this:

Miss Brown says she is not a Republican, but is a registered Democrat and, during her 2008 senior year at Corbin High School, was actually a leader of students supporting Barack Obama for the presidency.

And the reports themselves? Stacy links to this story that says in part:

Rudzinski did comment on some of the reports circulating about the death.

“Misinformation is one thing, but pure speculation is another,” She said. “What we’re seeing the bulk of is speculation by people who don’t have direct access to the investigation.”

I’ve objected to some of the speculation myself, the bottom line from the story:

“Misinformation is much more damaging to our investigation than the correct or no information,” he said.

But hey who cares about facts or actually catching a killer when there are points to be scored against the right?

Consider this: She will be leaving high school and either going to college or looking or work, what do you think will happen when her name is googled (and you know it will be) and that quote comes up? That is messing with a young woman’s future. That’s despicable and dishonorable.

If you want to know why this reporter is worth a ten spot, that is why.