American and Canadian Muslims Leaders Defend Free Speech

|

There has been much complaining that too few Muslim leaders (imams, writers, academics) have spoken up for free speech in the wake of the various so-called cartoon crises. And much of that complaining, alas, has been justified. Indeed, it was a Danish Muslim leader, Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, who traveled to the Middle East to "raise awareness" of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. While on his incitement tour, Laban showed a few phony drawings of Mohammed as a pig in a (successful) attempt at stoking anger amongst the masses. 

Now an impressive group of Canadian and American Muslims are throwing their lot in with cartoonists and blasphemers like Molly Norris, Flemming Rose, Matt Stone, and Trey Parker. It's slightly qualified (it's unclear, but I hope they don't think the South Park bear costume episode ranks as "reprehensible"), but still—it's impressive list. Check out the signatories here. And here is the cause they are signing on with:

We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation. 

We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims.  We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur'an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.

As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance,  respect, and forgiveness.

NEXT: A Note to Our Commenters

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As a result, we are now facing another threat of a groundless yet potentially expensive and time-consuming lawsuit.

    Tort reform, anyone?

    1. Wrong thread, dude. Not that you could have posted on the other one anyway.

      In response to that one, because we can’t comment on it anyway, I have to say that it is perfectly reasonable for reason to want to avoid additional legal hassles, and I appreciate the editors offering an explanation.

      I didn’t write anything that had to be deleted, and I admit I was tempted, but I’ll refrain from doing so now. About a certain unnamed litigious lawyer, that is.

      I can only speak for myself, but I find H&R to have one of the most unique and open comments sections on the intertubez, so if Nick and Matt are asking us to voluntarily “censor” ourselves as a courtesy to them: you got it*.

      * In this case.

      1. Agreed. Posting at the Seattle PIs is almost guaranteed to get some comments removed, especially if you aren’t full of lefty statist bullcrap.

        This site really does rock for raw discussion.

      2. What Epi said. This is a staggeringly unique community and I, for one, would be saddened to lose it.

      3. “In response to that one, because we can’t comment on it anyway”

        What happened? I remember that thread. It was an adolescent free-for-all, an Episiarchian wet dream. Was it shut down?

        1. The post right before this one, Einstein. But thanks for playing.

            1. A short while back, we published two blog posts about attorney Arthur Alan Wolk

              Yup. That’s what I was talking about.

      4. I would hope Reason would have plenty of legal help to blow off this kind of nonsense.
        I used to get threats of libel lawsuits every now and again. It made me feel like I was on the right track.

        1. Of course, I suppose the Attorney Who Shall Not Be Named (AWSNBN) is known to do more than threaten.

        2. I propose a legal defense fund. Reason could post a link where we could all make donations. All we need to do is think of a witty name for said fund.

          1. “The (insert certain name here) (insert suggestion of particular inappropriate behavior with a particular type of farm animal” Fund?

            1. I like it. Let me be the first to donate.

      5. I can only speak for myself, but I find H&R to have one of the most unique and open comments sections on the intertubez, so if Nick and Matt are asking us to voluntarily “censor” ourselves as a courtesy to them: you got it*.

        I second the motion.

    2. Yeah, I’m not sorry for being a dick, but I’m sorry for encouraging an asshole to sue you for nothing. My bad and stuff.

      I find H&R to have one of the most unique and open comments sections on the intertubez

      Dude, any place that hasn’t banned us by now is our kind of place.

      1. Instigator!

        1. At least I accomplished something; at least I struck a tiny and vulgar blow for freedom before the adults rapped my knuckles. Where were you, mister I’m-more-extreme-than-Mtn-Dew?

          1. I was calling you a child molester? I note you never denied it.

            1. Yeah, but I threatened you with a lawsuit and called your mother a whore. That’s what matters.

              1. Well, the thing is that it’s all true, so it’s a wash.

          2. Episiarch, I served with Mountain Dew, I knew Mountain Dew, Mountain Dew was a friend of mine. Episiarch, you’re no Mountain Dew.

            1. Are you calling me Coca-Cola Bl?K?!?

              1. That stuff was surprisingly good. And weird. And expensive. That’s why they didn’t retain my business after the free sample.

                At least it doesn’t contain 40% ass like Red Bull. Why anyone drinks that crap is beyond me. And so we come full circle to libelous comments that attract lawsuits….

                1. We’re not talking about Lloyd Bentsen anymore, are we?

          3. I struck a tiny and vulgar blow for freedom before the adults rapped my knuckles

            You think so? How does chalking obscenities on the sidewalk of a “libertarian” blog* strike a “blow for freedom”? Freedom…to act like a frustrated adolescent? Sure, that’s a freedom. But why do it?

            *metaphor

            1. Close enough…DRINK!

              1. Who needs a reason to drink? I scoff at your justifications.

            2. Offense troll is offended.

            3. I called an asshole some names and had a great time. Some people really need to be insulted, and that’s important to keep in mind.

              What’s with the unnecessary quotes there, chief?

              1. What’s with the unnecessary quotes there, chief?

                Maybe they were having a sale. I mean, at those prices, why wouldn’t you use “them”?

              2. What’s with the unnecessary quotes there, chief?

                Who, me? If you are referring to “libertarian,” the quotation marks are justified, as “libertarianism” seems to be whatever the commentariat here says it is. Limited government? Great! No government? Cool! Anarchy? Why not?!

                1. Whine troll is whining.

                  1. “The behavior by these commenters is threatening our ability to keep comments enabled at Hit & Run.”

                    It’s a bitch when what goes around, comes around.

              3. I agree with Warty. It’s a form of public shunning. I thought Libertarians favored organic solutions (which would exclude Mountain Dew, of course).

            4. How does chalking obscenities on the sidewalk

              Chalking obscenities on a sidewalk is an immature and asinine activity –

              unless obscenities have been outlawed. The act of outlawing them and seeking to enforce that law transforms the act of writing them into a noble exercise.

              Larry Flynt is kind of an asshole. And a little gross. But his enemies sanctified him and ennobled him by their opposition.

              1. Flynt is more than a little gross if his oldest daughter is to be believed. A big “if” granted. But still.

              2. transforms the act of writing them [obscenities] into a noble exercise

                That’s your idea of “noble,” huh? Wow. That is so sad.

                1. Sad troll is saddened.

                2. It’s only sad if you’re a pinhead or a coward.

                  Believe me, if I could successfully resist, say, a law against buying beer on Sunday, I would.

                  Is that because I think getting drunk on a Sunday is a noble activity? Nope. But it becomes one as soon as the state promulgates an unjust and tyrannical law.

                  There is no cause so trivial or disreputable that it cannot be ennobled by the machinations of petty tyrants.

                  Do you think I actually want to smoke pot?

                  1. It’s only sad if you’re a pinhead or a coward

                    Nice fallacy! But which one is it? It’s way too easy to cite the overused Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive) which, instead of trying to disprove the truth of what is asserted, attacks the man who made the assertion…but I (the “pinhead/coward”) can’t find a better one…OK, Argumentum ad Hominem it is!

                3. That’s your idea of “noble,” huh? Wow. That is so sad.

                  Congratulations, you are now the most tiresome concern troll on here. Good work, grandma.

                  1. Does that include Tulpa? Wow. That is good work.

                  2. Yay!

                    What’s a “concern troll”?

                    1. Who, Us?|9.24.10 @ 4:45PM|#
                      What’s a “concern troll”?

                      Episiarch|9.24.10 @ 4:51PM|#
                      You.

                      But I’m an anonymous commentator on an obscure blog, just like you. I’ll require a more concise definition, if you have one.

                    2. If you’re too stupid or lazy to look it up, fuck you.

                      Demand troll is demanding.

                    3. Episiarch|9.24.10 @ 5:25PM|#
                      Fuck you

                      Clever retort! But I’m an anonymous commentator on an obscure blog, just like you. I’ll require a more concise definition of “concern troll”, if you have one. Do you have one, Pisi?

                    4. 20 bucks, same as downtown.

              3. I would say “enbiggened”

      2. Shit, are we actually joining a club that would have us as a member?

        1. You’re not invited.

          1. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to through life, son.

              1. If you’ll, notice, Epi doesn’t deny it.

                1. I’m not fat.

                  1. You were supposed to say “I’m not drunk at the moment”

                    1. Epi has a mortal hatred of fatties, which is good and proper. It’s not surprising that he defended himself against the greater libel first.

                    2. It’s so cute how the inmates banter with one another! Not that there is anything wrong with man-love.

                    3. Homophobic troll is homophobic.

                    4. Episiarch|9.24.10 @ 5:26PM|#
                      Homophobic troll is homophobic.

                      Pissarch is obsessed with anonymous commentator! It wants to eat, to do other things, but it cannot let go! It must respond to anonymous commentator! Pissarch has an illness. Pissarch should seek professional help. Anonymous commentator hopes Pissarch gets the help he needs.

                    5. LOL Who, Us? thinks he is being witty. See how he changed your name to Pissarch???? Clever guy.

                    6. I think Who, Us is propositioning us.

      3. yeah, what Warty said. I will reign it in. Hopefully that page is cached out there somewhere because I think it was classic. Some of our best work.

        And, after all, I am not worried about being personally sued, as are most of the offending commetariat, as we don’t have deep pockets.

        1. “Hopefully that page is cached out there somewhere”

          It’s not; I checked.

          1. He Who Shall Not Be Named probably threatened Google.

            1. Na. The trick is to hit deep pockets, but not pockets so deep that you get your ass handed to you. Google has “ass handed to you” deep pockets.

      4. From now on, I’m only going to libel Epi and Warty. Although… it’s not libel if it’s true, right?

        1. it’s not libel if it’s true, right?

          SugarFree is an upstanding citizen and has never, ever, exposed himself to any little old ladies.

          1. I have no evidence whatsoever that Warty smells like Orc scrotum on the hottest day of summer after a vigorous round of Orc tennis.

            1. Ha ha ha! Burn!

              Is SugarFree the Wisest and Mostest Witty? I think so, and I am not just being obsequious. Warty links too often to YouTube, which isn’t at all witty, except by proxy, and the Pissarch is just angry and mean and ineffectual. So my vote goes to the SugarFree. If I left anyone out, I am so sorry.

              1. Passive aggressive troll is passive aggressive.

                1. Do you suppose Smug Troll is the same one that was calling you ‘Pisi a while ago, Epi? The smug readings are about equivalent.

                  1. Oh, most certainly. Same tone, same passive aggressiveness, same pointless…I guess it’s…anger? With us? It’s not really anger, but I’m not sure what it is.

                  2. Warty and Episiarch, sittin’ in a tree…

                    1. But I tire of you. Have a nice night, boys.

        2. No, but . . . see John 18:38 (first sentence).

    3. Unfortunately, the vague post with Nick and Matt’s byline avoids specifics, and thus accomplishes nothing.

      1. Maybe we should have a Draw A.L.W. Day!

        1. Shit — A.A.W. or “He who shall not be named.”

          1. OK: let’s take suggestions for a moniker for the nameless one. I’ll start:

            The Nameless One

            1. How about something like Mr. X, Attorney at Law?

              1. The litihater?

              2. Harvey Turdman, Attorney at Law?

                1. I like WFOM (Warped Frustrated Old Man) or better still, Old Man Potter.

            2. How about “the sheep…” oh, shit, sorry.

              What’s STEVE SMITH have to say about this?

            3. The Lawyer Dick

              1. Attorney Arthur Alan Wolk?

            4. How about “the libel thumper”?

          2. CN, if you reverse those letters they spell out WAA, as in an onomotopoeia for the sound made by a crying infant.

        2. God. The temptation to start again is fucking difficult to resist. Stupid Matt and Nick, guilting me like my mom and shit.

          1. No kidding. It is like responding to that, “I will pistol-whip the next person that say shenanigans.”

            1. “Shenanigans.”

          2. …and on a Friday

      2. What is it we’re not supposed to do? Say stuff about He Who Must Not Be Named, or is it a more general warning?

        1. I think it’s pretty much aimed at me. Just don’t call people you-know-what.

          1. You weren’t the only one calling a certain unnamed person a sheep- and/or goat-fucker, or at least suggesting they needed to issue a denial of all that.

            Hey, the profanity actually had a point. Not really feeling repentant about any such exercise of free speech. But, if it’s gonna run up the legal bill for Reason, meh, I’ll STFU.

          2. Well it is hard to out asshole you, but I tried my best.

        2. The “Village”
          That of which we never speak, or perhaps of whom we never speak, while not wearing the color of which we never wear, while wearing the color we always wear, although we never have spoke of the color we never wear.

    4. I don’t do libel law. But I honestly don’t see how someone can be sued for libel for comments on their web site. If they can, the libel law has pretty much swallowed the First Amendment.

      I some point the Aurthur Wolks of the world really shouldn’t be bowed to. He has no case here. And the statements in question all were either qualified (as in no evidence that he doesn’t) or given as an obvious joke.

      I am sorry to see Reason back down. It doesn’t cost that much to defend a law suit. And I am quite sure the donors to the Reason Foundation would be happy to see their money go to fighting such a creature as Mr. Wolk in court.

      it is just another step down the road towards chaos. Bullies like Wolk get to abuse the system a little more.

      1. I some point the Aurthur Wolks of the world really shouldn’t be bowed to.

        Exactly. I feel bad for incurring Matt and Nick’s wrath, but it seems to me that almost the only honorable response to someone like Arthur Alan Wolk is to defame him.

        1. I will certainly contribute $100 to any defense fund that Reason sets up to squash that toad Wolk.

          1. Put me down foe a C-note too.

            1. I’m not saying that I’ve fucked a sheep but I have no evidence to prove that I haven’t been a sheepfucker at some point. I’m not saying I’ve ever donated to Reason, but there is no evidence that I won’t to support such a noble cause.

              1. I’m not saying I haven’t f*cked a sheep (with the caveat that any carnal knowledge was done to sheep at or above the age of consent).

          2. Yup.

            Anyway, doesn’t Reason qualify as a service provider and therefore isn’t responsible for the content of posters?

            Or is it that you have to pay your lawyers for an hour of billable time every time they send a response to his cease and desists?

      2. The point, John, is that for whatever their reasons, Nick and Matt asked us politely to stop. So out of respect for them, I for one have agreed.

        They could ban all of us now if they wanted to, and they haven’t.

        1. Hey, I am happy never to discuss Mr. Wolk again.

          So in that sense I’m “stopping”.

          But surely we can discuss whether web sites that allow unmoderated commentary are liable for that commentary as a general issue, right?

          Or maybe Reason isn’t concerned about the expense of fighting a libel suit due to online comments – they’re concerned about fighting subpoenas looking for IPs. Because I doubt Reason would just give up IP’s.

          1. That would be pretty crazy if Harvey Turdman tried to get Warty’s IP address.

          2. That is a good point. I wonder how long IP addresses are kept? If I were Reason I would just delete the information as soon as possible. I am unaware of them having any obligation to keep it. And you can’t subpoena what no longer is available.

            1. Long enough. When I got banned, my IP address was blocked so that I couldn’t use any other identity to post. That stopped after I changed ISPs some months later.

              1. “”That stopped after I changed ISPs some months later.””

                And will probably resume tomorrow, now that they have a heads up. 😉

                1. There’s always hidemyass.com

              2. Ooh, a banninanted regular. Just how regular were you? How long were you here?

                We’ll out you one day, by hook or by crook.

                1. Just how regular were you?

                  I take two good dumps every morning. One of them invariably passes the bar exam.

          3. surely we can discuss whether web sites that allow unmoderated commentary are liable for that commentary as a general issue, right?

            We can, but our time would be better spent, in my opinion, in debating the merits of unmoderated commentary. Sure, the freedom to act like an adolescent lout must be wonderfully liberating to those adolescent louts who have found an outlet for their adolescent spewings, but do they have a “right” to comment here, anonymously? How many of them would continue do so if they had to register, and agree to a basic framework of civility? And as to those who would respond, “Not me!”, would it be any great loss if they left? I don’t think so. The cream would rise to the top, and the adolescents would find another sandbox to play in. Everybody wins!

        2. Just goes to show that situations, not ideologies, or principles, determine actions.

          1. So Reason is going against its principle that those who run a website can’t delete comments on their own website, no matter the reason?

            1. The reasoning is about the situation.

            2. I never heard that to be a Reason principle.

      3. But I honestly don’t see how someone can be sued for libel for comments on their web site.

        John, as an attorney, surely you know that anyone can be sued for anything. That’s different than, “I don’t see how someone can prevail in a libel suit for comments on their website.” And loser doesn’t pay here- it would cut into far too many attorney billable hours.

        1. Yes, losers of law suits should pay their opponents legal fees.

          1. And pot should be legal and politicians should follow the constitution. But that’s not the reality we live in.

            1. Reason- ‘Free Minds, Free Markets, unless it’s too expensive.’ Remind me why I renew my subscription? Really, isn’t fighting this sort of thing a basic tenant of the Foundation? Fuck, just call up Kochtopus and get some of their icky, shadowy, corporate lawyers.

              1. Subscription troll is threatening to cancel nonexistent subscription.

                As I said before, the only one censoring free speech is a certain lawyer. Reason has the right to delete anything on a website it owns.

                1. It’s the principle, and you know that it’s cowardly. I have the right to be an adulterous sack of shit, but that doesn’t mean I should.

                  1. Yeah, you have the right to be an adulterous sack of shit, that doesn’t mean reason has to preserve your comments, or even allow you to comment on its website in the first place. This is still a private forum, no matter how open and public it seems. Reason has already stood up for itself by not deleting its own posts, I don’t see how it is cowardly to delete the posts of its commenters, especially since this prevents a certain lawyer from pursuing legal action against those commenters.

                2. Ah yes- that monthly non-existent magizine that I receive containing articles eerily similar to those posted here. Reason has the right to delete anything on a website it owns, and I can call them pussies for doing so. The lawyer, other than threatening litigation, can do nothing at this point to censor free speech. The censoring was by Reason and voluntary.

                  1. He can censor speech by threatening an unjust lawsuit, forcing Reason to delete comments or suffer legal costs that it should not be bothered with in the first place.

                    1. Reason had a few ways to respond to the threat of litigation- censoring their website being one of them.

                    2. Or you could look at as making sure a certain lawyer cannot threaten Reason’s commenters, as he has done to a commenter on a different website. If Reason were simply acquiescing, why didn’t it delete its own posts?

                    3. Because the original posts didn’t contain said potentially libelous speech. Are you inferring that Reason’s actions were for our own good? Just stemming from the comments here, this seems to be a legal area with little precedence and some would consider a battle worth fighting. Granted, that is not ‘our’ decision to make.

                    4. Just stemming from the comments here, this seems to be a legal area with little precedence and some would consider a battle worth fighting.

                      Well I certainly don’t have the money to pay for such a legal battler, but you can go ahead and make a website with all the libelous material about Wolk you want. I just don’t see why Reason needs to be involved in it.

                      There’s a difference between giving verbal support to an ideal and having the money to actually bring about the ideal. I’m sure if Reason had the resources to do this, they would. But I don’t think they do.

              2. Really, isn’t fighting this sort of thing a basic tenant of the Foundation?

                Yeah, but it’s been evicted. ZING

                Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

                1. I like to think of the enumerated amendments of the Bill of Rights as members of a struggling death metal band who crash in the basement of the Reason building. Tenets- noted.

              3. The only way Reason’s actions could be considered a betrayal of principle would be if their slogan was “We’re libel to print anything!” in real life, and not merely in my imagination.

                1. Reason and Reason Online are editorially independent publications of the Reason Foundation, a national, non-profit research and educational organization.

                  Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law.

                  From Libertarian Party Issues-

                  Internet
                  Stop Internet Censorship

                  Politicians are trying to take away your right to read what you want, and to say what you want.

                  The Internet is making it possible for new voices to be heard — the voices of people who simply could not afford to publish their ideas or display their artistic talents to a wide audience using older technologies. Established interests of both the left and the right fear new voices, and are trying to control what appears on the Internet through new laws and regulations.

                  True- “We’re libel to print anything!” is not their slogan, but it would be rational to assume that protecting one’s right to say ‘what they want’ on the internet is something they stand for.

          2. It would be sufficient for the jury to have the power to decide this.

            Surely there are cases where both sides can be seen as acting in good faith and cases where one side appears to have been trying to use the system as a tool to hurt the other.

      4. It doesn’t cost that much to defend a law suit.

        Hundreds of dollars per billable hour, times hundreds if not thousands of hours?

        Perhaps if you were footing the bills, you might redefine “that much” to a much smaller figure.

        Hurts to see Matt and Nick knuckling under to such a slimebag, but my wife endured a completely baseless medical malpractice suit, $100K+ in legal fees down the shitter for a case that was dismissed after 15 minutes of deliberation, so I understand the fiscal reality Matt and Nick are facing.

        1. It wouldn’t be hundreds of hours for this suit. Only if Reason let its lawyers rip them off.

          1. Really? What do you think that defeding against the discovery requests, requests for admissions, subpoenas for IP addresses and server logs, and depositions will run? That’s just for starters.

          2. This isn’t really my experience at all. Even the most trivial thing can be lawyered up to hundreds of hours – filings, discovery requests, all sorts of crap. It adds up quickly. And not just in lawyer fees.

            Our mid-sized (about 400 employee) company has about 4 people who devote maybe 10% of their time to servicing groundless lawsuits. Mostly discover requests – pulling email logs, web logs, fighting over discover requests, vetting discovery results, copying papers, boxing papers, you name it. A decent lawyer can make even an absolute bullshit case into a royal pain in the ass – and an expensive one to boot. We’ve had quite a number of former employee type lawsuits over the years, all unfounded, all eventually won in court – relatively easily once that date came – and all expensive and time-consuming.

        2. I don’t think they’re “knuckling under”. I think they’re being smart about it.

          They’ve posted an explanation HERE, and that’s what I was hoping they would do.

          Reason runs this blog, and can conduct their operation any way they choose.

          They can ban whomever they want, and restrict whichever comments they want.

          My complaint was that an outside third party was influencing the site, and that this behavior should be noted.

          I complain because I agree with Epi and many others about this site’s importance.

      5. I don’t think that test case has gone to the supreme court yet.

        But if you tolerate libelous statements, say, on a community billboard on the front of your building, I think that opens up the door to the question.

        Libel obviously isn’t protected speech, just like making terrorist threats isn’t protected speech–the question is when somebody uses your property to do either, what’s your exposure?

        The answer is that we, the regulars at Hit & Run, should never do anything to be a thorn in Reason’s side.

        I made a mistake like that myself once–although it was entirely unintentional. I was telling a story about “this guy” I knew in high school, and, unfortunately, the way I wrote the story, it sounded like I was talking about the subject of the post…

        As in, “I knew this guy when I was in high school, and he…” I didn’t mean I knew the subject of the post, I meant there was “this guy” I knew…

        Anyway, the dude threatened to sue reason, cc’d me on all the correspondence, and I felt like crap for it. In my case, it wasn’t even something I did intentionally. But it is like being a guest in somebody’s house. If I spill a drink on my own carpet, that’s not a big deal–I try to be extra careful in somebody else’s house. …and this ain’t our house.

        Anyway, it’s probably pretty smart to just assume that the subject of every post comes in and reads all the comments, and I think the law and accepted standards and practices are starting to catch up with the interwebs.

        This ain’t the early days of Usenet anymore.

        1. It could easily be argued that since they have, in the past, deleted comments from the board that they found to be libelous/defaming/over the top, etc, they have set themselves out as exercising control over the comments.

          1. There’s also some weird things that happen with anonymity.

            People will do things in a crowd they wouldn’t do all by themselves in part, I suspect, because of the anonymity. People will write antagonistic comments about litigious libel attorneys when they’re anonymous that they wouldn’t write otherwise too.

            I think they call that “asymmetrical warfare” in the military, and if we can’t learn to police ourselves and each other, and a little censorship doesn’t help, then it may be necessary to waterboard a commenter or two.

            …just bury it somewhere in a Terms of Service agreement linked over the “submit” button.

            1. I thought TOSes had been ruled to be not legally binding.

              1. Were you wearing a recognizable uniform at the time you made the comment, Warty?

                Didn’t think so–Geneva Conventions do not apply.

            2. ” it may be necessary to waterboard a commenter or two.”

              Wouldn’t it be more useful to the world to waterboard the litigious one?

        2. Actually, Ken, by federal statute any website that hosts comments or fora is considered a “communications service” and is safeharbored from libel claims. You can’t sue Verizon because someone has libels you over the phone and they don’t stop it. Websites have been placed in the same legal category as Verizon.

          They can be compelled to surrender identifying information, but that’s it.

      6. I know I will be pilloried for this, but I think I will defend Reason’s response. Like Epi said, they politely asked us to stop, so I will.

        This doesn’t bother me as much as when Reason caved on the Mohammad pics. Which now I can appreciate, they have family and new cars and shit. And in the big picture, I think the intimidation cause buy the speicies of virulent Islam practiced by a a minority is much more a threat to free speech than this parasite.

        But in this particular instance, it isn’t like the Wolk is the first parasitic tort lawyer to come along. He is just one of many. And ours is a justice system is one that allows people like Wolk to extort as long as they do it “ethically.”

        1. ours is a justice system is one that allows people like TLWSNBN to extort as long as they do it “ethically.”

          Which is why the behavior should be noted – same as the SWAT problems. Change only occurs when enough people take note of the dangers inherent in a justice system that fails to regulate itself.

          No pillory necessary.

        2. Pillory him!

        3. Troy, what if the reputation you are trying to destroy was yours?

      7. Enjoy this while you can. I will find you and sue you. You have accused me of a henious crime and now it is on Google. I am a father, a grandfather and now you have destroyed my good name in my community.
        I will make certain that your enjoyment is short lived and you will think twice, coward, before you libel an innocent man again. The First Amendment protects us from cowards like you and I will find out where you are, I will sue you in your home town and here in Philadelphia and I will go to States where criminal laws for internet bullies have been enacted and file criminal complaints in each and every one. You must be stopped because you are the problem.
        Have a good laugh today because I will wipe that smile off your face soon enough.

        1. You have accused me of a henious crime and now it is on Google.

          Have you petitioned Google for the removal of the search result?

          I checked Google, and it sent back this response:

          Did you mean: heinous

    5. http://overlawyered.com/early-…..t-2/#0916b

      This would be the depressing precedent that caused Reason to bow here.

      1. “One of Mr. Wolk’s complaints was that we did not supervise our chat room to prevent libelous comments about him being published by our subscribers. We have corrected that. Another of Mr. Wolk’s complaints was that our characterizations instigated some of our subscribers to libel him. We will no longer characterize matters in such a way as to bring apparent discredit upon anyone.”

        Nauseating.

        1. I’m not sure so I’ll ask the lawyer types here. Wouldn’t someone suing you for libel need to prove harm to win a case? And sure, I understand just defending from a suit is costly.

          1. He could get a “win” by getting you to agree to do a couple of minor things on the web site in exchange for signing a hold-harmless settlement that says he can’t sue anymore. That might be worth it to get some random dork to leave you alone.

            1. The only win I’m talking about is by jury or judge. I’m not talking about settlements.

          2. the answer might be no. I seem to remember slander-per-se cases where you didn’t need to prove harm. If it was a a certain subject matter (I think there were 4), then you might have a case.

        2. You are libeling me on the internet. You are an internet bully. You have accused me of a heinous crime. I will find you. I will sue you. Where I can I will file criminal charges against you. Enjoy your smug cowardice as long as you can because it will be short lived I promise. If you think the First Amendment protects you against accusing an inncocent man of a crime, think again. You need lawyers, both criminal and civil.
          Arthur Alan Wolk

    6. Warty has arrived and gets a whole post, comment free, dedicated to him. Congratulations!

  2. Glad to hear it.

  3. So 100 or so Muslims out of a billion don’t want to impose Sharia law on us. Big deal. Let me know when they start kicking these imams who spew this hatred out on the street.

    1. Q: What do you call 100 or so muslims standing up for free speech?

      A: A start.

      1. random noise?

    2. How are American and Canadian imams supposed to “kick” these foreign imams you cite “out on the street”?

    3. I was beginning to wonder if there were going to be any comments in this thread about the article at hand.

      Anyway, as others have said – a good start.

      I have had occasion to speak to Muslims around the world, and I don’t think they’re any more nuts than conservative Christians – but just as there have always been a few conservative Christians (especially historically) who have been willing to use violence to promote their cause, so there are some nominal Muslims who are all too willing to use violence as well. The solution to violent Christians was to kill them off, and the solution to violent Muslims has not progressed as far, but it is good to see that some are beginning to be more outspoken.

      And I agree with them on this point – various speech about Muhammad may be offensive to Islam, but surely murdering people in the name of Islam is even MORE offensive to Islam.

      Besides which, isn’t Allah big enough to defend himself? Or, to put it another way, the Sun is necessary to all life on earth, yet I have yet to see a single “Save the Sun” or “Defend the Honor of the Sun” movement – so if any god is bigger than the Sun how silly is it to defend Him? On the contrary, we mobilize to protect manatees and pandas and other creatures we fear are about to become extinct; we protect the weak, not the strong – but perhaps the jihadists have always instinctively understood that.

  4. Now an impressive group of Canadian and American Muslims are throwing their lot in with cartoonists and blasphemers like Molly Norris, Flemming Rose, Matt Stone, and Trey Parker.

    A Fatwa shall be issued in due time against these heretics, as well.

    1. And notice they couldn’t just say, “we support free speech.” They had to justify their criticism with regard to protecting Islam. Natural law and rights mean nothing to them.

      1. Quit pissing on an unambiguously good thing. There are many good reasons for supporting free speech. They named one of them that would have particular relevance to American Muslims.

        Your last sentence doesn’t comport with the actual wording of the document.

        1. Indeed, this is akin to the reasoning that the second amendment only protects “the militia”.

      2. Every last fundtard out there can’t say word one about free speech without talking about how enumerated rights “flow from the Creator” blah blah blahdy fucking blah.

        Let’s not single these guys out for sullying the good name of a right by employing a supernatural justification for supporting that right.

        1. How is saying “we like it that way” any better? I don’t know that God cares whether or not you have free speech rights. So I don’t think it comes from God. But I am not sure you can say much beyond things work better when we have such rights.

          1. John, someone is complaining that these guys issued a statement supporting free speech, but reconciled that statement to their religious beliefs.

            And I’m just pointing out that American Christians do that ALL THE TIME. I have a sneaking suspicion that this does not upset “American Delight” at all.

            1. ‘Our Creator’ can mean many things.

      3. We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority”

  5. Muslims leadrs? Hire a fucking editor, you moron.

    1. Someone’s life is so empty they’re reduced to looking for typos on a blog that they hate. How sad for you.

      1. And entertaining for us!

        1. Meh. His schtick is played. It’s old.

    2. I take it you are an unemployed editor then?

    3. ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!!

        1. +1
          -1

          … It’s a wash.

    4. Would you be satisfied with a non-fucking editor?

  6. The funniest part about the supposed SouthPark Muslim blasphemy is that in typical SouthPark style, Trey and Matt were commenting on just how incredibly ridiculous it is that they didn’t show a picture of Mohammed at all and yet they were STILL fatwa’d for even suggesting it.

    This speaks to a wider problem among certain muslim communities where individual liberty is not recognized as a priority. In fact, not only is it not a priority, according to many of them it’s actually detrimental to health of the society. Look at the way Hezbollah runs southern Lebanon and you’ll see a fear induced religious fascism that would make Stalin blush.

    1. “”This speaks to a wider problem among certain muslim communities where individual liberty is not recognized as a priority.””

      What religion tolerates individual liberty?

          1. The celebration of individual liberty in Christianity is a defining moral landmark for Western civilization.

            1. Individual liberty would allow me to worship any God of my choosing. Deny the resurrection. Deny the bible as the word of God. Use any God’s name in vain.

              All religions demand some comformity, else they become a joke.

              1. “worship any God of my choosing”

                Would you say you are more likely to enjoy religious freedom (just a form of freedom of speech) in countries where Christianity has had a profound impact or in countries dominated by other, more aggressive forms of religion or even non-religion?

              2. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, but if you reject basic tenets of a theology or philosophy you cannot reasonably describe yourself as subscriber to that belief system. Recognizing that fact does nothing to restrict your liberty.

                1. I have to stick up for the basic premise here. Christianity is in large part based on the idea that you have choices and the free will to make those choices. While there are consequences for those choices spelled out in the belief system, the free will to choose between paths is central to Christianity’s message.

                  Lot’s of Christians have missed that subtle part of the message and act as if you can force morality on others, but the basic teachings are pretty clear on the point that the individual has to choose the moral path freely.

      1. Zoroastrianism

  7. LIARS! These people are obviously a bunch of stealth jihadists who want to cut off all of our heads.

  8. I’ve set up a Facebook page for “Everybody Draw Muhammed Day 2: Electric Boogaloo” and we’ve adopted the statement of these brave Muslims as our own motto.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/…..52?ref=sgm

    I invite everyone to come join.

    (Note: Regardless of anyone’s personal feelings about Islam, this is a Facebook group to celebrate free speech, not to bash Muslims.)

    1. do one for jesus and the “virgin” mary, and will give drawings for all three.

      1. You want to draw my gardener and my uptight college freshman girlfriend?

        1. um, about that girlfriend, well, we think she’s responsible for “converting” NutraSweet. Not that ProLibertate said anything or whatnot, but that’s what I heard.

        2. Dude, I hear she’s not at all uptight with your gardener. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

      2. Moose,
        Don’t wait for this Free Speech Champion to apply his tolerance test equally. Submit one drawing with all three characters. It practically draws itself. Three-way!

    2. I’ve always thought that people doing the “draw Muhammad” stuff should make pictures that are actually fairly hagiographic or at least respectful so it makes Muslims look like dicks for freaking out about pictures that are not only not offensive, but actually positive.

      But that’s not going to happen, so whatever.

      1. Indeed.

  9. [sarcasm]
    Speaking as someone who reveres the Fuhrer (blessings of Wotan be upon his name) and holds Mein Kampf dear to his heart, I nevertheless affirm the right of Jews and other untermenschen to free speech and all of the other human rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Although I often find their speech reprehensible, I am even more aghast at my non-Reform brethren who seek to fulfill literally the plan the Fuhrer laid out in his great work.

    We need to all just get along, people!

    Now, back to my Mein Kampf studies…
    [/sarcasm]

    1. I just talked to Godwin, and he says you’re still an idiot.

    2. Dude…

      I think that is brilliant sarcasm.

      1. <correction>Can’t be brilliant until he figures out how to do faux tags right</correction>

  10. We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence

    And we, the terrorists, reply: Screw You.

  11. Molly Norris was unavailable for comment.

    1. Molly Norris has changed her name, moved, and is in a defacto ‘witness protection program’ now.

      http://seattletimes.nwsource.c…..ethru.html

      1. And no, it hasn’t been covered by the media nearly enough.

      2. Yeah, I know, and that’s why I… oh never mind.

  12. Just for the record, I have no problem with Muslims criticizing newspapers for what they publish.

    People threatening those who criticize Muslims? Them, I have a problem with. People who want the government to prohibit newspapers from printing things that offend Muslims? I have a problem with them too.

    But, I think one of the problems we’re seeing is that there are too few people in the secular West who are willing to stand up for the rights of Muslims to criticize those who offend them.

    How’s that?

    1. “I think one of the problems we’re seeing is that there are too few people in the secular West who are willing to stand up for the rights of Muslims to criticize those who offend them.”

      Can you give an example of this? The only time I see Muslims getting any blow back is when the go beyond criticizing and start issuing death threats.

      1. Couldn’t we just insert any comment by Fluffy?

        1. Ken, you’re a fucking idiot.

          If Muslims have the right to criticize those who offend them, I have the right to criticize those Muslims if their criticism offends ME. It’s turtles all the way down, baby doll.

          You’re upset because you want it to be defined as DA HATE SPEECH if anyone examines the content of a religion and finds it absurd, idiotic, foolish, or mendacious. And sorry – while I support fully the absolute right of, say, Mormons to practice their religion, believing that Joseph Smith was telling the truth makes you kind of an idiot, and I won’t refrain from saying that. Tough.

          1. “If Muslims have the right to criticize those who offend them, I have the right to criticize those Muslims if their criticism offends ME. It’s turtles all the way down, baby doll.”

            I didn’t say you didn’t have the same right–I just said they have the same rights as you.

            “You’re upset because you want it to be defined as DA HATE SPEECH if anyone examines the content of a religion and finds it absurd, idiotic, foolish, or mendacious.”

            If you mean that I think it should be illegal because it’s “hate speech”, then that’s a complete fabrication.

            “And sorry – while I support fully the absolute right of, say, Mormons to practice their religion, believing that Joseph Smith was telling the truth makes you kind of an idiot, and I won’t refrain from saying that. Tough.”

            In the past, I have pointed out that being hostile to people because of their religious beliefs is counterproductive from a public relations standpoint, but I wasn’t asking you to refrain from saying stuff like that here…

            I was just asking you to be predictable. …which you were, thank you.

            1. Explain specifically how any of this is relevant to the question of whether or not I am “willing to stand up for the rights of Muslims to criticize those who offend them”.

              And please don’t respond with one of your typical deflections.

              1. Are you willing to stand up for the rights of religious people who are offended by what they see in the media?

                I thought that because religious belief justifies and leads to various types of oppression, that it was okay to oppose free exercise?

                1. If you mean their right to do voice that they are offended without facing government sanction, yes I am.

                  If you’re asking if I support their “right” [in air quotes] to do this without facing ridicule, boycott, social ostracism, or other non-governmental abuse – nope. I’m not. But only because I don’t support that kind of air quote “right” for anybody, ever.

                  1. Well that’s all I was trying to say. And a lot of times, I think the message gets lost. It’s happened to me here in this forum–people assumed that because I thought the Ground Zero mosque shouldn’t be built, that I thought the government should step in. That was false.

                    People assume that because a lot of Muslims opposed newspapers publishing cartoons that offended their religious beliefs, that they all wanted the government to put a stop to it. …and I dare say, Fluffy, that Muslims, who read your comments ridiculing them, probably walk away with the impression that you don’t care much for their right to free speech.

                    If they’re wrong about that, then I’m glad to hear it.

                    It’s all about reciprocity though, isn’t it? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” really is the beginning of all libertarianism, and I’m glad to see you subscribe to that.

                    You know you’re half way to being a Christian already? And, you know, being a Christian isn’t half bad. Great music at Christmas with lots of candles. Home cooking after church every week…

                    You’re gonna love being a Christian.

      2. “Can you give an example of this? The only time I see Muslims getting any blow back is when the go beyond criticizing and start issuing death threats.”

        So, in response to your asking for examples, you don’t need any further examples than these, do you?

    2. I dunno. Is that your Obama impersonation?

      1. Hostility?

        ’cause I said Muslims should be free to criticize newspapers that offend them? ’cause I said not enough people stand up for their free speech rights?

        See, that was the example I was lookin’ for, John!

        Thanks, Fatty.

        1. “Standing up for their free speech rights” means exactly that and nothing more.

          Muslims have every right to tell newspapers that pictures of Mohammed offend them. I stand up for their free speech right to do so.

          But I won’t applaud or celebrate them for it, because…[drumroll]…it’s fucking stupid. No one suffers any actual harm because somebody else doodles a face on a cocktail napkin and writes “Mohammed” under it. If you perceive that this harms you, you are an idiot and a neurotic and an asshole.

        2. No, Ken. Muslims are free to criticize whoever they want, but why is there a need to “stand up” for those rights when they aren’t being abridged? That’s what reminded me of Obama. False equivalencies that sound good when spoken but make little sense if examined. If that’s what you were going for, you nailed it.

          1. “No, Ken. Muslims are free to criticize whoever they want, but why is there a need to “stand up” for those rights when they aren’t being abridged?”

            Did someone pass a law prohibiting American newspapers from printing Islam bashing cartoons?

            The suggestion on the table was that there aren’t enough Muslims standing up for us–that isn’t a false equivalency…

            “There has been much complaining that too few Muslim leaders (imams, writers, academics) have spoken up for free speech in the wake of the various so-called cartoon crises.”

            …that’s a fact.

            How many free speech advocates have been standing up for the right of Muslim leaders to speak out against things that offend their religious beliefs?

            1. Uh all of them? I haven’t seen anyone say Muslim leaders don’t have the right to say stupid shit. That doesn’t mean you won’t be ridiculed for saying stupid shit. Call it Darwinism of communication.

            2. There is no reason to “stand up” for something that is not being threatened to begin with. When Muslims in America start going into hiding because they said something about another religion, then we can talk about that. Until then, yeah, it’s a false equivalancy.

              1. According to the Truthers, Bin Laden went into hiding despite having done nothing at all!

                1. Well that makes a lot of sense.

                  * bin Laden’s hiding for no reason at all.

                  * There aren’t any problems with free speech in the Muslim world.

                  * Standing up for the free speech of people who are hating on you may be pretty much universal, but pointing that out is “equivalence”.

                  * “equivalence” is bad.

                  The list goes on and on.

    3. What a wonderful world it would be if Ken Shultz was half as clever as he imagines himself to be.

      1. I’d love to be able to claim that I’m the one who thought up the whole “do unto others as you would have them do unto you thing”, but I’m just a guy who happened to notice…

        If we’re damning them for not sticking up for us out of one side of our mouths–and treating their right to free speech like, at best, a necessary evil–then we’re talkin’ out of both sides of our mouths.

        Noticing double-talk doesn’t make me clever. That makes me objective.

        The money I make for my investors makes me clever. …well, that and the chicks I score.

  13. Friday is opposite day: Muslims embrace free speech, while Reason is forced to censor it to avoid litigation (don’t worry fellas, I understand and do not hold it against you given the circumstances)!

    1. The Friday Funny still sucked manatee sack, so snowballs aren’t quite making it to hell yet.

    2. I still don’t see how Reason is “censoring” free speech by deleting comments on a website it owns. The only censoring going on is by He Who Shall Not Be Named, who is using threats of unjustified legal action to censor his opponents.

      1. The deleting of comments is censoring in a literal sense. I’m not saying they would’ve done it short of a massive legal challenge that compelled them to, and I’m not asserting that anyone’s rights are being violated by them choosing (or rather being coerced into choosing) what content they can permit in the comments. All I’m saying is that there are no comments where there once were.

        1. THIS

        2. You posted about the hypocrisy of promoting free speech and censoring comments. Literal censorship is not necessarily the same thing as restricting free speech, so stating it is hypocrisy is not necessarily true.

  14. Good. I wish there were more of this.

  15. Anyone else see the humor in having a thread extoling the virtues of free speech immediately following a comment-prohibity thread about why we are restricting speech?

    But most offensive of all is Reason calling Sugarfree, Warty, RC Dean, John and others “small commenters”.

    1. Rather ironic, eh?

    2. Reason isn’t restricting your speech.

      1. Bullshit.

        1. So if I came to your house and taped a note on your door, removing it would be restricting my free speech? Bullshit.

          1. Again, repeating my comment from the other thread this morning:

            No one has restricted my freedom of speech, and Reason can run their website any way they want.

            As long as they are running the website.

            But there’s a big difference between Reason deleting comments because they don’t like them and secretly deleting them because of legal threats (if that is indeed the case).

            Secretly deleting information makes it disappear. Do you think it’s ok for legal threats to make information disappear, or should it be retracted?

            In other words, someone writes something on a forum you own in response to something you yourself put on that forum, and a third party threatens legal action if you don’t remove it.

            Do you acquiesce, or do you remove the material with an explanation that you are doing so because of threats from a third party?

            I’m quite satisfied with Reason’s reaction and new post, even if I was hyper about it last night.

            1. But there’s a big difference between Reason deleting comments because they don’t like them and secretly deleting them because of legal threats (if that is indeed the case).

              How did they secretly delete them? There’s a post about why they deleted them if you didn’t notice…

              Do you think it’s ok for legal threats to make information disappear, or should it be retracted?

              This doesn’t make sense. First of all, I am against intimidation through threats if unjustified legal action. Second of all, how would Reason “retract” something it never said? The comments on its posts are not something Reason can retract.

              1. How did they secretly delete them? There’s a post about why they deleted them if you didn’t notice…

                There is now. At the time, I hit a screen refresh and Warty’s comment vanished.

                It was late when that happened, and I probably should have waited until the morning to comment about it, but at the time, even my somewhat unrelated comments were vanishing.

                Our comments at the time were in response to the deletion of all the comments on the 2nd AWSNBN post. There was no update or explanation as to the disappearance of the other comments. I don’t know if there would have even been any attention paid had PapayaSF not pointed it out, but I also can’t tell you if there would have been a post about why they did the deletions if it wasn’t for complaints.

                Legal threats tend to be imprecise, and often cause the threatened parties to react with a broad brush.

                Sorry, but I’d prefer it if people pointed out when comments on sites disappeared (regardless of whether the site operators were going to post about it or not), just like I prefer it when people point out botched SWAT raids.

                The problems with our judicial system are not only with the police and the 4th amendment.

                As to “retraction” – you’re correct in that it’s poor wording. It should read something like “..or should the deletions be noted in an update?”

                1. At the time I wrote this, I was in love with the wording “at the time”.

      2. The hell you say.

        This Old Man Potter fucker is no different that the SEIU thugs that beat the shit out of that black man selling souvenirs at a T-Party gathering. It’s clearly overt intimidation. Reason bowing to it ? no matter why — is in effect acquiescence. I now have to temper my posts out of fear of the banhammer.

        1. And… how does this show that Reason is restricting your free speech?

          1. Are you talking about First Amendment protections or the general notion of free speech? Because, if the former, I totally agree. If the latter, I totally disagree.

            1. Neither notion of free speech says you can say whatever you want in a private forum and your comments cannot be deleted.

              1. How so? Free speech is a concept separate from, and at the extremes, in conflict with, property rights. There’s a difference between saying an action restricted the ability of people to express themselves, and saying that it did so unjustifiably.

                1. This is a common misunderstanding that alot of people make. Free speech is not at all in conflict with property rights.

                  Let’s say you enter my property. You have freedom of speech. You can say absolutely whatever you want, and I can’t stop you. BUT, I can still kick you off my property for whatever reason, including if I don’t like what you are saying. Your freedom of speech does not conflict with my right to kick you off my property.

                  However, this isn’t exactly analogous to commenting on Reason. You don’t have the right to comment on Reason in the first place. Reason only allows you to do that, and it can stop allowing you to do that at anytime. Freedom of speech doesn’t even come into the picture here.

    3. I interpreted that to mean something more like ‘petty’.

    4. Anyone else see the humor in having a thread extolling the virtues of free speech immediately following a comment-prohibity thread about why we are restricting speech?

      Yes! That’s why this is so much fun! When the chickens come home to roost, the other chickens are perplexed. Did we cause all this angst? Say it ain’t so!

  16. So far, “LitiHater” is a winner . . .

    Though I admit a conflict were someone to submit “Douchenozzle”

    1. Litihater sounds like an evil peer of Harvey Birdman, which is a plus in my book.

      1. Had the original and allegedly-inciteful charges of a certain unnamed lawyer involved different farm mammals, I probably would have preferred “The Equinophile Esquire”

  17. this lawyer dude is gonna get EDWEIRRRRDOOO to help with the suit.

    BRAVO, Reason for sticking to your guns!

  18. We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

    And we will behead anyone who expresses a contrary opinion!

  19. But seriously, come on. Not one addition to the 191 members among all the Reasonoids who saw this link?

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/…..52?ref=sgm

    Boo.

    1. Say, aren’t you that guy who was arrested foe masturbating in the toy section at Walmart?

      http://www.thesmokinggun.com/b…..ured-cops-“i-swear-i’m-not-pervert”

      1. That’s neither here nor there.

    2. No facebook. And no plans for one either. Facebook has a movie coming out about it. It jumps the shark on release day and will go the way of myspace within a few short years.

    3. Not all of us can access FB @ work. And how would you recognize the Reasonoids on FB? Not everyone uses their real name here.

      1. Just before I posted we were at 191.

        An hour later and we’re still at 191.

        Elementary.

        1. Do me next, Trey! Do me next!

      2. Fun Fact: My legal name is Enough About Palin.

        1. my legal name is Voros Mccracken, but coincidentally that is the handle of another commenter here. It’s a weird weird world.

          1. My legal name is cunctator, hence my screen name.

            1. How are you pronouncing that?

              1. it’s spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it’s pronounced Throat Warbler Mangrove

  20. A fine example of taqiyya.

  21. But most offensive of all is Reason calling Sugarfree, Warty, RC Dean, John and others “small commenters”.

    I don’t recall speculating about anyone’s taste in animal companionship. Although I did enjoy the schtick. And I enjoy Mr. Wolk letting us know that it really pissed him off.

    Let’s hope this whole Muslim-leaders-forging-ahead-into-the-18th-century thing catches on. Its a good start.

    1. And Allah-willing, they’ll pretty much stop in the 18th century and think “Damn, all this Enlightenment and limited government stuff is pretty cool. Beats the crap out of the 21st century nanny state.”

      1. The 18th century was when (a) the Sauds took over Arabia and imposed Wahhabism, and (b) the French Revolutionaries started chopping off the heads of people they disagreed with.

        Not a good century for modern Muslims to emulate.

    2. Good point, it is satisfying to know that those comments if you’ll excuse the saying, “got his goat”. That’s some grade-A trolling there fellas.

      1. The problem with blaming — or crediting — Warty and the rest of the commentariat is, that Jacob’s second post seems to indicate that the AWSNBN objected to the “false” original post itself, and not to the commentariat’s riffing upon it.
        (Although Matt and Nick’s post would seem to indicate there may have been more threats from the AWSNBN that we are unaware of, threats that do take note of the colorful banter of Warty et al.)

    3. Let’s hope this whole Muslim-leaders-forging-ahead-into-the-18th-century thing catches on. Its a good start.

      Let’s not get ahead of ourselves…

  22. I think one of the problems we’re seeing is that there are too few people in the secular West who are willing to stand up for the rights of Muslims to criticize those who offend them.

    Yeah, that’s the opposite of the problem.

    Muslims deserve?and don’t get?the same “Shut the fuck up, you assholes” everyone else who pretends to be “offended” by people disobeying them gets.
    The story we’re looking at right now is a libertarian publication applauding some Muslims for saying that free speech is, with a long list of qualifications and tut-tuts, allowed by Islam?so we’re allowed to have it. By the grace of Allah or whatever.

    Jesus Fucking Christ.

  23. cartoonists and blasphemers

    My kind of people

  24. Just for the record, and having said nothing about He Who May Have Carnal Knowledge of Ewes Guys, I am severely disappointed that threats, either legal or physical, are sufficient to get reason to shut down the community. Do you guys really want to to tip your hand to the fact that one lawsuit is enough to get you to shut this place down?

    1. Hey Randian. What made you go back to your old handle? And how many points should I offer on Eastern Michigan for the game?

      1. The answer is, of course, 42.

        As for the handle, I agreed to a certain timed event of shenanigans, and thought that switching back would help facilitate said shenanigans. If I said anymore I’d have to bite down on this hollow cyanide tooth.

    2. Deleting comments on one specific topic (but leaving the posts on that topic) ?= “shutting this place down”

        1. I don’t know, let’s wait and see instead of making up hyperbolic bullshit.

          1. But “hyperbolic bullshit” is what the commentary runs on. It’s a conundrum!

            1. Which explains why you’re trolling here.

    3. Hey! Hey! Go find yourself a free country if you want freedom of speech!

      This is America, baby! One frivolous lawsuit can ruin you! It’s the land of opportunity for the easily offended with time on their hands, and I’ll thank you not to crush their dreams!

  25. So… I definitely missed some shit.

  26. So… I definitely missed some shit.

    Nothing we don’t see here on a weekly basis. This time, though, the target decided to act like a thuggish goon, got all puffed up and started issuing threats.

  27. I recall saying something, but I think it was about the legal merits, not the paternity of the guy or whatever. But I don’t see any comments of mine still there.

    I don’t blame them for not making this a fight. Reason isn’t here to carry the tort reform torch. Though I do wonder whether they don’t have adequate protections under Section 230 of the CDA to avoid the litigation (i.e., to get it dismissed). Not my area of specialty, and I can’t imagine even getting that done would be particularly cheap.

  28. While I don’t expect reason to carry flags into battle sometimes you’re stuck with the job.

    If anyone was ever in need of a straight up internet beat down, it is this gentleman. Here’s to hoping /b, reddit, and the rest of the evil intertube dwellers pick this up.

    1. I wonder what phrases can be made using the letters in his name?

  29. I’m a pedophile, but Al Qaeda let me join anyway.

  30. Just discovered this post.

    In the South Park version of this episode, does Nick play Stephen Spielberg, and Matt play George Lucas? Or, is the other way around. I’ll go with my way, I always liked Matt more.

  31. Some also suggest donating to a legal defense fund, though a good idea, and I hate seeing the Good Matt or the Evil Nick (its the punk rock, man) in such bad straights another good idea would be to invest in the services of some private eyes, and rewards for anyone who can be enticed to come forward with actionable or embarrassing truthful information on The Nameless One that he would like not to be public knowledge. Those who are enemies of freedom need to be exposed to the light of day, and if they have anything they would like to keep hidden in their past, to know to the extent that they are willing to fuck over freedom they know longer have the luxury of privacy.

    1. fuck over freedom they know longer have the luxury of privacy.

      If my name be Kirk, homophones be named Khan. Khannnn!!11

  32. Aren’t people like Arthur Wolk the reason why /b/ exists?

    1. Aren’t people like Arthur Wolk the reason why /b/ exists?

      Well, that and kiddie porn.

      1. Dude!?

        Do you have some kind of head trauma?

        You want comments shut down?

        Dude, you gotta smarten up, m-kay?

        1. Uh, WTF are you talking about? You realize that the reference was to /b/? Where Pedo Bear has a permanent home. No one insulted the litigious party in any way in the above two posts.

          Jesus Christ do you hit the deck every time a car backfires? Or are you just incapable of reading and so out of touch with memes today that you didn’t know the reference was to /b/?

          1. “Jesus Christ do you hit the deck every time a car backfires? Or are you just incapable of reading and so out of touch with memes today that you didn’t know the reference was to /b/?”

            So, when Welch and Gillespie ask you to control yourself in response to a litigious libel lawyer who’s suing them for what was written in comments?

            If that doesn’t–at least—mean watching what you say about that very lawyer in the context of kitty pron, then what does that mean?

            So, yeah, in case you can’t figure it out? Stop saying stupid shit in comments about the guy who’s suing Reason…

            …suing Reason because of the stupid shit some bozo said about him in comments–why should that be hard for anyone to understand?

            This Means You.

            1. Read this very slowly. Neither of the posts you are referencing say anything about the lawyer. They reference /b/ and the actions commonly associated with that forum.

              Now read it again.

              Neither of the posts you are referencing say anything about the lawyer. They reference /b/ and the actions commonly associated with that forum.

              One more time.

              Neither of the posts you are referencing say anything about the lawyer. They reference /b/ and the actions commonly associated with that forum.

              Got that? Your nilly knee jerk reaction is worse than calling anyone anything. The staff asked people stop and most did. The above posts reference actions by another forum not the person the staff asked the commentors to stop mentioning.

              Fuck me can you even read?

              This means you.

  33. Should we hold a draw He Who Who Shall Litigate And Possibly Have Carnal Knowledge of Ovis aries?

    Parody is protected speech is it not. Unless someone thinks that the world might mistake him for someone who would have carnal relations with a certain species of domesticated fiber producing animal.

  34. “A number of small commenters – have repeatedly published comments on this site that, even though Reason has absolutely no legal responsibility whatsoever for the content of those comments, have made the situation we face only more difficult”

    I think Episiarch and all his lackeys, sycophants, camp followers and fellow travellers should step up and take responsibility for their vulgar, slanderous, libelous and downright irresponsible postings on this site; they should apologize and promise never to comment here again, for the good of the libertarian collective, Amen.

    1. And how has anyone committed slander, the oral act of defamation, on a website that relies on text for communication?

      1. I think he’s being sarcastic.

        1. LOL, I wish he was being sarcastic. Which is funnier, someone pretending to be retarded or an actual retard?

  35. That question was one that I asked last night on the threadjack thread – “Cold we at least draw AWSNBN” – and was subsequently deleted, and then reinstated later.

    Reason has asked all commenters to stop, and, even though I never started, applaud them for posting the note that they did, and will refrain from this sort of thing out of respect for their wishes.

    There is, however, a similarity between having to defend oneself physically for engaging in satire (draw Muhammed), and having to defend oneself financially from legal threats that will be prohibitively expensive regardless of the merit.

    Messing with the AWSNBN is small time. It is the process that has codified this behavior and defended it which needs examination.

    And only in that examination of the larger picture will you get the individual results that will result in greater freedoms for all of us.

    1. satire (draw Muhammed)

      The “Draw Muhammed” prank was a juvenile and ultimately costly and counterproductive exercise in free-speech overindulgence. Just because we can do it, should we? Too many H&R “libertarians” are like unsupervised teenagers, let loose with a quart of whiskey and the car keys*.

      *Thanks to P.J. O’Rourke for the metaphor.

      1. Too many H&R “libertarians” are like unsupervised teenagers, let loose with a quart of whiskey and the car keys*.

        In that spirit here is a video of a woman getting fucked by a dog.

        http://motherless.com/GB02707B/9F7FCA1

      2. Fuck your mother.

        Like I did.

        Seriously.

        I fucked your mom.

        Hard.

        Even though she’s dead.

  36. You win.

    Dumbest phrase ever.

    free-speech overindulgence

    1. Where the fuck are my car keys?

      1. And the remote?

    2. Dumbest phrase ever.

      I am flattered. But I cannot accept this award. So many more here are so much more deserving of your prize. Think again.

      1. Oh no. The ballots are in. You win.

        1. Really? I have uttered the “dumbest phrase ever” on H&R? Will you stand by that? Think hard. I’ll be holding you to it.

          1. You’re rapidly approaching the prestigious Annoying Fuck of The Day award.

            1. Really? I have uttered the “dumbest phrase ever” on H&R? Will you stand by that? Think hard. I’ll be holding you to it.

          2. I may be your typical commie democrat vote rounder upper but, damn, that puts the lame in the internet with those words Will you stand by that? Think hard. I’ll be holding you to it. Damn, I assume you are new at this given you are naively competent in what you can actually accomplish with a thread post.

            *kidding, you republican&libertarian; types don’t appreciate the social violence prevented by the outlays we support. Last hundred years would have been far worse without us.

            1. you are naively competent in what you can actually accomplish with a thread post.

              Hilarious. What the fuck Yeah!, don’t you mean ‘confident’? What a moron.

              1. Are you arguing with yourself or did someone mix up their fake names?

                1. More like, I was hoping everybody hated Yeah! more than they hated me, so they would go along with the idea that he made the dumbass mistake, but, Noooooo! That’s why we trolls are in charge here because the rest of you can’t get your act together.

                  1. Nice try, Max.

            2. Last hundred years would have been far worse without us.

              Without the Progressive Democrats Jim Crow would have ended 100 years ago.

              Seriously the history you come from is pure evil at its worse.

          3. Yeah!, don’t worry! There are different awards for all the other retards to win, like Longest Rant, Most Incomprehensible, Dumbest Analogy, Worst Spelling, Best DEYTURKERJERBS, Best FORDECHIRREN, and Most Time Spent on H&R Complaining What a Waste of Time it is to Comment on H&R.

            1. Worst spelling and grammar is mine. GTFO.

              And get off my lawn.

            2. Going for a life time achievement award, are you?

              1. At least I’m not arguing with myself.

            3. Everybody saw what Max did to you Labor Day Weekend, Heller. It was brutal. Then again, I have never seen Max actually take any time spanking someone individually so maybe you got to him.

              1. Link plz, you lifeless syphilitic moron?

                1. I just want “hmm” to acknowledge that he has awarded me the prestigious “dumbest phrase ever” award, for the record. It means a lot to my parents. And all the little people too. Come on, “hmm”, do it. For the record.

                  1. We need a Creepy Fucktard award.

                  2. You still here Yeah!? Have you no shame? Even after a fake veteran told you he was pissed at you for besmirching free speech? What kind of monster are you? You probably haunt bus stops for teen age runaways and then bury them in your crawl spaces for fun. Sick fuck!

                2. Heller, you have done a splendid job of repressing those memories, but you can’t possibly forget what you did to set him off. You got caught with the Max’s Mom handle, and then he went after you. It was ugly, like watching a toddler being torn apart by wolves.

                  1. Max, this is rather silly acting like you have a fan out in the real world. No one likes you, no one remembers what you write, and you have never “pwned” anyone on this site. Quit the act.

                    1. I’m not Max, but you have never “pwned” anyone on this site is what makes it such an unique happening because you got pwned by Max.

                    2. Max, could you please link to this?

                      You are such a silly little boy, trying to play make-believe.

                    3. Why are you asking, Max? You want the quotes, ask me.

                    4. Yawn, since Max obviously can’t materialize a quote to his alleged pwning, is there any reason to continue this silly name game? I don’t think so.

              2. Max is that you?

                1. I knew it was Max, there are only a few people in this world who are that stupid. So unique.

                2. Still waiting, hmm.

                  1. You’re going to be waiting a long time for me to confirm something I already confirmed. Creepy fucktard.

                    1. Yeah: “free-speech overindulgence. Just because we can do it, should we?”

                      hmm|9.24.10 @ 9:14PM|#
                      “You win. Dumbest phrase ever.”

                      So you confirm it? Dumbest ever? Just say “yes” and we can all go home. Or do you admit your overuse of hyperbole? Either way is OK with me. Still waiting…

                    1. I hereby accept “hmm’s” award for uttering the “Dumbest Phrase Ever” on H&R, on this, the 24th day of September, 2010. I’d like to thank all the little retards for this award, as well as all the hyperbolists, scum-suckers, ad hominists, list-makers, YouTube-linkers, repeat offenders, trolls, flamers, sycophants, Episiarchians, SugarFreeders, Johns, Warties, Pro Libertardians, and of course my agent, Jim “Baldy” O’Connor. And my partner, Jean, who always believed in me! Thanks everybody. Thank you! You like me! You really like me!

      2. The “Draw Muhammed” prank was a juvenile and ultimately costly and counterproductive exercise in free-speech overindulgence. Just because we can do it, should we? Too many H&R “libertarians” are like unsupervised teenagers, let loose with a quart of whiskey and the car keys*.

        So your the kind of guy whose free speech rights I lost a toe for in the first gulf war? I want my toe back so I can cram it up your mung spewing twat, you shit for brains asshole.

  37. Comments that are “abusive”? (See previous thread.) Isn’t the slogan here “news, views, and abuse”?

    1. OK pal, I think we’ve had enough of your abusive pointing out of humorous contradictions.

      1. Show me on the dolly where the H&R abused you.

    2. I think the “Abuse” part refers to commentors abusing Reason writers.

      At least that is how i have always read it.

  38. I wonder if Krugnuts will be next to litigate? Oh god the huge manatee.

    1. That would undoubtedly be our G?tterd?mmerung with the annihilation of a tan leather jacket for an ending instead of screaming fat lady popping a vocal chord.

  39. Wow, Max. I have never seen anyone fail so hard at internet puppetry. Not only did you mix up your imaginary friends’ names, you made them your little fans! Now we all know the truth, so take my advice and quit the act. Everyone knows what a pathetic fuck you are now, but you can’t really get any lower than what we already thought of you before now, so it’s all OK.

  40. Oh, heller, the desperation in your tone! After I mentioned the Max’s mom matter, you know exactly what I’m talking about don’t you? Admit it!

    1. Obviously you don’t understand what desperation means, Max.

      I still have no idea what you are talking about, and if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would provide a link.

      Poor Max got caught in two embarrassing lies now. I almost feel sorry for him.

  41. It was in this thread by the way

    https://reason.com/blog/2010/09…..g-honor-ra

    fortunately for you, so far it putz off trying to load the nearly thousand entries. I’m going to have to increase the browser memory profile.

    You hold tight, sweety, we’ll get there.

  42. So there is only one troll here, and his name is “Max”? And he posts under 20 different names? That’s dedication!

    1. I don’t think it is Max.

      Pogo writes in complete sentences and his sense of self importance is more nuanced.

      But then again i might be confusing the puppet Max from the real Max.

      Most of the time I just write off half this shit as hmm and Highnumber (aka URKOBOLD) dicking around….that is if hmm and highnumber are in fact different people.

      1. I hardly ever spoof myself and when I do others I start it as hmm as… I assure it is usually I alone in all my glorious stupidity.

        I’m just too weak to resist trolling some people.

      2. joshua corning wins the prize. Not really self importance, so much as a few days ago I came up with a stupid idea, and started using this handle, but nobody has called me on it, yet. I’m sure some people know the scheme by now, but perhaps aren’t saying, but instead are waiting until I lame it up by being too obvious about it which I’m probably doing right now.

    2. Yeah, Max, Maxy Padded, Pogo the Clown, Heller, Reynolds, ret., and Yeah!, we are all one individual.

      Note to editors — this thread was deeply fucked before I ever posted on it.

      1. My name is heller, so yeah nice try.

        1. Somebody might still fall for it. You just never know.

  43. Here’s one:


    Max|9.6.10 @ 11:26AM|#

    Don’t worry yourself Doc, I’m self medicating on the hopes and dreams of libertarians. It may be all placebo, bur it will certainly get you high.
    reply to this
    heller|9.6.10 @ 5:58PM|#

    So THAT’S why you spend so much time jerking off around libertarians. Because of the health benefits. Yeah. I guess it doesn’t hurt that you’re a fat loser recluse who craves attention from people that hate him, and can only get aroused by being intellectually raped.
    reply to this
    Max|9.7.10 @ 2:13AM|#

    Aroused by being intellectually raped? Hey could some other cocksucker post, this guy is making my dick limp.

    And this one is the prize winner, though I have to say El D. did most of the work with Max having to point out your stupidity which wasn’t on purpose and you really didn’t get at the time, unlike the above case where I did so on purpose (hence, the name clown) above which you ripped on because on a fundamental level metaboy, you just don’t get it.

    Max|9.5.10 @ 9:54PM|#

    Haha dumbass Reason thinks it’s the center of the universe?

    Only slack-jawed losers pay attention to Reason and post here everyday.
    reply to this
    Max|9.5.10 @ 9:55PM|#

    Oh wait…

    Can someone at Reason delete this?
    reply to this
    El Duderino|9.6.10 @ 2:45PM|#

    No, they support your right to free speech.
    reply to this
    heller|9.6.10 @ 6:02PM|#

    No, I mean that I want them to delete it because I just called myself a slack-jawed loser.
    reply to this
    El Duderino|9.6.10 @ 7:25PM|#

    Yes, you are free to self deprecate, but if you did it by accident, then maybe you are right about being a slack-jawed loser.
    reply to this
    heller|9.7.10 @ 1:59AM|#

    Wow, dude just stop. You don’t know who Max is, you didn’t get the joke. Just stop beating yourself to death.
    reply to this
    Cartman|9.7.10 @ 2:47AM|#

    If you take the name ‘heller’ and divide it into two parts you can fill it in as, ‘Hellen’ and ‘Keller’. A deaf dumb and blind communist. So we now know the true identity of Max, it is heller. You almost got away with it too, you sneaky butthole.
    reply to this
    El Duderino|9.7.10 @ 5:58PM|#

    You obviously didnt get my joke. And who the fuck are you to tell me who I didnt get the joke.

    I guess I came in a little late to catch the post modern humor train.

    Stop assuming I am a retarded neanderthal, it doesnt really make you look any smarter in front of your “friends”.
    reply to this
    heller|9.7.10 @ 8:06PM|#

    You didn’t get the joke and you couldn’t have, since you aren’t familiar with the Max spoofing game, so your “joke” doesn’t make sense in the first place.

    I haven’t assumed that you are a retarded Neanderthal, all the empirical evidence is in your comments on this thread.
    reply to this
    El Duderino|9.7.10 @ 11:18PM|#

    Oh, no, I couldnt possibly be aware of anything you are aware of. Its a public blog for fuck sakes. Just because i post as El Duderino, doesnt mean I always post under that name.

    and as far as me being a neanderthal. . . oh look a shiny thing. . .
    reply to this
    Max|9.7.10 @ 11:48PM|#

    Cocksucker Comedy Gold!

    Max|9.5.10 @ 9:55PM|#

    Oh wait…

    Can someone at Reason delete this?
    reply to this
    El Duderino|9.6.10 @ 2:45PM|#

    No, they support your right to free speech.
    reply to this
    heller|9.6.10 @ 6:02PM|#

    No, I mean that I want them to delete it because I just called myself a slack-jawed loser.

    Everybody saw it you chunk blowing Paultard choadwhore. Why deny the obvious, Heller? You fucked up your little spoofing game. Ha ha ha ha. Geniuses!

    1. No, see your name is Max and my name is heller. So when heller pwns Max, that doesn’t mean you (Max) pwned me (heller).

      Here let me explain:

      Max|9.6.10 @ 11:26AM|#

      Don’t worry yourself Doc, I’m self medicating on the hopes and dreams of libertarians. It may be all placebo, bur it will certainly get you high.
      reply to this
      heller|9.6.10 @ 5:58PM|#

      So THAT’S why you spend so much time jerking off around libertarians. Because of the health benefits. Yeah. I guess it doesn’t hurt that you’re a fat loser recluse who craves attention from people that hate him, and can only get aroused by being intellectually raped.
      reply to this
      Max|9.7.10 @ 2:13AM|#

      Aroused by being intellectually raped? Hey could some other cocksucker post, this guy is making my dick limp.

      That’s me (heller) pwning you (Max). You literally had no comeback. Your comeback was “Can someone else please pwn me.”

      Then I spoofed you (Max), and El Duderino didn’t get it. See his first reply where he thought it was actually you (Max)? Then I tried to explain it to him by showing that I (heller) was spoofing you (Max), and he still didn’t get it. Then you come in and act like you figured out I was spoofing you when I just explained it to El Duderino. Wow you fucking genius, you stated the obvious. Good job!

      Thanks for that Max, it’s always interesting to see the delusions you create around yourself. Now are we done here? I really have spent too much time on you, a pathetic little lifeless troll.

      1. As if I’m going to read this…

        Keep talking my little troll.

        1. Way to C&P buddy. Too bad that which you stole from me doesn’t actually apply in this context, since I’m not a troll.

          Now that I think about it, you do sound more like that guy who was posting under – that day.

        2. After all, Max would never be able to go this long without mentioning Ron Paul’s dick at least ten times.

          So I change my answer to Pogo the Clown being -.

          1. What the fuck are you talking about now?

            1. OK, you’re frog in a pot.

              Come on, these guessing games aren’t very fun.

              1. I thought I was quoting you from another fight you had with Max, but I see that is a different fight altogether. You like to get into a lot of altercations, there are at least three on that thread alone. So, who’s the troll, again?

                1. No, I just happen to be a very generous person. I feed trolls like you, you see. You poor retards would starve without me.

                2. You’re a hungry little troll aren’t you? You just keep coming back for more.

                  1. Gimme! What else you got in that basket?

                    1. Bad troll! You know you have to post incredibly stupid things in order to get fed! That’s how trolling works.

                    2. Alright, I see you’ve run out of troll juice. Maybe we can play later. Hopefully not.

                    3. Nope. I’m quite satisfied with the point I made.

  44. This dude is just plain creepy stalker material.

    1. Dude, sometimes the jungle needs the Agent Orange.

  45. The last half of this thread seems more worth deleting than a few posts where I spew vile untruths about some fucking lawyer. Christ.

    1. I agree. Maybe someone should sue. =0

    2. You still feeling guilty about that? If Reason didn’t want to confront the guy, given his litigious history, they should have never posted about him. Let it go, it is not your fault. Kind of why I’m being dickish tonight is because they are letting it fall into your lap.

      1. Oh, and that ‘small commentators’ remark. I can be absolutely minuscule when I want to be.

        1. It’s called shrinkage. Happens in cold water.

          1. No. You’re being too kind. I just have a really small dick.

      2. No, you’re being dickish tonight because you’re a passive-aggressive nothing. Jesus, you suck at trolling, and you even suck at being an asshole.

        1. How can I suck at being a dick and an asshole? Those are two different non correlative (is that the right term?) things?

          You sound pissed.

        2. Come on, warty, out with it. Is it because I bought in to the ‘guilt’ notion when we both know that is bullshit and your angry you seem to be able to sway people to believe it when it shouldn’t be so damn easy? Believe me, I’m perfectly willing to let you take the credit for the defamation of a lawyer, it certainly would not be the first time.

            1. ?

              Yeah, I can say the same thing. Your anger was weird to say the least.

            2. Oh, not coming back is it? You need a link like Heller did. Sigh. Check the red, thief.

              1. I’m even more confused now. Do you have a point?

                1. Confused are you still? It hasn’t sunk in yet. Well, I’ll help you.

                  Sugarfree invents the Yeti narrative, you jump to take the credit. He lets you given it involved the defamation of a lawyer.

                  I invent the rape narrative, which you also jump at the chance to take the credit. I was happy to let you do so. Matt and Steve are neighbors, neighbors almost inevitably wind up at each others throats. Happy to let you have that one.
                  Up this thread a ways, JohnL lets you have credit for defaming the litihater. I’m sure he is happy to do so as well.

                  You know what that makes you? Hit it Fred!

                  A CHUMP! A CHUMP! A CHUMP!

                  1. Wow, someone is a little obsessive over meaningless memes that no one cares about.

  46. Does anyone have a bottle of Troll-B-Gone?

  47. They’re defending the cartoonists… yet then quote the Koran verse about “turning away from those who mock Islam”.

    What?

  48. A small number of commenters – or more accurately, a number of small commenters – have repeatedly published comments on this site that, even though Reason has absolutely no legal responsibility whatsoever for the content of those comments, have made the situation we face only more difficult, more expensive, and more time-consuming.

    What the fuck??

    I don’t know what if anything I posted on those links but how the fuck are we, the “small commenters”, supposed to know this would hurt you guys?

    Most if not all of us love you guys and love what reason does. We would not intentionally hurt Reason, and the fact that you guys kept the comments open for so long implied that you did not know it either.

    It sucks what this lawyer is doing and it sucks what he is doing is distracting from what reason does best, but please do not take out your frustration out on us.

    1. I for one am proud of my smallness.

    2. I’d be more likely to agree with you if the post hadn’t been about a litigious libel attorney.

      If it’d been something else, maybe. But slandering a litigious libel attorney under an anonymous name, and leaving Reason to clean up your mess?

      I can’t get behind that.

  49. Warty is right. This thread is deteriorating with time. By Monday it should be a festering pile of maggots.

    1. Warty is a fuckup who doesn’t know which end his ass is buttered. This thread was doomed the moment you guys decided to make it a proxy.

      1. I’ve always had an affinity for fuck-ups. We can smell our own.

      2. Belicose is having a temper tantrum because Warty stole his meme.

    2. Though I don’t disagree with some things that have been said, like JC a few post above and my own f Reason didn’t want to confront the guy, given his litigious history, they should have never posted about him.

    3. Well, I learned that I have an enemy that I didn’t know existed. That makes it worth something, right? Jesus, I’m confused.

      1. Sorry Warty. For the trolls, it’s not about you, it’s about the attention.

      2. 1) could care less about the meme. If I did care I would have brought it up along time ago.
        2) Have always noticed you to be a chump, but kept it to myself.
        3) was not your enemy until you did something stupid, that is you crossed me.

        Are you less confused now, boy, or do you have problems understanding continuity and causation?

        1. No, I’m more confused than ever, especially about how I crossed you. But feel free to continue keeping it to yourself.

          It’s good to know that you don’t like me, though, champ. Could you just try to be less tiresome about it?

          1. What did you do to his sheep?

            1. You don’t want to know.

          2. It’s good to know that you don’t like me, though, champ. Could you just try to be less tiresome about it?

            I like you just fine. Arching on you has nothing to do with whether I like you are not.

            Could you just try to be less tiresome about it?

            Tiresome? You want to see tiresome? Episiarch, tell Warty the catch phrase of the week so we can all set back and painfully watch Emu the Dolphin flipping for his sardines.

  50. Wikipedia Entry 2020: Hit’n’Run, a failed Turing Test where the bots were left wondering if the human responses were sentient.

  51. I’ll show them. I’ll hit the refresh button until Reason’s buffers overload! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

  52. Do not be so harsh on those, that acted so childish in their posts. Their idealism and vitriol blinds them to real world conditions. George Orwell showed us that noble ideas can and will lead us to totalitarian world

    1. Can’t idealism also be about how one wants to make the world, not how the world actually is? Are idealism and realism really contradictory.

  53. religious scumbags

    fuck em

    Like I need your approval for free speech?

    fuck off you fucking monkeys
    and fuck your pedo profit

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.