Beautiful takedown of leftist talking points by Aaron Worthing over at Patterico’s Pontifications. Troll “Kman” gets the full helping of truth:
Kman
> I asked for something SPECIFIC and ILLEGAL, SPQR. Do you know the meaning of those words?
Sadly I don’t believe he did anything illegal. It’s not illegal to say “I know where your wife works. I know the name of your kids.” But when Brett Kimberlin says it, people of common sense recognize there is an implicit threat.
And by the way, the first time you didn’t say you needed proof it was illegal.
> people are doing d*ckish things to him as well, and despite the fact that he set off a bomb 30+ years ago, he still has the right to exercise legal recourse, even if it ultimately fails.
What specifically have I done that is not protected by the first amendment?
I have been petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. I know you are not very big on the text of the first amendment but that particular action is specifically protected. And saying bad things about other people online is protected, too. Given the nasty things you and I have both said about each other over the years, you would think you would recognize that out of pure self-interest there is a right to say bad things about each other online.
Kimberlin was told specifically by the court that he cannot use the harassment statute to suppress speech, and yet here he is doing it again. And here you are defending it.
What he wrote was frivolous and dishonest. And no, we should not encourage that kind of thing. A long time ago you recognized a person shouldn’t sue unless they have a genuine cause of action and it was one of the most decent things you ever did. Try to access that part of you more often.
> I hear it so often it just washes over me.
So you are not paying attention therefore I am wrong? As usual you use laziness as an argument. Why don’t you watch the video, and read what Kimberlin said about it and figure out if it was a little bit perjurous.
> And Aaron DID assault* Kimberli
No I did not. I acted in self defense. But then you have demonstrated that you don’t believe in self-defense when talking about the Zimmerman case.
> Another way is that Aaron went out of his way to aggravate a rabid dog
Abraham Lincoln has an answer to that idiocy when people claimed that the Republicans would cause the union to break up:
>But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”
>To be sure, what the robber demanded of me – my money – was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
Kimberlin has demanded our silence about his criminal conduct. He has put a gun to each of our heads and said “give me your freedom, or I will shoot.” And you are here saying, “if you don’t and he shoots you, then you will have murdered yourself.”
And that woman who was raped was wearing her dress too short.
Seriously, what is wrong with you?
Then again, I suppose you just don’t believe people controlling themselves. I remember years ago you talked about a woman who was given an ATM card by the government to spend on essentials after she was displaced by Katrina. She went and spent the money on silly items that were not by any stretch of the imagination necessities. And you suggested we shouldn’t blame her because she had a disorder that made her a compulsive shopper. You never believe that people should suffer the consequences of our own actions.
Brett Kimberlin has a duty to withstand people talking about his background without committing crimes against others in retaliation. If he can’t live up to that very minimal expectation in our society, than that isn’t an argument to tell the rest of society to handle him with kit gloves. It is an argument that he should be removed from civil society and placed back in prison. But rather than having Brett Kimberlin suffer the consequence of his own inability to conform ourselves to the law, you advocate that we censor ourselves to conform ourselves to the possibility that he might fly off the handle and commit a crime for us.
There is so much wrong with your logic it makes my head hurt. And it makes me wonder if you love anything this country is about.
> . If a person is going to be labeled a “perjurer” for his recent actions, then the materiality of his supposedly false statements comes into play.
Are you under the impression that lying about me beating him up is not material when he is trying to get a peace order against me based on assault? If the severity of the assault, if the exact actions I did or didn’t do to assault him is not material to that, what is?
> But I don’t think they have done anything illegal in these recent skirmishes.
You have eyes but you cannot see. Seriously, would you point out to me in the video the exact second in which I was held back by deputies as I charged at him like a wild bull? Or how about you point at the exact second when the deputies separated us? Or how about you point at the exact second when I “decked” him?
The real problem here is your familiar pattern of laziness. Remember when I denounced the Iowa decision claiming there was a state constitutional right to gay marriage and you thought the case was about the federal constitution. You are lazy, so you make obvious mistakes. So why don’t you go away, read my whole f—ing post, or just the part where I outline what he said about the incident, and then come back to me and tell me whether he lied or perjured himself.
> But doesn’t that logic apply to Kimberlin, who objectively is getting smeared on Twitter and the Internet more than anybody?
So telling the truth about him is smearing? Guess what? You don’t have a right to demand that no one say anything bad about you. And as a public figure, he has less protection from ugly speech than most.
> I mean he is being singled out for attack.
Yeah, much like Al Capone. *rolls eyes*
I suppose next you will say Obama was kind of picking on bin Laden.
> The problem as I see it is that people are trying to use Kimberlin’s tactics
Like trying to frame a person for a crime?
> Kimberlin was (and is) reacting to him being pestered by others.
By abusing the legal system, trying to get people killed and trying to frame me for a crime.
And notice something else. Above you cavalierly dismiss my point that I was defending myself by taking his iPad, and falsely claim I assaulted him. But now you say, hey, Brett is just defending himself.
He is allowed to try to discourage people from talking about his criminal past… in legal ways. My best suggestion is to say, “I did lots of horrible bad things. I am trying to reform. You can hate me for what I did, but I am doing good work now.” No, but instead he files abusive lawsuits, tries to get people killed, tries to extort people into silence and then tries to frame them for a crime, disbar them etc. and you defend this. Amazing.
And you act like as if what we are doing is equivalent.
> Isn’t it possible — just possible — that the guy wants to some good in this world, and wants to move past his crimes of 33 years ago?
I considered that possibility up until he tried to frame me for a crime. Then I realized that he has not reformed at all.
Its sort of like OJ Simpson. About 20 years ago he killed his wife and that tennis player. But he was acquitted of murder (but later found civilly liable, which is why I feel no fear saying he did actually kill them—because collateral estoppel applies). And there was a divide, unfortunately along the lines of race, about whether he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I will not criticize the jury for drawing a different conclusion than I would have, I will just note the difference of opinion by people of good faith.
And then years later he commits that robbery and is convicted. And once it became clear he was guilty, I saw a reassessment of the Brown/Goldman murder, too. Suddenly virtually all the people who didn’t think there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, suddenly agreed, yeah, he did it. No question about it now. At that moment when he committed that robbery it made it clear to everyone what kind of person OJ was and therefore we have said (in the court of public opinion) that there is no reasonable doubt he killed them now.
Same with Kimberlin. His conduct toward me has shown me that he has not reformed. He shouldn’t have been let out in the first place and hopefully when we are done he will be put back in prison.
> And I’m suggesting that if everybody HAD done left him alone, and/or COULD do that in the future, he won’t be a bother to anybody.
Read the passages in my post discussing Julia Scyphers. What did she do to earn the title of “harasser.” And then ask yourself if it might happen again.
> Except it’s not. Or have you not heard of “Everybody Blog about Brett Kimberlin” Day?
The purpose of it, you moron, is to make it so that Kimberlin realizes he can’t sue everyone.
> Argue the reasons for going after him, but don’t lie and say that you’re NOT going after him. Seth Allen went after him. Aaron did.
That is false and if you were not such a lazy @$$ you would know it. I didn’t go after him except in self-defense, to expose his thuggery to the world. So once again in your mind the only person allowed to defend himself is Brett Kimberlin.
Before he went after me, all I did was give Seth free legal advice. You would think a lawyer would believe in the right to receive counsel.
> Then stop feeding him. Starve him.
That is precisely what we are trying to do. We are telling his donors to stop feeding him, so the next time someone tells the truth about him he won’t have the ability to harass them.
Comment by Aaron “Worthing”