Bloggers do not have a:

1. Captive audience. Newspaper capture an audience via their front page articles on newsstands in public and places of business. Same goes for radio when someone on their morning commute is scanning for something to listen to. Same goes for television cable news outlets run a segment that is utterly offensive to the viewer just checking in to get the weekend weather.

2. Deep financial pockets. As the article noted, why pursue a legal course of action to prove a point when that lawsuit is going to directly affect the future aspirations of the individual being sued and their family?

3. Established legal precedent regarding blogs, defamation and the 1st Amendment. Commentators will bring up defamation cases involving university professors, journalists, and other vaguely related issues, but how many court cases involving blogging and defamation are ripening at the appellate level for the US Supreme Court to pick up?

As far as I am concerned, anonymous posters can be bullies who do not have the balls to take responsibility for their childish antics. If they had half a brain, then they would post under their real name because they too can be traced, located, and counter-sued the crapola out of for online stalking. Aliases may change, but IP addresses can be traced and everything posted on the Internet is forever there.

My advice, fight fire with fire and drown them suckers in gasoline.

Very interesting that such a fuss was not made over http://media.wweek.com/attach/2007/06/25/062507_WeaklyDem.pdf

Do the bullies not remember 2007, is Carla scratching too close to a sensitive spot, or what?

I hate the anonymity of posters too. They're bullies and make me mad. I want the gov't to find them all and make them pay. I hate when people don't agree with me. I want to read and write and hear people that agree with me. I hate differing opinions because they confuse me. I can't wait until the president takes this issue up and shuts them down.

Sal, of course Jack's advice was a threat, as he knows damn well that most bloggers can't possibly afford to keep a lawyer on retainer. If taken seriously, it would be an inherent argument for leaving journalism solely in the hands of the corporate media.

Sal, of course Jack's advice was a threat, as he knows damn well that most bloggers can't possibly afford to keep a lawyer on retainer. If taken seriously, it would be an inherent argument for leaving journalism solely in the hands of the corporate media.

No Goldy, it wasn't. You know, your whole "look at me, look at me" schtick against Eyman quickly became tiresome to anyone with an above average IQ, and you're over-the-top comments on your blog about this show you've really become a bore. (Yea, I have a first hand memory of your start.) Sal is anything but a mouthpiece of the establishment here in Oregon, and that single comment I quoted alone shows just how out in la-la land you are.

Sal is right on point in what he wrote here, and in fact he read far more into Jack's comments as I read them, and into my comments in that other thread than actually was there. And by the way, I assure you that Jack and I are hardly political bedfellows based on Jack's entire written oeuvre of which that thread is in an immeasurably small part.

So what you've done is launch a self-serving grandiose theory that falls apart from the get go because you clearly have no knowledge of the disparate status and values of the three people you quote repeatedly. And from my perception of Sal's and Jack's public record, your assumptions couldn't be more wrong in fact.

The reality is that Carla, Kari, and Jeff (who falsely stated the defamation issue was brought up after his first comment when in fact many, if not most, of the comments before his were about defamation because the tone of Carla's post rang badly right from the headline) just became entrenched in their false understanding of what constitutes defamation, and they just wasn't going to hear of it that anybody could possibly be trying to discuss just that they were wrong about it. Exactly as Sal has repeated here.

To put a direct point on it Goldy: The debate became about what constitutes defamation and it's sad bloggers like you, Carla, Kari, and Jeff, demonstrate by this you are all but incapable of carrying on that kind of substantive discussion. At this point, one can't help but wonder if the title of your blog "Horse's Ass" has actually become eponymous?

And by the way, if you are so egotistical to actually believe you are on the leading edge of some next generation gonzo journalism, your little juvenile screed shows conclusively that you sully the tradition and the reputation of Hunter S. Thompson.

I spent 17K and took almost six years to track down a stalker who got his obsession over me on a message board. He threatened me, my wife, my family (including children under 8), and BOASTED he was immune to any legal action I could take.

He was wrong.

That said, I do not agree with the principle of having a site like Blue Oregon open to flamers, trolls, and paid Internet infidels. This is supposed to be, or so it says, a site dedicated to progressives' discussion about issues relating to Oregon and the nation.

I'd gladly pay a reasonable subscription fee for this site so that the proprieters could have valid credit card information on those who want to post here.

Nothing runs off trolls like having to stand in the light of day with a paper trail behind them -- or a plastic trail, as it may be. You cannot reason with them, you cannot rationally discuss anything with them.

Thus, I believe they are irrelevant to any serious discussions and anyway to prevent them access is fine by me. It works for Free Republic.

Sal:

Politicis is a boxing match, war, and a reaching out for hearts and souls, all at the same time.

Saying/Wrong... funny, but I NEVER said anything about Sal being a mouthpiece for anybody; it was you and Jack I called out. So there you go putting words into my mouth again in a feeble effort to make some feeble point.

Answer me this... are you really an attorney? Do you have any professional expertise with defamation law? And if so, are you intentionally trying to mislead folks here with your fake lawyering, or are you just a really bad attorney?

At least Sal had the decency to preface his comments by stating that he had no idea whether Carla's post was defamatory in an actionable sense. What's your excuse?

Sal, my knowledge of Jack comes only from the comment thread on Carla's previous post, and I did not even presume that he was an R. But I did read his and the anonymous "Just Sayings" comments as bullying intimidation, and in that sense they well fit the broader context of my post.

The issue as I see it is not whether Squires fed a story to the press or whether Carla sufficiently supported her conclusion to satisfy the readers here on BO. The issue is the way the specter of a libel suit has been raised here as weapon with which to threaten Carla, merely because she wrote something some folks didn't particularly like.

That Carla's thesis was so aggressively refuted and contested in her own comment thread is exactly the way blogging is supposed to work. This is an open source process in which our readers serve as our copy editors and fact checkers. And as such, the defamation attack was both unnecessary and, in my opinion, offensive.

Esteve put forth a speculative statement, and so did Carla, yet nobody tries to bully Esteve with the threat of a libel suit because they know that he knows that he has an employer with the resources to defend him. This is a double standard that is both unfair, and in the long term, not conducive to fostering a vigorous public debate.

I guess Sal is too polite to point this out but:

Goldy wrote: "Wrong... funny, but I NEVER said anything about Sal being a mouthpiece for anybody; it was you and Jack I called out.

You might not have "called out" Sal by name in your commentary as you did Jack and JS, but you certainly quote him - along with the other two and Richard - and go on to say:

"This thread, particularly the comments of Jack Roberts and the anonymous “Just Saying,” is nothing if not an act of intimidation intended to bully Carla into thinking twice before she ever publicly criticizes the likes of Squires and other establishment stalwarts again, and in this service the commenters employ the sort of shameless and selective legalistic bullshit that lawyers often use to buffalo laypeople into submission."

Sorry, but you most certainly did call out Sal and group him with the others.

(Not that I think that's a bad thing. I applaud Sal, Jack and JS for maintaining a sane, reasonable, and logical tone in the face of all the rash hysteria going on here. The fact that these people with such politically diverse views agree on this should be a hint that there is not some great conspiracy contrived by the "Righties" or corporate media or some other bogeyman to intimidate bloggers into silence.)

Many people, myself included, believe that Carla let her passionate interest in the subject matter get the better of her. We believe that she crossed a line. Did it rise to defamation? I didn't think so, but who is to tell really?

This has gone on too long by half already. They real quote from old pop music should probably be; You're So Vain.

Oh come on Carla. Who here or on any local blog is more of a smear merchant bully than you, named or anon?

You sure would make a good tyrant.

Why don't you become the comment monitor and approve all posts prior to posting. That way only your truth would be allowed?

Jack:

Prominent Republicans have referred to the GOP as a party of old white men and a religious party. They block almost any type of reform. They consistently go to bat for the biggest polluters and plunderers. They have been on the wrong side of history over and over. I'm not saying that the Democratic Party is perfect, but today's Republican party being such a pathetic embarrassing piece of trash, how can you still feel good about being a member?

Goldy - Saying/Wrong... funny, but I NEVER said anything about Sal being a mouthpiece for anybody; it was you and Jack I called out. So there you go putting words into my mouth again in a feeble effort to make some feeble point.

Somebody already pointed out exactly how you are misrepresenting yourself here. You grouped all three of together with a claim we were out to do something that I didn't read in Sal's or Jack's comments, nor will you find any proof of in my comment because it was my intent. With motives you have absolutely no way of knowing, much less point to any statements that actually support your claims of motives. In other words, you made it up in your mind and shot off your mouth, and now it is you who are trying to spin out of it.

Answer me this... are you really an attorney? Do you have any professional expertise with defamation law? And if so, are you intentionally trying to mislead folks here with your fake lawyering, or are you just a really bad attorney?

What we see from your comments is all too common these days in public discussion where people are mainly out to reinforce their own beliefs: You lock into an viewpoint that 1) doesn't even come close to the range of possibilities why someone who have knowledge about a topic, and 2) limits the possibilities to only those which would tend to reinforce your own distorted and misguided viewpoint. Despite your tragically adolescent style of trying to goad people into responding the way you want them to, I'm going to pull a Barney Frank here and answer your question with a question, since talking with you and Carla, Kari, and Jeff is very much like talking with a kitchen table. You display wooden viewpoints that have little conformation with reality, and nothing is going to change that.

So "riddle me this" ... what are all the reasons and circumstances of life that someone might come to a valid and informative understanding of the law around defamation?

At least Sal had the decency to preface his comments by stating that he had no idea whether Carla's post was defamatory in an actionable sense. What's your excuse?

My observation is that you are a poor reader who may care more about selectively reading to reinforce whatever fantasies you want to entertain then reading to have a correct understanding of what was said. Again, although Sal, Jack, and myself chose to express that we were not making a direct accusation of defamation differently, both as a matter of personal preference and for different editorial purposes, you won't find statements that make statements of the complexion you imply. In my case, I expressed pretty the same sentiment of Sal in several different ways and at more than once (paraphrasing roughly from memory):

1) First and foremost explicitly noting anybody can sue anybody for anything, it's up to the courts to actually decide whether defamation has occurred.

2) Citing the elements of defamation and --- repeatedly --- noting those elements are at obvious odds with the "defenses" Carla, Kari, and Jeff stated

3) Not quoting a specific statement, but instead inviting them to test their own statements against the elements for themselves.

Now that may not be framed in the direct, simplistic terms that you and those like Carl, Kari, and Jeff who fancy themselves to be in the avantgarde of the new media seem to require to be able to understand the point, but it's all on you that you apparently only capable of misreading things to support your ravings.

Oh and by the way, if you actually read for comprehension, you would have found my point the real issue is whether the standard of quality for commentary in this case that Carla, and now you set, is really in the best interest of progressive values. I think in different ways that was the real point of Sal's, and Jack's comments. There may indeed evolve a different standard for defamation when it comes to blogs, but that would be because the blogosphere, or at least the tawdry corner of it BO and HA will have created, may finally come to be accepted in the public mind as having less credibility on the whole than Murdoch's tabloids. Now that would really have been a good use and a good end to the potential of the vehicle.

Embarrassing typo.

You grouped all three of together with a claim we were out to do something that I didn't read in Sal's or Jack's comments, nor will you find any proof of in my comment because it was NOT my intent.

Joshua Welch wrote:

"They (Republicans) have been on the wrong side of history over and over."

Yeah no kidding.

They fought to keep slavery going in the south, and refused to issue an emancipation proclamation. no wait that was the Democrats.

They formed KKK chapters, instituted Jim Crow laws and preserved the segregated 'Solid South' for 100 years. no wait that was the Democrats.

They increased taxes and regulation on individuals and business during the Depression, causing it to go on for many years. no wait that was the Democrats.

They waffled while Hitler built up strength in Europe and sent over an appeaser as our ambassador to Britain to weaken their resolve. no wait that was the Democrats.

They walked on eggshells around the Soviet Union and refused to protect America against nuclear war by erecting a missile defense. no wait that was the Democrats.

They fought to keep top income tax rates at nearly 70%, preventing those who could invest and provide jobs from doing so. no wait that was the Democrats.

They responded with words and no action when our embassies were bombed in Africa and the USS Cole was attacked. no wait that was the Democrats.

They erected a wall of silence between the FBI and the CIA , preventing them from sharing intelligenc information that could have prevented 9/11. no wait that was the Democrats.

They put quotas on banks for writing subprime loans in specified zip codes, causing a financial meltdown. no wait that was the Democrats.

Carla wrote, "Your comments and those of anonymous and non-anonymous individuals in an attempt to shut me up have steeled my resolve to do more"

"attempt to shut you up"?

Is that what it is?

It may serve your attitude and agenda well to pretend or misrepresent that critisism of you is an attempt to "shut you up" but that's laughable.

Funny how while you're inferring the shutting up of others and now posture as if someone, mystery people, are proposing that for you.

Jack - I'll understand if you don't want to answer this, but I'm still going to ask if you can provide a public service here with a comment.

For those who have not worked with a lawyer either proactively, such as to help guide an enterprise to minimize the chances of litigation, or in the unfortunate event they have been sued (which of course we know is NEVER justified), could you describe how client and lawyer interact in the ideal?

By that, I mean does counsel hope to act as educator so that that the client takes responsibility for understanding the law and the (possible) bases for action? Does the ultimate decision-making responsibility lie with the client? And does it cost a LOT of $$$ to have a lawyer actually take a lead role, such as by making written analyses of law and the case that 1) might be discoverable, and 2) could be the basis of action by the client against the lawyer should things go badly.

In other words, isn't it the case that lawyers essentially try to educate their clients into having as much knowledge about the specific matter at hand as the lawyer as they can, and into taking the responsible lead role in the matter? Because, after all, it is the client's reputation and financial future that is at stake.

I know Jack and Sal don't particularly cotton to having me defend them, but for readers, Goldy, Carla, Kari, and Jeff, appear to have no idea of the value of the information and service Jack has provided that has nothing to do with any motive they impute. Similarly I don't think they have any idea of the value of the very real and practical insights Sal has provided as a former candidate, who similarly has displayed nothing close to the motive they impute. As for me, I'm just still chuckling that Goldy, Carla, Kari, and Jeff have pretty much tried to argue that the three of us are somehow of the same mind, and are just ill-willed representatives of the establishment trying to hold down brave, principled, souls like them blazing the trail into the future of public debate.

Just Saying... ahh... another graduate of the I'm Rubber Your Glue School of Debate. I learned long ago it was generally a waste of time to read my own comment threads, let alone wade into them. I don't really know why I expected things to be much different here at BO. The lack of profanity? But then, politeness does not equal intelligence, and never has.

But let me take one more moment to explain my post to you, Richard, Jack and everybody else here, since you're obviously too focused on beating up Carla and anybody who defends her to actually read my words in context. (It was a 3000 word post by the way, which doesn't even get to the dispute here until two-thirds through.)

There was nothing partisan about my post, and I alleged nothing partisan about the motives or participants of the thread here. I couldn't care less about you, Jack, Richard Sal or even Squires and Galizio. They're all just names to me. I did not imply a cabal, and I did not imply strategy.

What I described in my post, and within the much broader context of my post, was a comment thread in which several participants, disagreeing with the author's conclusion and her journalistic judgment to run with it as such, immediately jumped the shark into an amateur debate over defamation law, without a single pontificator clearly having any professional expertise in the matter. It doesn't matter what your intent was, and it doesn't matter whether you were intentionally working in concert, the end result was an act of pure intimidation... and one that is similarly repeated in comment and email threads nationwide, everyday. Raising the red herring of defamation to a blogger when attempting beat her down in response to her post, is like talking about Green Cards and INS when attempting to negotiate a price with the day laborers outside Home Depot.

Bloggers are extremely vulnerable to the abuse of the defamation laws, because we have nobody to pay our legal bills, and because the same elements that make libel extraordinarily difficult to prove also make such a charge extraordinarily difficult to prove frivolous. There are a handful of progressive state blogs with the ability to move headlines, shape policy debates and even influence the outcome of elections, and whether you like it or not, HA and BO are two of them. When you look at the money at stake in issues like, say, the Metolius controversy, the relatively minor investment it might take to shut this blog down, or at the very least, severely distract and diminish it, through a protracted legal action, makes my paranoia on this issue well justified.

So the very fact that you would relentlessly suggest that Carla, Kari and Jeff should familiarize themselves with the defamation laws can only be taken as insult at best, and a veiled threat at worst. You and your fellow travelers NEVER would have conducted yourselves the same way in a newspaper comment thread because you never would have treated a "professional" journalist like a silly little child, and because you sure as hell know that he would laugh off your amateur legal consult, safe and secure that the corporate lawyers had his back.

Finally, and obviously, for all your protestations about trying to educate Carla, Kari and Jeff, why should anybody seriously accept legal advice from an anonymous troll like you, even if it were presented cogently, which in your case it was not? It doesn't take an attorney to see through your selective and ridiculous arguments:

The interesting question here is on whom could Carla serve relevant discovery that would be helpful to her defense? The newspapers will claim a First Amendment defense to protect their sources, initially without even having to acknowledge the person Carla accused is a source in the matter at controversy. And maybe Jack can enlighten us as to the limits of what discovery Squires would have to produce or testify to that would be of benefit to Carla in her obligation to prove the truth of her accusation, particular if any alleged incriminatory communications were oral and only between her and journalists. That generally leaves third parties with specific knowledge, raising issues of hearsay. Not exactly the position from which most of us would want to start a defense in a defamation case.

You are clearly NOT an attorney, for the law is not written with the purpose of hanging defendants on technical Catch 22's as you fancifully imagine, and I could easily write another 3000 words explicating exactly how stupid this particular "clever" observation of yours really is. So if I were Carla, I'd be just as likely to go to you for surgery as I would for legal advice.

I'm sure there are a lot of things for which you might legitimately criticize Carla. You could have just stuck with meme that her original post was below the standard of common journalistic ethics (though the fact that Esteve's aspersions were equally speculative kinda refutes that off the bat.) But one thing that should be abundantly clear by now from her years of blogging is that she is not stupid. And nothing could be more stupid than taking legal advice from a fake lawyer.

Joe White:

Your response reminds me of a John McCain appearance on the Daily Show after he received the Republican nomination. McCain tried to claim he was proud to be representing the "Party of Lincoln." That was when Stewart laughed out loud because obviously TODAY's Republican party is nothing like the 17th century version. Political parties change over time, Conservatives (the types of people who make up today's GOP) have fought against women's rights, worker's rights, gay rights, environmental protection, etc. They stand up for the rights like the right to pollute and to fire people for being gay. They championed wonderful ideas like deregulation and Iraq. And yes, many conservative Democrats have gone along for the ride.

Today's Republican party, the party of George W. Bush, is as I said, a pathetic piece of trash.

I personally don't like journalism of the "it seems like something so-and-so would do" variety. We saw a lot of that during the Clinton years where a multitude of faux scandals got play primarily because they fed into a pre-existing narrative about Clinton's proclivities (Juanita Broderick anyone?).

That having been said, what Carla did was, at worst, no worse than what The Oregonian did with respect to the motivations behind Rep. Galizio's move. I would prefer that people leave speculation to more ephemeral mediums (like face-to-face communications), but let's at least be consistent in our outrage over this.

As the grandchild of a Republican politician (prosecutor during Prohibition, with his WWI buddies helped break the local county machine in the days when conventions rather than primaries made statewide nominations in Michigan, AG during a major statewide recount, among other things)I want to be on the record as saying the Republicans did a lot of good things BEFORE 1980.

Joe, a lot of what you write is revisionist history which I won't take the time to go into here.

Except for this one: A Republican friend of mine supports the idea of tax breaks for jobs provided (create a job, get a tax credit) rather than just "we'll give you this tax break and trust you to use it to create jobs" which is what you seem to support.

"They fought to keep top income tax rates at nearly 70%, preventing those who could invest and provide jobs from doing so. no wait that was the Democrats."

Show us the documentation where all the tax breaks Republicans have given have resulted in actual jobs created. How many jobs created for how much money? Or would that be asking too much?

Oh, and those of us who have lived in Northern states like Michigan and Oregon are not responsible for the Southern Democrats. And not every Southern Democrat was a racist, nor every racist a Southern Democrat. In some small towns, the whole community got together (mayor, major employer, clergy and others) got together and made it clear that the KKK would not be tolerated in their town.

But details like that would spoil your screed.

If the general public believed in your attempt to rewrite history so that all good things were done by Republicans (a party which did not exist until the mid-1800s) and nothing good ever done by Democrats, why don't Republicans still control all aspects of government in DC like they did earlier in this decade?

Did you ever consider that the rising number of people registered outside major parties might be due to partisan rhetoric like yours?

Jack, poor poor Hasina. Nobody stood up for her and all she was doing was being a poor loser? Or you heard it from her mouth "let bygones be bygones over Metolius"?

Or do you have proof that someone other than Hasina was planting stories?

Sal may be right that the 2007 piece was a parody.

Do you know Hasina personally? Can you vouch for the fact that she was not a sore loser over the Metolius, and to your own knowledge she would never plant stories about anyone?

Does she understand what Teddy Kennedy said that today's opponents may be tomorrow's allies?

If Carla had never written anything, would the people who knew her in the capitol as a lobbyist (members, staff, other lobbyists) never believe it was possible for her to spread untrue stories? Is she beloved among those who spend their days in the capitol during legislative sessions?

There is a "doth protest too much" aspect to this. The poor defenseless lobbyist can't stand having anything negative said.

But did anyone ever check out whether Rep. Galizio could have possibly changed his vote due to constitutent concerns rather than for a job?

Or is it OK to let that rumor hang as long as the poor, defenseless lobbyist is unscathed?

Joshua Welch wrote:

"McCain tried to claim he was proud to be representing the "Party of Lincoln." That was when Stewart laughed out loud because obviously TODAY's Republican party is nothing like the 17th century version. Political parties change over time"

comedian Jon Stewart....... wow great, you get your political views from the heavy thinkers, I see.

(btw I think you mean 19th century.)

The (Democratic) Solid South existed for 100 years. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was voted for by a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats (for example Al Gore's father, Senator Albert Gore Sr. voted against it. Black Democrats who know Al Gore Jr have said he has a 'low Negro tolerance') Bill Clinton's 'mentor' was segregationist William Fulbright, and as of this day the only current member of Congress to have been a KKK member is Democrat Robert Byrd, who as recently as a few years ago was on TV and referred to 'white niggers' that he knew.

The Democrats openly used race baiting to win the 2008 election.

The Ds have used race to divide this country for a long time, using various methods. They've been on the wrong side of history, and still are.

And I notice you weren't able to even tackle any other of the historical blunders of the Democrats.

Joe, check out this comment on the "Rumors of their deaths" topic Posted by: The Skald | Aug 27, 2009 3:46:32 AM

Then explain what you mean by, "The Democrats openly used race baiting to win the 2008 election."

All Democrats? The DNC? One person you heard on TV?

Or could it have been that the young, skinny guy from Illinois was just a better candidate?

LT wrote:

"Or could it have been that the young, skinny guy from Illinois was just a better candidate?"

Obama's race baiting was no secret.

He referred to those who 'cling to their guns and their religion and to their antipathy to those who aren't like them'.

What does that mean? 'If you don't vote for me, you're a racist'

Obama referred to his own grandmother as 'a typical white person who reacts in wrong ways'

What does that mean? 'The typical white person doesn't treat blacks right'

I just LOVE Richard's modus operandi. Here's a summary:

(1) Go to a blog where one's posts are guaranteed to raise hackles. (2) When said hackles are raised, pout about how "you people don't really value free speech" or some such inanity. (Note to Richard: the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution deals with governmental restrictions on free speech.) (3) Lather, rinse, repeat.

And then there are the Joe Whites of the world, who keep posting some variant of "do you still beat your wife?".

This is getting weirder and weirder. It looks like Carla is losing it. All we've seen is a lot of (cheap) tough talk and absolutely nothing to back it up.

Great job Blue Oregon! Way to represent progressive values!

Though they aren't worth much, my 2 cents:

Carla is most always spot on. I used to work in Salem but have now moved along to other pursuits and I know that Carla know her stuff...and people are allowed to have hunches. And you know what, if all signs point to A...it's probably A.

You might not like that she is a good investigator, has good sources, and is relentless. I've ALWAYS enjoyed Carla's irreverent posts...because even if they're spiced with attitude, flair, and pizazz (amen!), they're always well researched, sourced, and written. There are TOOOOOO many bloggers out there that wildly speculate, conjecture, and just plain invent an alternate reality. Carla isn't one of those.

Carla- I honestly don't know how or why you do it... You're one of the few bloggers that I'll actually pay attention to because you usually have something great to say (and I LOVE how you say it).

So, keep on keepin' on...don't let the bastards get you down.

If Carla cared about her credibility, she would have stopped on this post a long time ago. I do, however, admire her persistance in not even caring if she's wrong...

Jack... I'd intended to bow out of this thread but...

And what you're continually missing is that what you think of Hasina or her effectiveness or even her ethics is an opinion. That you think she's the source of specific leaks to specific newspapers on a specific story goes beyond mere opinion, even if you say "I think" or "it is my opinion."

And what you're missing, Jack, is that subjective speculation is just as protected as opinion. Carla laid out the facts as she knew them about Squires' connections, and then based on that, stated "It's my belief..." and any reasonable reader would understand the words that followed that clause to be speculation.

If I wrote, "I think Carla does good research" or "I think Carla does shoddy work" that's an opinion. If I wrote "I think the only reason BlueOregon carries Carla's posts is that she's probably sleeping with Kari" that goes well beyond opinion and could be easily be defamatory...

Your analogy simply doesn't hold up, because unlike Carla, in your example you don't provide any reasoning behind your speculation. Though that said, even your example, coming in the comment thread of a blog, would likely be reasonably understood as rhetorical hyperbole, and thus protected too.

Defamation is an awfully high bar; feel free to toss the charge about lightly, but to someone who doesn't know you from Adam, it doesn't do much to enhance your credibility.

Joe White:

Like LT pointed out your version of history we'll say is a bit far-fetched. I could use my precious time (I have a family) trying to educate you, but I know your kind, and facts don't matter much to ya. Reasoning w/ you is kind of like trying to move mountains. The Dems certainly ain't perfect but, the Republicans..........the party of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly. I mean, what organization has a higher concentration of douchebags?

Jack...

I appreciate the fact that you have a vested interest in, and probably a personal belief, allowing anything and everything to be said in a blog. But that is not the law, and encouraging people to be irresponsible is asking for trouble. Frankly, the main security most internet bloggers have from defamation claims is that essentially no one reads them and no one believes them.

No, I don't believe that anything goes, but actually, the courts have recognized that different standards may be applied to a blog than, say, the front page of the New York Times, as it should be, because neither BO nor HA claim to be a paper of record, and we've never, ever claimed to be objective or impartial. And, I mean, really, you can't have it both ways... you can't dismiss bloggers as not credible while at the same time insisting that folks might reasonably read every opinion or speculation of ours as a definitive statement of fact.

I predict in the not too distant future someone will step over the line with the wrong person and we'll get a big internet blog defamation case that may in fact have a chilling effect on bloggers. But it won't be this case. I suppose if there is any justice in the world, it will be against you and your blog.

Hey, thanks for proving the larger point of my post by example. That's exactly the sort of vindictive attitude I've faced from day one... folks cheering for me to be financially destroyed (or even imprisoned) simply because they don't like the words I write, or the fact that I've managed to earn myself a platform they feel I do not deserve.

Justice indeed.

Jack, here's where I stand on this.

I have known Harry Esteve for many years. Bright guy but I don't take his word as Gospel.

So when I read, "The appointment, announced Wednesday, raised some eyebrows among Salem insiders because Galizio made a dramatic about-face", I began to wonder the following things:

whose eyebrows were raised? how many eyebrows were raised? *was that a rhetorical device to say some people wondered why Galizio changed his vote and didn't believe it could possibly have been due to constituent input?

Years ago a friend worked for a state rep. who changed his vote at the last minute on a major bill, and the people who supported the bill were furious. HOW DARE HE listen to constituents rather than lobbyists? The legislator did not take a state job after that session. It was in the era of term limits and the legislator eventually went home and ran for and was elected to local office.

I was visiting my friend in the legislator's office right after the vote and someone came to give the legislator a quote from Wayne Morse about casting votes free of political pressure.

Would you have said the vote was suspicious if you didn't like the vote?

Here's my problem with this whole story. Jack, it sounds like you believe Squires should be considered pure as the driven snow unless there is evidence to the contrary which would stand up in court, but it is OK for people to whisper that the only reason Galizio changed his vote was a state job.

So should we conclude you always believe the best about lobbyists and the worst about legislators--esp. legislators not of your party?

That's what it sounds like to me.

Full disclosure--I know lots of hard working legislators of both parties and in many cases would trust them over lobbyists. Make something of that!

Jack, you may miss my point. It is larger than this.

When I hear generalities (women believe, the business community said, OLCV speaks for all environmentalists, "people of faith" which generally means people of a certain religious persuastion, "all Republicans are nasty", all Democrats...", etc.) I am annoyed.

I choose which sources of information to believe. I've been involved in politics long enough to know that "eyebrows were raised" could easily mean 2 or 3 people are suspicious.

It seems, though, that while you say "don't believe the charges against Rep. Galizio and I don't think the people who were "raising their eyebrows" have any evidence to support this charge", you seem to go easier on those people than on Carla.

Maybe it will come out some day that a disgruntled constituent or former employee was spreading rumors. But it is also possible that something more nefarious was going on--like a lobbyist or political opponent spreading stories.

Call me a skeptic, but I am inclined to believe a business lobbyist capable of spreading stories. And I don't think Carla is evil incarnate--I save that category for the folks last year who called me all kinds of names here because I didn't think Novick was the greatest candidate I had ever seen in my life. Not to mention others over the years in both parties who have been worse.

Just as you have every right to believe in "raised eyebrows", I have the right to believe that this whole thing about Squires having the right to be upset enough to sue (which is what I believe you were suggesting) is a case of "doth protest too much".

YMMV

"a value-added point of view"?

Pick a label, defamation, smearing or political hackery.

But "research" and "value added" are too funny Carla.

You've become so predictably the BO hit gal that your next smear is probably already in draft form and on it's way. As soon as you add more value.

Joshua Welch wrote:

"what organization has a higher concentration of douchebags? "

typical. simply resort to name calling.

got anything else?

Let's recall that the talk show guys you cite are not elected to any office.

You want to discuss leadership, one need look no farther than Chappaquiddick to see what Democrats are willing to have represent them.

That's great that you still think you're right, Carla, despite the fact that a legitimate, mainstream publication has completely refuted your ridiculous allegations and actually spoke with the person whom you are defaming. But feel free to keep on digging. I am finding this descent into lunacy very amusing.

"You want to discuss leadership, one need look no farther than Chappaquiddick to see what Democrats are willing to have represent them."

First of all, "Democrats" did not elect Ted Kennedy, Mass. voters did. Generalizing like that is popular in some quarters, but it doesn't generally win over anyone not already a true believer.

Joe, the more of these comments I read from you and others, the more I understand why it is so hard for Republicans to win elections.

My grandfather was elected statewide as AG of Michigan in the 1930s. I campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election and voted for Pres. Ford. That was a much different Republican Party than the current one.

There are any number of Oregon Republicans I have respected.

I am one of those who have been registered in either major party or no party at all. I'm guessing people like Joe don't want me to support their candidates--I ask too many questions and think for myself.

A picture of a certain type of person is beginning to emerge. It was OK that Reagan was the first divorced and remarried President. When he died, people who had not supported him either were quiet ("never speak ill of the dead") or reminded people that whatever they thought of his politics he was more optimistic than many in current politics. When Robert Novak died, people who disagreed with him but knew he had been a famous reporter and friend to others in his field didn't start yelling "Good riddance to the guy who blew Valerie Wilson's cover as a CIA agent!".

Apparently only if a Democrat dies should we be told all that person's faults.

Apparently the view is that if a person loved to drink alcohol and had made a grievous mistake when younger, that is all we should remember (the equivalent of saying "Ronsld Reagan, the first divorced and remarried president, died today.")

The man who was the first condolence call on Gordon Smith after his son died should not be remembered. The man whose brothers were murdered should not be remembered by the suddenly fatherless kids for whom he was a father figure, as well as being a father to his own kids.

The many people (incl. John McCain, it turns out) that Ted Kennedy did small kindnesses for don't matter.

We really didn't need all that legislation that Ted Kennedy helped to pass (end to the poll tax, civil rights legislation, health care coverage for children) because those were all "liberal causes" and all good people know that conservatives have all the good ideas.

And then these folks wonder how the 2006 and 2008 election results could have happened. HOW DARE voters see things through their own eyes and decide their votes accordingly!

It has been said (with Reagan in 1980, with elections in the middle of this decade) that if young people vote with a particular party when they are young, they are likely to be voting for that party for quite awhile.

There were many voters (esp. women) who were Republicans when they were younger but left the party in the 1980s or 1990s, or in recent years. Chuck Todd and the NBC Elections Director have an excellent new book out titled HOW BARACK OBAMA WON with all kinds of data on this sort of thing. Including the sorts of voters who voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008.

But that is a reality that some of you don't want to confront. So much easier to write a screed against what you don't like.

Go ahead. Vent. Let off steam.

Just don't expect to win elections until you have the positive, concrete agenda that Reagan had in 1980 and Gingrich had in 1994.