Tit for Tat

The woman who had threatened one of the most asinine lawsuits in memory--a "proposed class action lawsuit…charging [Janet Jackson et al.] with causing her and 'millions of others' to 'suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury'" that sought billions of dollars in damages--has dropped the idea.

Somewhere, "my friend" L. Brent Bozell is weeping.

Comments

[Jim Walsh]

Bozell needs to get a goddam life...

[Swamp Justice]

yawn.. though I am curious to learn more about the so-called "Victoria's Secret 'butt-cam'"??!!

[Lonewacko]

AFAIK, the Steve Bosell lawsuit is still going ahead.

[Ruthless]

D'jever try to grope a tat?
They're like will-o-the-wisps. And star-like, silver ornaments simply will not adhere... no nipple for a peg.

[Headline Critic]

Shouldn't that be "Tat for Tit"?

[Gordon Shumway]

Still waiting for the class action lawsuit against trial lawyers for filing frivolous lawsuits. Doesn't really matter who wins, the top dogs for the corps that have been sued get to go after the trial dogs. There's blood pain and suffering, and everyone else watches.

First thing we do...

[Mark Fox]

The frivolous lawsuits don't bother me so much. It is the suits that have a thread of sense holding them together that seem to develop into ridiculous settlements.

Can we sue people for being too sensitive? As much as Number One Friend Bozell was offended by a public tat, I'm distraught at his inability to let it go.

[Jack Freeland]

Many critics have complained about the way the Gillespie-led Reason has increasingly comingled and confused the concept of libertarianism with libertinism. I used to pay those critics little heed.

Now I'm starting to think they've got a point.

That's not to defend Bozell's stance, necessarily. It's just that Gillespie's mocking tone and continually adolescent approach to widely accepted adult morality is harmful to the cause of libertarianism. At some point, because of the profile Reason built for itself before the Gillespie days, such an approach becomes a liability to the cause of freedom.

It's the sort of thing that makes other Americans look at libertarians and say, for instance, "Oh, they just wanna get rid of drug laws because they wanna get stoned." Rather than realizing that, no, we actually want to get rid of drug laws simply because they're an infringement of liberty.

In other words, Gillespie's manner of presentation puts an emphasis on The Drugs -- or The Sex or the Whatever -- rather than on THE FREEDOM.

I'll still take Reason over National Review -- at this point -- but there were a whole bunch of posters here a few months back talking about how Gillespie got absolutely mauled in a debate with one of those NRO people. (Rich Lowry? Or the Ramesh guy? Can't remember.) And they were right. Gillespie's got a problem with rhetoric. Which is a big problem when one is, you know, the EDITOR of a POLITICAL MAGAZINE.

That's an important position. Possibly the most important position in the world of libertarianism, because it's the primary conduit between our ideas and the rest of the world. When that conduit is impeded, or distorted, it hurts the expression of our ideas, and it hurts us. Gillespie may have been bred writing for Circus magazine or whatever it was. But it's well past time to grow out of the teen-metal phase, and learn how to effectively communicate with the adults.

Look, I'm no prude. But even the very title Gillespie assigned to this post (or headline, or whatever they're called in the blog world) epitomizes the liability he presents. Then you get into the comments, and it's instantly "goddam-this" and "butt-cams," etc.

Harmful stuff, guys. And you don't even realize it.

[JimInNoVA]

Victoria's Secret Butt Cam was on their pay per view event as I recall. It's not like you could stumble upon the lingere bowl and plunk down $30 without knowing what you would be seeing.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled invective.

[SM]

C'mon, Jack - you really think this lawsuit and Bozell's defence of it merits thoughtful discussion ?

[Citizen]

SiC, I was pretty certain Lonewacko got it. There are a number of us PH fans on this board. I wonder if Phil created Steve based on Nick's "friend." "I'm suing you for making me feel bad."

[Ranald]

Hey Nick, I'm gonna sue you for using a harmful ornithological reference in the title.

[Brad S]

Jack Freeland - good post, but what you must realize is that, in the case of the issue at hand, the freedom and the sex are inseparable. Similarly, in the case of drugs, the freedom and the dope are inseparable. In the whole Janet Jackson fiasco, what is at stake is precisely the freedom to flaunt one's sexuality. Ergo, in this case, the freedom is the sex and the sex is the freedom. This is the battlefield that our opposition has chosen, and as a consequence, this is where this particular battle must be faught. In the case of the drug war - if other Americans think, "Oh, they just wanna get rid of drug laws because they wanna get stoned," as you put it, then, in a sense, they are 100% correct. It is precisely the liberty to get stoned that the rest of America would take away from us. In that case, the liberty is drugs and drugs are the liberty. The specific causes of liberty that we fight for and the ideal of libertarianism are one and the same.

[dhex]

there is something deliciously protestant about america. deliciously, terribly protestant.

personally, i think the fight is the right NOT TO GIVE A FLYING FUCK about what other people do.

[crimethink]

Brad S,

The freedom to do a thing is *not* the thing itself. I totally support drug legalization, but I have never, and would never, use any of the drugs that are currently illegal. I have my own personal reasons for not using them, but (a) I believe that others should be free to make their own decision in this matter, and (b) it's counterproductive for the govt to try to stop them from doing so.

There may be some libertarians who want drugs legalized so they can get stoned, or at least so they can get stoned cheaper, as anyone who wants to can get stoned even now. But I doubt they are the majority.

And I agree with Jack on this much: if we're ever going to get people to take our point of view seriously, we need to respect their customs, and putting the "T" word in a title isn't going to go far with most Americans.

[dhex]

ct: the thing that puts people off about libertarian ideas isn't vulgarity or even "victimless crime" laws persay.

1) it's not that well known
2) it's somewhat complicated and requires some research
3) most importantly, it is largely opposite the currently understood framework of governmental involvement. and how politics are "supposed to be" - some libertarian ideas seem very "conservative" or "republican" - others seem very "liberal" or "democrat" or even "freakish."

add to that an emphasis on replacing governmental services which most of us have lived with all of our lives, in one form or another (i.e. even people who never use the post office anymore will balk at the idea of privatizing or abolishing the post office) and you've got several huge roadblocks to acceptance before you even get to the sex n' drugs and personal responsibility part of the package.

take issue with gillespie all you will, but people aren't going to be logging onto reason to be offended in the first place.

[Gadfly]

Ahem. If I may gingerly come back to the topic of frivolous lawsuits, I'll predict that this headline goes down as another in a long list of "frivolous lawsuits" that never saw the light of day yet get cited as evidence of lawsuit abuse.

Notice this was dropped in just a few days, probably when the attorney was reminded he could lose his license over it. Current federal rules, copied by almost all the states, allow for sanctions for this type of shit and, frankly, they rarely, if ever, occur anymore. The Big Tobacco one comes to mind but, what's that? 1 out of a gazillion?

[SteveInClearwater]

SinC: LMAO in Clearwater....

Ahhhh, the "Steve Bozell suit".

Since neither LONEWHACKO or any subsequent post has made this point, I'll presume I'm the only one in on the joke.

STEVE BOZELL is a fictional character voice created by the amazing Phil Hendrie.

Hendrie's radio show is based in Los Angeles and runs from 4pm to 7pm.

About a third of the show is Phil rapping or talking about current events, usually with a bit of tongue in cheek, and the related phone calls.

BUT the fundamental premise of his show is his interviewing FICTIONAL PEOPLE, whose voices are provided by Phil himself. If you've never heard it, it's a really cool production, in that an unknowing listener will presume he's hearing a real interview.

Hendrie's 'guests' are all over the board. But the running theme is that they each come on the show to promote an outrageous plan (The Steve Bozell lawsuit, for example) or to defend idiotic or ridiculous behavior. (ala, the woman who came on and told Phil she was starting a group for people who are afraid of their kids 'getting gay'. She had all kinds of tips on how to 'fag-proof your house so your kids are less likely to go gay).

Phil himself plays the straight man interviewer and of course takes their silly stories seriously.
After laying the groundwork, it SOUNDS not a lot different from a lot of real talk radio with real people. But best of all are the phone calls.

The calls come from casual listeners who radio surfed to the show, heard the outrageous story, and then they call in to 'straighten out the guest and the host'.

The 'guest' gets defensive, insults the callers and the host, changes his story to provide more insane rationale, etc

I'm pretty sure this is at least the second time that "Steve Bozell" and one of his lawsuits (that's his schtick, he's always suing someone) has made it to more mainstream outlets, and given the Life Imitates Phil world we live in, it sure looks like a real story.

The first time was a couple years ago when Bozell was suing someone (I think his neighbor, who observed him at the kids birthday party sucking on a popsicle....pointed at him and made a crude remark..and then EVERYONE LAUGHED AT ME AND I WAS MADE TO FEEL SMALL in front of my kids and wife, so I'm suing my neighbor), G. Gordon Liddy featured the 'story' on his news views segment.

Check it out....If Phil's not in your market, you can pay like $6.95 per month and hear archives of the show whenever you want.

[SteveInClearwater]

oops, http://www.philhendrieshow.com

[Larry]

From the PTC editorial:

"Sports are supposed to remain as an inspirational oasis in our culture, a place where merit and performance, and even dazzling feats of prowess grab our attention."

Yeah, right. Pro sports. Every Caesar knew that when you pack the mob into the coliseum they expect a little blood. The halftime show, including the flash, fit right in.

Disclaimer: I didn't watch due to lack of interest in football. But from what my friends who did watch said, they got what they paid for.

"Justin Timberlake ripped off a piece of Janet Jackson's shirt, revealing a bare breast with a metal sunburst covering the nipple."

Excuse me? Doesn't "bare" still mean without anything over it?

[Kevin Carson]

Serious injury?

[fountainhead]

Hey Jack Freeland - it's the rest of the world that is the liability, not Gillespie.