pageok
pageok
pageok
The Many Voices of Islam:

The Interfaith Association of Central Ohio "will host an educational forum in the atrium of the [Ohio] Statehouse [this coming Sunday] about "The Many Voices of Islam."

And it turns out that the panel will indeed represent some Islamic voices that some such panels try to downplay: One of the voices on the panel is that of Anisa Abd el Fattah, who has in the past year

  1. formally asked the Justice Department to "take the steps necessary to end" "hate speech" and "misleading and highly politicized information" from "Jewish organizations and activists" and "the 'Jewish lobby'" (steps that would, I take it, somehow use the Department's law enforcement authority);

  2. complained about "Jewish people rais[ing] a fuss" when others "say that Israel should be wiped off the map" (and about "Jewish people['s]" labeling those who make such arguments "anti-Semite[s]");

  3. defended "White nationalist" claims that they are "misrepresented by the media and made to appear as enemies of blacks and Jews, and others, when they simply want to preserve the white race, and its majority status"; and

  4. seemingly expressed support for White nationalists' "feel[ing] that Jewish supremacism threatens their existence."

I'm sure Abd el Fattah's voice doesn't speak for all Muslims, and I hope it doesn't even speak for a majority. Still, whether deliberately or not, the Interfaith Council does seem to be acknowledging that the many voices of Islam include those like Abd el Fattah's. I'd like to see from press coverage the extent to which the Council's platform ends up endorsing Abd el Fattah's perspective, rather than just making clear that it's out there.

JB:
It's an incredible example of short-sightedness for Muslims to support White Supremacists. Who do they think will be next on the chopping block after the Jews? For that matter, since many Jews look and act exactly like every other white American, who do they think will be the easier target at the outset?

The enemy of my enemy is...my enemy because he's lunatically racist against me too.
10.25.2007 4:02pm
John (mail):
Does anyone know who the other "voices" will be at this gathering, or whether their views are as subtle and nuanced as those of Anisa Abd el Fattah?
10.25.2007 4:06pm
ejo:
some of them will use the word "zionist" in place of the word "jew". you will likely hear the full spectrum from hatred of the former to hatred of the latter.
10.25.2007 4:10pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Interfaith anythings rarely are interested in what the rest of us would consider normal or moderate.
This guy will be said to be speaking truth to power.
Seems there's going to be an event in Boston, in a church, where Jews are ChristkillersarePalikillers.
Probably interfaith, as well.
10.25.2007 4:18pm
NickM (mail) (www):
I think most of us hope Abd el Fattah doesn't speak for anything more than a statistically insignificant fringe, let alone a majority.

Nick
10.25.2007 6:01pm
ejo:
if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets-unfortunately, it seems consistent with the public dialogue in the entire Middle East and most of the major islamic groups cited regularly in the press. I think, unfortunately, its the other way around.
10.25.2007 6:10pm
Specast:
I think Eugene's characterization of AAF's views is more than a little unfair, for the reasons stated in this link (http://volokh.com/posts/1169581933.shtml#180689) and in earlier posts. As Eugene almost acknowledged, her point was not that she agrees with those white nationalist views, but that her free speech principles are neutral and should apply to views that she finds odious. She's not "defending" those views.

Note also that, in the original piece, Eugene says only that the alleged hate speech is "presumably" the practice that AAF wants the Justice Department to "take the steps necessary to end." Of course, her letter does not say that (in context, she appears to seek review of "possibly illegal activities" and action only "if [her] allegations are found to have any merit"), and given her stated free speech principles we can be sure that she does not advocate a government crack-down on speech. Why, then, does the current post flatly state that she sought exactly that?

I point this out not because I share her views (I certainly do not) or because I want to flame Eugene. I point it out to, hopefully, show that such unfair characterizations are doubly harmful. On the one hand, you lose credibility with fence-sitters or with anyone who bothers to investigate the issues. But you also mislead those VC visitors who don't investigate. Those folks are left with the impression that AAF is a free speech-trouncing radical muslim seeking solidarity with white nationalists.
10.25.2007 6:13pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
'we can be sure that she does not advocate a government crack-down on speech'

Oh sure, free speech and Muslims are like this (holds two fingers together).

Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Move along.
10.25.2007 6:36pm
Elliot123 (mail):
Millions of Arab Muslims agree with her points 1 and 2. It's a very common attitude. I also hope she represents only a small fringe in the American Muslim community, but she sure doesn't represent a fringe in Arab coutries.
10.25.2007 7:00pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Hmm; here's here letter, to the Justice Department -- a Department that's known for exercising coercive power. An excerpt (emphasis added):
This letter and its supporting documentation is a complaint to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Criminal Division, and also the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. This complaint alleges that various organizations and individuals have provided misleading and highly politicized information, and testimonies to US law enforcement agencies, and also the US Congress that was, and is aimed at creating a political, legal, social, and financial environment that is hostile to Muslims and Arab Americans, and that causes Muslim and Arab-Americans to suffer discrimination, persecution, and the deprivation and denial of Constitutional rights, and equal protection under the law. Among these organizations and individuals are the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), better known as the "Jewish lobby", American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress B'Nai B'rith, and also the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, along with such individuals as Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Rita Katz, Steven Schwartz, Evan Kohlman, and others who have made public statements that have contributed to the creation of an environment in the United States that is hostile to Arab Americans and Muslims, leading to numerous acts of deprivation and violation of civil liberties and also civil rights.

This complaint is based upon statements made that may reach the level of hate speech in some instances, and in other instances, such statements may reach the level of perjury, carried out to mislead the US Congress and US law enforcement into carrying out overly aggressive legislative and law enforcement campaigns that result in legislation, raids and arrests that deprive Muslims and Arab Americans of equal protection under the law, and deprivation and denial of civil liberties and rights guaranteed to all American equally in the US Constitution, among these being the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This complaint especially alleges the following:

1. Jewish organizations and activists have created an "enemies" list that includes Muslims, Arabs and white nationalists' organizations here in the US. This list is compromised of individuals and groups that are deemed threats or enemies of the State of Israel.

2. These organizations have used their financial resources and also their formidable political influence to purposefully poison public opinion against Muslims, Arabs, and Islam in an attempt to demonize and vilify the same for political purposes, and to create an environment conducive to the deprivation of and denial of Muslim and Arab constitutional rights and repression of religious freedoms in respect to Islam.

Whereas this activity has occurred over more than a decade here in the US, culminating in what we believe is a current atmosphere of extreme suspicion, hatred and persecution of Muslims and Arabs in the US, this complaint is compelled mostly by an article written recently by Daniel Pipes, a former Board member at the USIP, United States Institute for Peace, and published in the New York Post. The article is entitled, "After defeating fascists and communists, can the West now defeat the Islamists?" published December 26, 2006....

The pattern of defamation against US Muslims and Arabs by Jewish organizations and activists and incitement against Muslims and Arabs is clear and consistent in our view. This complaint is an attempt to alert our government to this pattern of possibly illegal behavior. We are requesting a thorough Department of Justice investigation of the actions and statements documented herein. If our allegations are found to have any merit, we are requesting that the Department of Justice take the steps necessary to end these practices, and to help the Muslim and Arab community, and our society generally, to overcome the hate, fear and suspicion that has been caused and created by these activities, and to heal.
Seems to me that this is pretty clearly calling for governmental punishment for a wide range of public statements (and not just prosecutions for perjury based on knowingly false testimony), which is to say speech suppression.
10.25.2007 7:24pm
Brian K (mail):
EV,

it seems to me that specast has it right. she is calling for an investigation. punishment of these groups for breaking the law is only one possible results...others being a finding that no law was broken, or simply doing nothing.

pertinent quotes:

This complaint is an attempt to alert our government to this pattern of possibly illegal behavior. We are requesting a thorough Department of Justice investigation of the actions and statements documented herein. If our allegations are found to have any merit, we are requesting that the Department of Justice take the steps necessary to end these practices


may reach the level of hate speech in some instances, and in other instances, such statements may reach the level of perjury


I don't like the fact that she is specifically targeting jewish groups as I believe many other right leaning non-jewish groups and, to a lesser extent, left leaning groups have also engaged in the same or similar behavior. [To head off the eventual flaming of my post, I am NOT making an argument regarding the merits of her claims wrt to the groups involved.]

This is no different than calling for investigations into CAIR or other muslim organizations for their speech and far less severe than attempts to punish columbia by elected officials. Or the actual condemnation of moveOn.org...which did far more to suppress political speech than this letter does.
10.25.2007 7:49pm
wfjag:
Noted that in the Ohio newspaper article linked to, one of the persons quoted was the "president of the Ohio Council on American-Islamic Relations." CAIR only has about 1600 members nationwide, down from 25,000+ a few years ago. But, mention "Muslim" and the reporters will immediately get a statement from a CAIR representative.

There are millions of Muslims in the US. You'd think that eventually some reporter, somewhere, could interview someone who isn't one of the same old cast of characters.
10.25.2007 8:31pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
it seems to me that specast has it right. she is calling for an investigation.
It seems to me that both of you are being disingenuous. The only purpose of an "investigation" by a law enforcement agency is to find something to punish.

And if there were any doubt about that obvious truism, she explicitly describes core free speech as "possibly illegal" and asks the DoJ to "take the steps necessary to end" the speech.

If David Duke said that the Department of Justice should "investigate" whether black people are unqualified for their jobs and should "take steps" to remove them from their jobs if they are found to be unqualified, nobody would argue that he wasn't being racist because he is only calling for an "investigation" and is only saying that they should be fired "if" they're found to be unqualified.
10.25.2007 9:32pm
New Pseudonym (mail):
Just what is this interfaith group in central Ohio?

One that says Christianity "is based on God's reconciling work in Jesus of Nazareth."

Judaism "established a covenant which promised Abraham that his descendants would become a great people."

On the other hand, Islam "is a divinely revealed way of life (din) that was perfected and completed during the life of the Prophet Mohammed"

http://www.iaco.org/

Sounds pretty neutral to me. [insert irony symbol here]
10.25.2007 10:44pm
Brooks Lyman (mail):
If those views are "subtle and nuanced," I cringe to think of what blunt and straightforward views might be.
10.25.2007 11:13pm
Brian K (mail):
It seems to me that both of you are being disingenuous.
Not really. you're just glossing over some important distinctions. You may not agree with the distinctions, but that doesn't make me disingenuous.

The only purpose of an "investigation" by a law enforcement agency is to find something to punish.
To begin with, i think your definition of an investigation is not correct (maybe even disingenuous...haha) the purpose of an investigation is find out what really happened or the "truth" or facts and evidence to use. to use princeton's definition: an investigation is "the work of inquiring into something thoroughly and systematically" The goal of this investigation would be to determine if something is punishable not to find something to punish. (the latter presumes the results of the investigation)

She has believes that these groups are using hate speech and/or committing perjury (obviously because she wrote the letter). But she is not in a position to directly administer punishment...she is merely exercising her free speech rights to lobby the government. Her letter by itself in no way restricts someone else's free speech rights. that's why in my previous post i said the house's actions wrt moveon and some elected officials reactions wrt to columbia are a much more serious offenses...these people have the power to directly effect free speech rights.

There is a difference between demanding a punishment and requesting an investigation. as i said before, the DOJ is free to ignore it...or they can investigate and reach whatever conclusion that believe is supported by the facts. that means they can even explicitly state that she is wrong.

And if there were any doubt about that obvious truism, she explicitly describes core free speech as "possibly illegal" and asks the DoJ to "take the steps necessary to end" the speech.
Now you are being disingenuous. you are assuming what the investigation is meant to show. if she is right in her characterization that the speech truly is "hate speech" then it may not have the same legal protections as other kinds of speech. and perjury is obviously illegal.

If David Duke said that the Department of Justice should "investigate" whether black people are unqualified for their jobs and should "take steps" to remove them from their jobs if they are found to be unqualified, nobody would argue that he wasn't being racist because he is only calling for an "investigation" and is only saying that they should be fired "if" they're found to be unqualified.
this doesn't make any sense at all. what law would the employers have broken? it is not illegal to not hire a candidate even though they are the most qualified. This is a pretty sad attempt to conflate potential hate speech/perjury with overt racism. (and for the record, david duke is free to say whatever he wants and call for any investigations he wants. just as the DOJ is free to not investigate a obviously meritless request.)
10.26.2007 3:06am
Brian K (mail):
To clarify the distinction, here we have a private citizen using her free speech rights to call for an investigation. She is not in a position to influence the investigation or to order the investigation carried out or to carry out or rule on any potential punishment. This is essentially no different from her saying "these groups are hatemongers. we should boycott them" except by wording it the way she did she stirs up a bigger controversy and gets more publicity of her views. This in no way interferes with the ability of the jewish groups to speak.

The situation would be completely different if we had a elected official in a position of some power saying the same thing. in that case they do have direct or indirect power to start or influence the investigation. This clearly interferes with the ability of groups to speak freely.
10.26.2007 3:37am
anon32434 (mail):
God bless this fine woman. God speed to her and I wish her the best of luck in fighting the brutal Zionist regime.
10.26.2007 4:59am
Smiley (mail):

I hope it doesn't even speak for a majority.


Statistically, you can be sure that if the media plays up a "Muslim" spokesperson, they arent anywhere close to the mainstream. Doesnt fit the narrative. For instance, I've never seen the current president of ISNA, a female Caucasian American with an impressive academic pedigree, on TV.

On the other hand, a drooling, hirsute lunatic raving about violence can be guaranteed a platform - and apparently a mention on VC. Also applicable to a lesbian Canadian activist (who Glenn Beck will invite to a make out session) or former Syrian psychiatrists who loathe everything about Islam.

It would be analogous to limiting "Jewish" spokespersons to folks like the late Meir Kahane, or Baruch Goldstein, or "American" spokesfolkpersons to the author of "The Turner Diaries."


It's an incredible example of short-sightedness for Muslims to support White Supremacists. Who do they think will be next on the chopping block after the Jews?


I agree entirely. But the same thing could be said for the ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center et al, who've jumped into bed with the Rapture-enthusiasts. A reading of "Left Behind" indicates that the world vision of these folks does not exactly end with Judeo-Christian harmony holding hands and singing "Kumbaya."
10.26.2007 10:47am
whit:
Now you are being disingenuous. you are assuming what the investigation is meant to show. if she is right in her characterization that the speech truly is "hate speech" then it may not have the same legal protections as other kinds of speech"

really?

what legal protections do hate speech not enjoy, that "other kinds of speech" do?

recall that hate speech (realizing the incredible subjectiveness of that term) is not illegal in this country (unlike most of europe, canada, etc.) and as an expression of ideas, enjoys (at least in theory) just as much legal protection as any other kind of "non-hateful" speech.
10.26.2007 12:00pm
Brian K (mail):
whit,

hence the word "may"...you should look it up sometime. i am not, nor have i ever claimed to be, a lawyer. But i do know that there are exceptions in the free speech doctrine (e.g. fighting words, yelling "fire" when there is none, etc.) it wouldn't surprise me if some forms of hate speech fall afoul of some anti-harrasment laws.

I thank you though for providing further proof of my argument that "by wording it the way she did she stirs up a bigger controversy and gets more publicity of her views". if hate speech is not a crime, then calling for an investigation of something that is clearly not a crime can't possibly suppress speech because there is no reason to launch an investigation. it would be akin to nieporent's david duke example. or someone going out to the street corner and calling for an investigation into candy makers because there candy is not sweet enough.
10.26.2007 1:40pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Now you are being disingenuous. you are assuming what the investigation is meant to show. if she is right in her characterization that the speech truly is "hate speech" then it may not have the same legal protections as other kinds of speech. and perjury is obviously illegal.
You're confused. Hate speech is protected free speech.
10.26.2007 2:13pm
whit:
"if hate speech is not a crime"

*if*?

i don't care if you are or aren't a lawyer. i'm not fwiw. but that you can actually say IF hate speech is not a crime suggests to me that you are opining in an area where you have no idea what you are talking about.

hate speech is not a crime. period. in the US (which is what we are referring to).

cops don't (i certainly don't) investigate because somebody said something that made somebody feel badly.

we have a 1st amendment. it protects 'hate speech'.

back to the original statement you made that i responded to. hate speech DOES enjoy legal protection.

the same legal protection as non-"hateful" speech.

it is not an exception to the first amendment.


david stated it more succinctly than i , but this is an extremely important issue.

the 1st amendment means something. we, unlike (as i mentioned) most of europe, etc. recognize "hate speech" as a constitutionally protected right.
10.26.2007 2:50pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
'I've never seen the current president of ISNA, a female Caucasian American with an impressive academic pedigree, on TV.'

You need to stay in more, Smiley. Even I've seen her on TV, and I watch maybe 15 minutes a week.
10.26.2007 3:44pm
Brian K (mail):
i don't care if you are or aren't a lawyer. i'm not fwiw. but that you can actually say IF hate speech is not a crime suggests to me that you are opining in an area where you have no idea what you are talking about.
I took the claim directly from FIRE's website and www.firstamendmentcenter.org that some people have used anti-harassment laws to punish hate speech. if you have a problem with it...then take it up with them. and don't bash me because you're too lazy to do proper research.


cops don't (i certainly don't) investigate because somebody said something that made somebody feel badly.
exactly. but that is not the situation we have here. here someone is asking the DOJ to investigate. as i've said twice now, they are absolutely free to refuse. as a cop, what do you do when someone comes to you and asks you to investigate something that is not illegal? do you arrest them? ban them from bringing any more complaints to the police? i certainly hope not.

and nice job ignoring the well accepted exceptions to free speech rights that i mentioned.
10.26.2007 5:23pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

To clarify the distinction, here we have a private citizen using her free speech rights to call for an investigation. She is not in a position to influence the investigation or to order the investigation carried out or to carry out or rule on any potential punishment. This is essentially no different from her saying "these groups are hatemongers. we should boycott them" except by wording it the way she did she stirs up a bigger controversy and gets more publicity of her views. This in no way interferes with the ability of the jewish groups to speak.
And fortunately, there's no history of the U.S. federal government using investigations to harass minority political groups, and certainly, any Jew who sees efforts to get such an investigation going is paranoid. After all, Jews have never had a problem with governments going after them.

Count on Brian K to find ways to make excuses for anti-Semitic totalitarian thuggishness.
10.26.2007 7:54pm
Brian K (mail):
as using clayton, you completely ignore facts to make your usual hackish point. where is the investigation here? no one has even shown that the DOJ is considering an investigation. but leave it to clayton to try find ways to suppress speech he doesn't like.

I also find it odd* that your strangely silent when you have the opportunity to defend the rights of left leaning groups. where was your denunciation of congress's actions wrt to moveone.org? why didn't you stand up for the right of ahmedinijad to speak at columbia? you had no problem suppressing that minority viewpoint.

*this of course is a lie. i don't find it odd at all. you are first and foremost a political hack.
10.26.2007 8:42pm
Brian K (mail):
oh, if you had even bothered to read my earlier posts you would see that explicitly disagree with the anti-jewish slant of the letter. you would also see that i never said the jewish groups didn't have a right to say what they said.
10.26.2007 8:44pm
Elliot123 (mail):
Brian,

How about this? Is it hate speech? Is it illegal?

"All Christians are vile child molesters."

If it isn't, can you give us an example of what is?
10.26.2007 8:54pm
Brian K (mail):
Elliot,

apparently you missed the part above where i said i wasn't going to argue the merits of her argument. i was only disagreeing the eugene's interpretation of the letter.

As to the christian example, I'd certainly call it bigoted speech...just like i'd call the far more often made statement "all/most gays are child molesters" an example of bigoted speech. But according to wikipedia's definition of hate speech, whether or not it is hate speech depends on context. Even then, I think it would fall short of hate speech regardless of the context.
10.26.2007 11:47pm
Brian K (mail):
i was only disagreeing the with eugene's interpretation of the letter.
10.26.2007 11:48pm
Brian K (mail):
as to what i would consider hate speech: cross burning.

For the benefit of nieporent and whit i'll point out this sentence:
In Virginia v. Black (2003), the United States Supreme Court ruled that burning a cross at a Klan rally is protected by the First Amendment, but also held that a statute could constitutionally proscribe cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate the target of the speech. (emphasis mine)

proscribe: prohibit or condemn

further info

hmm...so it seems can you can indeed outlaw and punish "hate speech". score one for me.
10.26.2007 11:56pm
neurodoc:
David M. Nieporent, whit, Clayton Cramer, and others, don't you realize what a waste of time it is to respond to Brian K?

First, look back and see how Brian K joined this "conversation" with a seconding of Specast's objection to EV's characterization of what Anisa Abd el Fattah (AAF) has had to say. (see also the previous thread in which Specast argued that AAF was misunderstood by EV and most other VC commenters: http://volokh.com/posts/1169581933.shtml#180689
Surely you don't think that Brian K or Specast have come anywhere close to shifting the burden of persuasion back to those who agree with EV's "interpretation" of AAF's remarks, do you? (I put "interpretation" in scare quotes because I think no real "interpretation" or "translation" is required, since her words speak clearly enough for themselves.)

[BTW, why should anyone be in the least concerned about what DOJ will do with AAF's letter? There is a non-negligible chance that an investigation of any person(s) or organization(s) will be undertaken as a result of her letter? I don't suppose anyone wants to be that it will lead to any investigation, do they? The letter is significant for what it says about this individual's thinking and her lack of understanding about our legal system, also what it says enterprises like the Interfaith Council of Central Ohio that amplify voices of "moderate" Muslims like AAF's in an effort to promote interfaith comity.]

And look who you are engaging with. Brian K is a second-year medical student with an exaggerated sense of himself who comes here to display what he imagines to be a coruscating intellect. Have you ever seen a post of his that something insightful, informative, or otherwise useful? If you have, please call it to my attention. Do you think any of his posts in the course of this thread have been, or do you think many others are likely to think them unless they are reduced to rubble with what counterpoints or counterarguments you would bring forward by way of rebuttal? (Mind you, I do appreciate your remarks and am not suggesting they are other than of high quality. I am just asking whether you want to spend much time with what cannot be very rewarding or satisfying, especially since you can count on him to bounce back up like one of those weighted clown figures every time you knock down what he has just said.)

Brian K, has told you that he has no training in the law, though what he offered "for the benefit of nieporent and whit" might have told you that even if he hadn't said so. (Did you find the link to Wikepedia on cross-burning and Virginia v Black helpful? Did you understand the word "proscribe" before he supplied a dictionary definition for it? How about the CNN link, did that set you straight what can and cannot be proscribed according to the Supremes?) Going around with Brian K is like going around with a pro se litigant who will never accept that he doesn't understand the relevant law and has less than a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing. (To be sure, not all pro se litigants are certifiable and/or unable to express themselves coherently, even if a great many of them are.) If Brian K was a Con Law I student and answered a question about Virginia v Black based on the understanding he has of that case as reflected in his posts above, the professor could, and I expect would, give him a failing grade, and that might impress upon him. But are you going to explain to him why it is so stupid to write, "hmm...so it seems can (sic) you can indeed outlaw and punish 'hate speech.' score one for me"?

And be aware of the fact that Brian K is one and the same as burrnini (click on his email address: burrnini@hotmail.com), though he maintains he is a different burrnini from the burrnini@yahoo.com one who has posted to VC in favor of preventing scholars from lecturing on the subject of antisemitism in the Muslim world. (I have asked him to join me in asking EV to check the IP address(es) from which he Brian K, that is burrnini@hotmail, has posted to see whether or not it is the same one as burrnini@yahoo.com posted back on 3/15/07, but he won't.) If you like talking to sock puppets, you may have found one.

Finally, you ought not be encouraging Brian K to neglect his medical studies. Right now he is supposed to be learning things that are foundational to what a clinician must know and understand in order to care for patients competently.
10.27.2007 3:36am
neurodoc:
Oops, I failed (forgot) to say that Brian K has professed amnesia when asked to explain how he happen to chose the burrnini email address (burrnini@hotmail.com) so much like the email address (burrnini@yahoo.com) of the burrnini who posted on 3/15/07 in a David Bernstein thread. He surmises that he must have been looking for an address that would defeat spam. (Damn if I understand that one, but that's what he says.)
10.27.2007 3:41am
whit:
"I took the claim directly from FIRE's website and www.firstamendmentcenter.org that some people have used anti-harassment laws to punish hate speech. if you have a problem with it...then take it up with them. and don't bash me because you're too lazy to do proper research"

of course they have. and i've kept up to date with FIRE for years. that's not a matter that "hate speech" does not have legal protection. it's that colleges can restrict all sorts of otherwise LEGAL activities (especially private ones).

colleges can punish people for breaking their rules. iow, it's not a matter of legal protection, it's a matter of voluntarily abiding by the rules of a private institution.

grok the difference?

"as a cop, what do you do when someone comes to you and asks you to investigate something that is not illegal? "

i explain to them that the constitution exists, and that offensive behavior aint necessarily illegal.

frankly, this happens all too frequently, often in regards to people not understanding gun laws for instance.

"and nice job ignoring the well accepted exceptions to free speech rights that i mentioned."

i didn't ignore them. i explained to you that "hate speech", contrary to your claims enjoys the same legal protection as NON-hate speech.

if you want to talk smack about global warming, that's not hate speech. and it's legally protected. if you want to talk smack about (insert racial group here) and say they all suck and you hate them... that's hate speech

guess what? they enjoy the SAME LEGAL PROTECTION as CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH

so, your original point is flat out wrong.

and again, i was especially amazed by the statement you made

"if hate speech is not a crime"

there is no IF.

it is not a crime. period.

can college campuses punish it? oftentimes yes (doesn't mean they necessarily should, but they can)

colleges can punish all sorts of LEGAL activity. again, you need to understand the difference
10.27.2007 4:36am
whit:
"hmm...so it seems can you can indeed outlaw and punish "hate speech". score one for me."

no, it doesn't. it says that you can outlaw and punish criminal THREATs whether hateful or not.

let me give you an example. you can say all you want that (insert racial group here) SUCKS and you hate them, and they are the complete scum of the earth, and they are descended from (insert hateful thang here) etc. etc. etc.

that's all protected.

when speech crosses into threats, THEN that speech can be criminalized. the primary thing you are missing is that this is the case WHETHER OR NOT the speech is "hateful" or not. the issue is the threat, not the "hatefulness" or bigoted nature. the fact that a threat ALSO happens to be "hateful" is irrelevant to whether it is a crime

it IS true that GIVEN a crime, if it is done with bias against various groups, then it can have additional penalties (hate crimes), but again...

hate speech is legal (in the US)

it is illegal in most of europe, canada, and other less freedom loving countries.
10.27.2007 4:42am
neurodoc:
whit, that was a very good job of answering Brian K. Directly on point, clearly laid out, succinct, patient, impersonal, etc. Do you think it will register with him, though? I doubt it. This is someone who gives himself pats on the back here; often adds "hahaha" to his posts making himself sound like a braying jackass; relies on Wikipedia for authority as to matters of constitutional law; and in place a "QED," closes with "hmm...so it seems can you can indeed outlaw and punish "hate speech". score one for me." (And then there is the burrnini business.)

Now, let's see whether he doesn't bounce back up just like one of those clown figures with the weighted bottoms, the ones that might have amused you to play with when you were 5 years old, but became to boring to bother with as you became older. If it still amuses you to spend time with someone like one of those clown figures which pops back up every time exactly the same way after taking a punch, then you have it in Brian K.
10.27.2007 12:46pm
Brian K (mail):
what took you so long neurodoc?

i'm surprised you weren't here peddling your lies earlier. just because you were unable to disprove my argument earlier doesn't give you the right to libel me.

in the interest of fairness, you should also point out how you are clearly a bigot against muslims.

i'll just finish this up by calling you an idiot.
10.27.2007 1:17pm
Brian K (mail):
If it still amuses you to spend time with someone like one of those clown figures which pops back up every time exactly the same way after taking a punch,

HAHAHAHA

this is literally a perfect description of yourself. I've proven you a liar on 4 or 5 different boards now and you just move to a new one to continue spreading your lies. the description of a clown suits you too...anyone with more than a few living brain cells can see through your sham of an argument.
10.27.2007 1:22pm
Brian K (mail):
Whit,

This was my original claim:
then it may not have the same legal protections as other kinds of speech.

All I said was that hate speech may not have the same legal protections as other kinds of speech. that is all. i did not pass judgment on whether or not it should be this way. i did not say whether it was right or not. nor did i provide any examples of what hate speech is before you and nieporent pounced on me for being obviously wrong.

i have provided 2 examples where hate speech can be punished (well technically one example and one theory). and you have provided one more (college campuses). I'd say by now my original claim has been proven true. I don't think this is proper. afterall I can say all berries are red if I exclude blackberries...but that doesn't make the statement "all berries are red" true.

It appears then that we are using two different definitions of hate speech though. i consider a threats to be a subset of "speech" (they have to be communicated somehow). whereas you seem to be excluding threats from the realm of "speech". same thing with harassment.

And it has been pointed out many times on this board that colleges (public and private) and private actors can place greater restrictions on speech than the federal government can. This provides even more avenues for the punishment of hate speech. (again i am not passing judgment on whether this is right or wrong)
10.27.2007 1:40pm
Brian K (mail):
whit, that was a very good job of answering Brian K. Directly on point, clearly laid out, succinct, patient, impersonal, etc.

wow neurodoc so not only are you an idiot but your a douche too. the best, most impersonal, etc... response whit could have had would be to point out that we are not using the same criteria for what we consider speech. instead he chose to imply that i'm stupid and don't understand what free speech is.

i guess those many years of medical and legal education you've had didn't account for much.
10.27.2007 1:45pm
whit:
"i have provided 2 examples where hate speech can be punished (well technically one example and one theory). and you have provided one more (college campuses)"

you are still missing the point.

just because something can be PUNISHED (like on a college campus) says NOTHING about its legality or illegality. colleges can punish you for not showing up for class. but you didn't BREAK THE LAW.

again, you are either being purposefully obtuse or you just don't get it.

i'll say it again. hate speech is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT LEGAL in the US.

fwiw, not to rely on bona fides, but i have received tons of training in hate CRIMES investigations. i am actually a trainer (certified by the feds) in training other investigators how to investigate these crimes. it's something i have dealt with many times (hate crimes). i took this training with agents from various jurisdictions (including canada - where hate speech IS illegal) and thus got a pretty good understanding of comparative legal issues and the difference between US and THEM

simply put, hate speech is NOT illegal. get over yourself, and maybe respect (or not) the fact that the US is different and we protect free speech where others won't.
the issue was LEGAL protection. you said it. the issue was also your "if hate speech is not a crime"

i realize this is the internet and you are functionally incapable of just saying "i was wrong" or "i didn't understand"

but i'm done. you seem to want to stick your head in the sand, and that gets old.
10.27.2007 4:29pm
Brian K (mail):
whit,

the issue was also your "if hate speech is not a crime"
this was part of an "if...then..." cluase. quoting me so clearly out of context doesn't get you very far. the "then" part of the clause puts the "if" part in the proper context. The full context: "if hate speech is not a crime, then calling for an investigation of something that is clearly not a crime can't possibly suppress speech because there is no reason to launch an investigation." If your going to grab something out of context, then why not grab the part that is bolded? Oh, that's right...it doesn't subserve your strawman.

just because something can be PUNISHED (like on a college campus) says NOTHING about its legality or illegality.
you are still reading way too much into my original statement and have begun to argue a strawman. my original statement was that hate speech may not have "the same legal protections" as other kinds of speech. i never once said that hate speech is illegal...in fact the only time I used that word not in a quote or in direct response to someone else using it was to say that perjury is illegal. that is the joy of making such a weak statement to begin with.

In order to prove my initial example is true all I need to do is provide an example of where hate speech is not as well protected as other types of speech. you have 2: college campuses and cross burning.

I don't accept your distinction of cross burning as a threat because I never made any distinctions under what reasons hate speech may be punishable. Although I would think my example of hate speech being punished under anti-harassment laws shows that i was using a much broader interpretation of why or how than you are. If you don't accept this thats fine with me.

As for college campuses since my initial claim was that the speech may not have "the same legal protections" whether or not it is also illegal is irrelevant. It only has relevance to your strawman. A patent and a copyright do not enjoy the same legal protections but that doesn't make one illegal. In order the two forms of speech to not enjoy the same protections I need to provide an example where if I gave hate filled speech X I would be punished but if I had "puppies are cute" in the exact same situation I would not be punished. You have done this for me.

i realize this is the internet and you are functionally incapable of just saying "i was wrong" or "i didn't understand"
Right back at you.
10.27.2007 7:02pm
Brian K (mail):
In order to prove my initial example is statement true...
10.27.2007 7:07pm
markm (mail):

it seems to me that specast has it right. she is calling for an investigation. punishment of these groups for breaking the law is only one possible results...others being a finding that no law was broken, or simply doing nothing.

Isn't it a crime to file a false crime report? At a minimum, some cop or government lawyer has to waste their time reading it and determining that there's no crime there.

So maybe her excuse is that she's so ignorant of American ways that she doesn't know that what she's complaining about isn't a crime. In that case, why is this interfaith group inviting an ignorant antisemite to join it?
10.27.2007 7:52pm
neurodoc:
markm, ask the average person the meaning of "perjury" and they will most likely tell you it is "lying;" some will get a little closer to the legal definition by expanding it to "lying under oath." (Webster's Collegiate defines it as "voluntary violation of an oath or vow...by swearing to what is untrue," so presumably one would be committing "perjury" if after promising their girl/boyfriend never to lie to them, they then lied. Indeed by that definition one might be committing perjury without lying, if they swore to something they believed to be true but which was in fact untrue.)

Since AAF did not say in what is quoted above who she thought had perjured themselves, when/where they had done so, and what exactly might be perjurious in any of their sworn statements or testimony under oath. Nor did she otherwise make clear her understanding of "perjury" as a crime. So, we don't know how much or how little of an understanding she has, though "little" seems a good deal closer to it than does "much." And it is doubtful that she has any notion of "materiality," an important element of perjury. (If you testify under oath that you are 39 years of age, when in fact you know full well that you were born more than 45 years ago, you have lied under oath, a no-no. But unless your age is somehow a material fact, and rarely will it be, then you have not committed perjury.)

One can find themselves in serious hot water, even be subject to criminal prosecution, for knowingly giving false statements to the police or other government agents. But calling for investigations of others for what are imagined to be "crimes," as AAF has done, is a very different matter from giving a "false crime report" or attesting to that which one knows to be false. And if causing a cop or government lawyer to waste their time on nonsense, including letters calling for people and organizations to be investigated for possible wrongdoing, were a prosecutable crime, a lot people could be in trouble. (Indeed, not only is there no prosecutable crime in this sort of thing, it may under some circumstances be "privileged," ruling out a civil action for slander/libel.)

In the end, you have it right, though, when you say of AAF that "she's so ignorant of American ways" (even if a native-born American herself) and question "why is this interfaith group inviting an ignorant antisemite to join it."
10.27.2007 11:18pm
neurodoc:
whit, I did tell you, did I not, that like one of those weighted clown figures, no matter what you said to Brian K, aka burrnini, he would almost certainly bounce back up just as self-confidently, even smugly, ignorant as before. To support what he asserts about a constitutional law question, this second-year medical student only a couple of years beyond college goes off to consult Wikipedia and returns here citing a Supreme Court decision (Virginia v Black) for the proposition that hate speech can be punished as a crime. He simply doesn't understand that the court held that hate speech can not be punished, only intimidation can be punished. (And there will often be instances of hate speech without intimidation, and instances of intimidation without hate speech.

"If she is right in her characterization that the speech truly is 'hate speech' then it may not have the same legal protections as other kinds of speech." (italics added) Brian K didn't say 'hate speech,' according to his own Humpty-Dumpty it-means-whatever-meaning-I-chose-to-give-it definition of the term, has the same legal protections as other kinds of speech, nor did he say it does not have the same legal protections as other kinds of speech. He choses not to be categoric. Thus, in effect, Brian K offers up a null set (no there there, as Gertrude Stein might had put it). And as a mathematician or logician will tell you, any statement about the null set is always true. He proudly (Brian K: "that is the joy of making such a weak statement to begin with.") says what amounts to nothing, always allowing himself an open door to escape through if challenged, and that is what you are trying to engage with.

And if Brian K can't get to that open door, then he has that Humpty-Dumpty routine: "It appears then that we are using two different definitions of hate speech..." It matters not how legal scholars use the term, he will assign the term whatever meaning he choses. And be advised that the meaning may change at any time without notice.

"If hate speech is not a crime, then calling for an investigation of something that is clearly not a crime can't possibly suppress speech because there is no reason to launch an investigation." How about that for specious, circular nonsense! First, it was "(hate speech) may not have the same legal protections as other kinds of speech;" then it becomes, "If hate speech is not a crime, then..." That doesn't leave you feeling dizzy? And investigations are never launched by the government without good cause; without any likelihood of a crime, there cannot be good cause for any investigation by the government; "if hate speech is not a crime," then what worry that a John Conyers might wish to "investigate" and subpoena one to appear before a congressional committee and answer nonsense like that put out by the likes of AAF?

"the best, most impersonal, etc... response whit could have had would be to point out that we are not using the same criteria for what we consider speech. instead he chose to imply that i'm stupid and don't understand what free speech is." whit, be careful, you are perilously close to being called "an idiot (and) a douche too," by this braying jackass ("HAHAHAHA") Brian K.

"again i am not passing judgment on whether this is right or wrong)." No, he's not passing judgment on anything, he's here to correct Professor Volokh on his misreading of AAF and give the educable among us lessons on constitutional law. (Those who would tell him he is fundamentally wrong in his understandings of the law, as well as a great deal more, are in his not so humble opinion clearly uneducable, no matter that we have legal and other credentials and he has none beyond a bachelor's degree in engineering and one year of medical school under his belt.)

Well, I have passed judgment on what Brian K/burrnini has had to say in the course of many posts, and he in turn has passed judgment on me ("idiot," "douche," imposter, "liar,"...). Let others decide which of us has made the more convincing case.
10.28.2007 12:04am
Brian K (mail):
It matters not how legal scholars use the term, he will assign the term whatever meaning he choses.
since when do i have to use the exact legal definitions of words? only an idiot would think that I, a med student, would be using this terms in anything other than how it is commonly used on major news sites. in fact, i even provided the definition that i was using in response to elliot's post...but i supposed you were too busy marveling at your own intelligence to actually read my posts.

Brian K didn't say 'hate speech,' according to his own Humpty-Dumpty it-means-whatever-meaning-I-chose-to-give-it definition of the term
so now you're a mind reader? you must be if you know that i really meant something different that what my actual words say.

always allowing himself an open door to escape through if challenged, and that is what you are trying to engage with.
Have you completely given up on trying to be consistent? on one hand i'm smart enough to come up with these elaborates arguments filled with escape clauses just in case someone calls me on something. on the other hand i'm wrong on just about everything and "uneducable". You must think i'm superman or something.

whit, be careful, you are perilously close to being called "an idiot (and) a douche too," by this braying jackass ("HAHAHAHA") Brian K.
why would you think that? has whit called me a braying jackass? has whit followed me from board to board lying about my identity in order to avoid admitting that he is a bigot? only you've done that...and you're the only person i've called a douche. As far as i can tell whit is a fine psychology healthy adult...unlike you. you have a strange, somewhat creepy, obsession with me...i'm just glad you don't know where I live. (I'm also glad you're so easily confused by people. even if you do find me, all i need to do is say "look at that guy, his name is brian too" and you'll go after him instead)

he's here to correct Professor Volokh on his misreading of AAF and give the educable among us lessons on constitutional law
wow...you really are a douche. do you not understand what the comment sections of a blog are for? its for people to comment on what EV wrote. i didn't think you could be so stupid...but you keep surprising me.

no matter that we have legal and other credentials
I'd assume that someone as highly educated and intelligent as you would be too smart to use the fallacy of appealing to authority. oh well...i guess i was proven wrong.

Well, I have passed judgment on what Brian K/burrnini has had to say in the course of many posts, and he in turn has passed judgment on me ("idiot," "douche," imposter, "liar,"...).
Why do you expect me to keep taking you seriously when you bounce from post to post slandering me? Every time I knock down your lies you bounce to a new post and repeat them. How was I suppose to know that this would be your response when I proved that you were a bigot? or that you would be petty enough to stalk me from board to board for damn near two months now. Get a life, seriously. (but don't have kids...i'd hate to see how screwed up they'd turn out.)

You can now add hypocrite to that list. why is it ok for you to repeatedly insult and spread lies about me but somehow not ok for me to insult you?

imposter
and here you go making up more stuff again...this seems to be a recurring thing that you do. When did I ever call you an imposter? I'd like a specific linked quote.

Wow yet more inconsistencies: "No, he's not passing judgment on anything" and "he in turn has passed judgment on me"
If i don't pass judgment an anything how can i be passing judgment on you? Perhaps this explains why you continually confuse me for burrnini. Your just making random stuff. and I know for a fact i'm reading too much into that "anything"...if you can base your entire argument on a lowly "if", the word "anything" must be 3.5 times as important.

I have to say though...it is hilarious watching you twist in the wind to try and insult me. And it gives me a good ego boost to know that the great neurodoc is always thinking of me. Only truly important people have someone devoted to trying to destroy them.
10.28.2007 4:13am
Brian K (mail):
and I know for a fact i'm not reading too much into that "anything"
10.28.2007 4:15am
Brian K (mail):
just to add yet another instance of hypocrisy: it's not okay for me to "correct" EV but it is okay for you to "correct" me? what makes you so special? or are you suffering from delusions of grandeur also?
10.28.2007 4:21am
Brian K (mail):
And investigations are never launched by the government without good cause; without any likelihood of a crime, there cannot be good cause for any investigation by the government; "if hate speech is not a crime," then what worry that a John Conyers might wish to "investigate" and subpoena one to appear before a congressional committee and answer nonsense like that put out by the likes of AAF?

Can i then expect you to go this board and condemn the anonymous terrorist and child molester reporting systems as well as the anonymous school bias reporting system? Or would that be too consistent of a position for you?
10.28.2007 7:58am
Brian K (mail):
I know its way past the time you stop responding to me, move to a new board and repeat the same old crap i just rebutted here so i'm just throwing this stuff out there so i can point back to it in the future.

It matters not how legal scholars use the term, he will assign the term whatever meaning he choses.
If the standard we're holding each other to is that of legal practitioners and scholars, then you have absolutely no claim against me. the "proof" (and i use this word in such a broad sense that it is meaningless) you have against me wouldn't even get you a search warrant let alone a conviction. you'd be laughed right out of the courtroom by my hypothetical defense attorney, assuming of course that the judge doesn't do it first.
10.28.2007 1:49pm
neurodoc:
When evaluating someone with neurologic complaints, the exam findings can be very important, and the best clinicians are usually those who can get the most from a neurologic examination assessing the various neurologic functions (e.g., mental status, cranial nerves, motor, sensory, reflexes, gait and station, etc.). In a teaching hospital, in the course of clinical conferences or rounds, the attending neurologist or one of the residents, will often "demonstrate" a patient so others may see the most important exam findings for themselves and learn something. Sometimes the findings don't need to be elicited by an examiner, the patient in effect "demonstrates" him/herself, allowing those present to observe and interpret those findings for him/herself.

I think I have, with a great deal of help form the subject himself, "demonstrated" Brian K/ burrnini for anyone interested in knowing the person behind the curtain. Those who are interested are free to draw their own conclusions.

(If I can find time later, I may return to go further, but I don't know if I will be able to today, and then I will have limited or no Internet access for a couple of weeks.)
10.28.2007 4:37pm
Brian K (mail):
then I will have limited or no Internet access for a couple of weeks.
YAY! a couple of weeks I don't have to deal with obsession anymore.

"demonstrated"
you mean how you've demonstrated that your irrationally obsessed with me? or that you're a hypocrite? a bigot? a liar? a stalker? petty? someone incapable of at least attempting to appear objective? someone with an overactive imagination? need I go on? Your post is particularly hilarious in light of the fact that you have followed me to several boards over a period of several months to continue to spread lies about me. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with your behavior? Is your moral compass that screwed up?


I particularly like this line since it so elucidative of your modus operandi:
"according to his own Humpty-Dumpty it-means-whatever-meaning-I-chose-to-give-it definition of the term"
keep in mind this was said to a guy who actually provided the definition he was using by a guy who has to provide a single definition of hate speech other than to say mine is wrong. if this isn't the definition of "moronic" i don't know what is.
10.28.2007 4:57pm
Brian K (mail):
(If I can find time later, I may return to go further, but I don't know if I will be able to today, and then I will have limited or no Internet access for a couple of weeks.)
More of your standard operating procedure. you certainly like your "hit and run" tactics, don't you? Why are you such a coward?

I think i've figured out why you hate me so much. I, a lowly medical student, proved you, a well educated physician and a lawyer, wrong. You fragile psyche can't accept the fact that someone like me pulled the curtain back on your facade and showed the world that your an idiot and a bigot. It was just too much for you, wasn't it?
10.28.2007 5:02pm
Brian K (mail):
who has yet to provide a single definition
10.28.2007 5:02pm
Brian K (mail):
oh, and for future reference, as you long as you continue to refer to me as Brian K/burrnini i will refer to you as neurodoc/bigot or neurodoc/idiot (whichever seems more relevant to me at the time).
10.28.2007 5:16pm
neurodoc:
Brian K, imposter
and here you go making up more stuff again...this seems to be a recurring thing that you do. When did I ever call you an imposter? I'd like a specific linked quote.
Who's "making up more stuff again"? You don't recall expressing doubt that I was in fact what I represented myself to be, that is a qualified neurologist? (That's tantamount to calling me an "imposter," isn't it?) Do I really have to go back to find the post, or can I leave that task to you, and rely on your integrity to find and acknowledge it?
10.29.2007 7:39pm
neurodoc:
Brian K/burrnini: since when do i have to use the exact legal definitions of words? only an idiot would think that I, a med student, would be using this terms in anything other than how it is commonly used on major news sites. in fact, i even provided the definition that i was using in response to elliot's post...but i supposed you were too busy marveling at your own intelligence to actually read my posts.
Sure, "only an idiot would think that (you), a (brash, full-of-himself second-year) medical student, would be using this terms (sic) in anything other than how it is commonly used on major news sites." And if that is your notion of what an "idiot" is, then I, neurodoc, proudly own up to "idiot" according to the special meaning Brian K assigns it. (Note: we addressed "imposter" above, and we will address the other epithets at another time.)

Brian K/burrnini, you IDIOT (the commonly understood meaning), you keep trumpeting your defiant know-nothingism (italics in brackets below are mine):

---Brian K: "whit, ...hence the word 'may'...you should look it up sometime. [snot-nosed child demanding attention] i am not, nor have i ever claimed to be, a lawyer. [Gosh, who would have suspected!] I thank you though for providing further proof of my argument..." [boastful fool flaunting his foolishness] [10/26 at 12:40PM]

---Brian K: "hmm...so it seems can (sic) you can indeed outlaw and punish 'hate speech.' score one for me" [Yeah, score them all for the amazing Brian K.] [10/26 at 10:56PM]

---Brian K: "It appears then that we are using two different definitions of hate speech though. i consider a threats to be a subset of 'speech' (they have to be communicated somehow). whereas you seem to be excluding threats from the realm of 'speech'. same thing with harassment." [more Brian K doing his Humpty-Dumpty routine] [10/27 at 12:40PM]

---Brian K: "that is the joy of making such a weak statement to begin with." [Brian K, the artful debater explaining his rhetorical approach][10/27 at 6:02PM]

---Brian K: "I don't accept your distinction of cross burning as a threat because I never made any distinctions under what reasons hate speech may be punishable. [Brian K doesn't accept such distinctions, though the Supreme Court based its decision in Virginia v Black, the case Brian K cites but clearly doesn't understand, on that very distinction?!] Although I would think my example of hate speech being punished under anti-harassment laws shows that i was using a much broader interpretation of why or how than you are. If you don't accept this thats fine with me." [Of course, Brian K needs no affirmation.] [10/27 at 6:02PM]

and on and on and on...and on, the amazing Brian K goes.

Brian K, is it really too much to expect you to read Virginia v Black, the Supreme Court cross-burning case you cited for authority? Or was it the short Wikipedia account that you relied on and expect us to do the same?
10.29.2007 8:37pm
neurodoc:
"a stalker"
Brian K, do you recall who first spoke to whom, and what was said at the time? In one of these threads about what is being heard from the Islamic world about terrorist attacks by their co-religionist on "infidels," I said that too little had been heard from the "moderates," and what had been heard tended to be notably weak. (I might have said something about a "deafening silence.") You immediately jumped up to get in my face, accusing me of repeating an outrageous "canard" (canard: a fabricated report) and asserted that the Islamic world had not said too little, nor been too weak in denouncing terrorism. Since then, we have gone at it a number more times in the course of other threads, many of them started by David Bernstein, about the related topics of Islam, Islamofascists, anti-semitism, and Israel." You fancy that I "stalk" you rather than that I am interested in those same threads and take exception to much of what you say in the course of them.

I do think others should know that when they engage with you, as whit undertook to do above, they are not likely to find it a rewarding experience for a number of reasons. And while I am not convinced to the exceptional standard of "beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt" that you Brian K are the same person who has posted as burrnini (we've, of course, done this elsewhere, so needn't repeat it at this point), I think the evidence more persuasive than just "more likely than not." I would give better than 2 to 1 odds, and have invited you to ask our host, Eugene Volokh to compare the IP address you are currently posting from to the one the other burrnini posted from back on 3/15/07. If the IP addresses are different, it wouldn't be conclusive proof that the "hotmail" burrnini today and the "yahoo" burrnini are not one and the same, but that would effectively put to rest Brian K = the "yahoo" burrnini, both the "hotmail" one and the "yahoo." You decline to ask EV to do that, so I will continue to believe it and call the evidence to the attention of others from time to time.
10.29.2007 10:41pm
neurodoc:
First, Brian K asks:
are you suffering from delusions of grandeur also?
Then, Brian K undertakes to answer his own question:
...it gives me a good ego boost to know that the great neurodoc is always thinking of me. Only truly important people have someone devoted to trying to destroy them.
10.29.2007 10:53pm
neurodoc:
Brian K: "i'm surprised you weren't here peddling your lies earlier. just because you were unable to disprove my argument earlier doesn't give you the right to libel me." (italics added) [10/27 at 12:17AM]
Brian K: "...you bounce from post to post slandering me...Every time I knock down your lies you bounce to a new post and repeat them. (italics added)" [10/28 at 3:13AM]
Clearly, you don't know even the simple distinction between "slander" and "libel," but that is of little consequence for these purposes. More importantly, you don't know the fundamental elements of these torts.

If you believe you have ever been slandered or libeled by me, then for those who might be reading this, you should identify (exact words used, title of thread, and the date and time posted) for whatever you contend constitutes slander or libel of you. That would be posts containing statements about you that are both defamatory and false. Or have you just been harrumphing about "slander" and "libel" when you can identifying nothing that qualifies as such?

Bullets would be helpful here.

Brian K: "I've proven you a liar on 4 or 5 different boards now and you just move to a new one to continue spreading your lies." (italics added) [10/27 at 12:22PM]
Now branding someone a "liar" who "continue(s) to spread...lies" is unequivocally defamatory, so the only question that remains to be answered is whether the accusation is truthful, in which case there has been no slander/libel, or it is false, in which case there has been slander/libel. What can you adduce to show that I am a "liar," someone who tells "lies"? If you have nothing, or what you rely on to support your accusation(s), then it is you who is the slanderer/libeler. So, again for the sake of those who might be reading this, do say what purportedly factual statements about you have been both defamatory and false. (Note, it matters not how greatly offended you may have been by what I have had to say about you in the course of these threads. What matters is that it both defames and is other than the truth. Opinions, e.g., "you are an idiot" or "you are a braying jackass," are not the stuff of slander or libel.")

And bullets would be helpful here too.
10.30.2007 1:57am
Brian K (mail):
neurodoc/idiot/bigot (they both fit in this case)

HAHAHAHAHA....your too funny. I can barely read your posts without cracking up.

proudly own up to "idiot"
its good to know you agree with me.

I said that too little had been heard from the "moderates," and what had been heard tended to be notably weak. (I might have said something about a "deafening silence.")
i see you enjoy holding other people to a higher standard than you hold yourself too. You choose the wrong words and everyone should give you a pass? while I choose the wrong word and its perfectly alright to spend the next couple of days pouncing on me? its a mighty egotistical thing to say...the whole muslim world does not exist to appease you. And I pointed out the reason why you had not "heard" them was because you summarily dismissed all of them (despite only reading a couple of them). this is what led to my calling you a bigot in the first place. It's very easy to hold onto an opinion when you reject all evidence to the contrary.

I further backed up my assertion of your bigotry by pointing out your transparent attempt to "kill the messenger". rather than deal with the fact that you were wrong, you attacked me instead. rather than debate at the actual topic at hand, you to insult me. (perhaps you should have spent more time on your actual argument and less time trying to dig up some dirt on me.) and when I say transparent, I mean crystal clear. anyone can see what you tried to do. for someone who claims to be so busy, you spent an awful lot of time searching the web about me.

Since then, we have gone at it a number more times in the course of other threads
All reinitiated by you when you repeatedly accuse me of being someone i'm not. you seem to be the only one holding a grudge here.

You fancy that I "stalk" you rather than that I am interested in those same threads and take exception to much of what you say in the course of them
Really? then why do you rarely comment on the topic of the thread then? nearly all of your posts are directed at me and the delusion you hold about me. I would expect that someone even remotely interested in the topic of the thread would post the occasional comment about it. just take a look at this thread you have only one relatively small paragraph on the actual topic of this thread buried between insults directed at me. see my description above as to why stalker fits.

I do think others should know that when they engage with you
and you call me egotistical! so now other people are too stupid to form their own opinion? they need you to tell it to them?

You decline to ask EV to do that
I haven't seen you ask him either. why is that? are you afraid that once you find out that i'm not who you think I am that you'll have to admit your bigot?

are you suffering from delusions of grandeur also?

Then, Brian K undertakes to answer his own question:

I take it your not a very good doctor then. a neurodoc (and you say I preen!) such as yourself should know what a delusion of grandeur is.

I will continue to believe it and call the evidence to the attention of others from time to time.
I know...you're petty.

More importantly, you don't know the fundamental elements of these torts.
so why is it important for me to conform to proper legal rules/ethics/arguments/etc but its not important for you to do so? are the concepts of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" or of proper standards for evidence or "innocent until proven guilty" foreign to you? the evidence you hold against me would get you laughed out of court (assuming you got that far). so i'll make you a deal...i'll stop using the word "slander" outside of its proper legal definition if you start abiding by police and prosecutor rules concerning evidence. i'm not going to hold my breath for you accept.

I'll close by calling you a liar and a bigot and an idiot. As you say they are my opinions and your defenses of yourself have been "notably weak".
10.30.2007 3:23am