« Blog Day Off | Main | I'm Back »
October 19, 2006
Moyers Exchange
(Jimmy Akin)
October 18, 2006
PDF SENT VIA EMAIL (JIMMYAKIN01@GMAILCOM)
Mr. Jimmy Akin
Re: Bill Moyers
Dear Mr. Akin:
This firm represents Bill Moyers. The following statement from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance Newsletter dated October 9, 2006, by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner has been brought to our attention:
First, not earthshaking regarding climate science but of some interest to yours truly, Bill Moyers's documentary "Is God Green?" (Click here: WGBH Programs) airs on PBS Wednesday evening, October 11 (check local listings). When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats. Don't expect good science, economics, or ethics--or even journalistic balance. (Emphasis added.)
Dr. Beisner's accusation is false and defamatory as it goes to the heart of Mr. Moyers's integrity as a journalist. I am enclosing a copy of an e-mail from Mr. Moyers to Dr. Beisner dated October 17, 2006 in which he vigorously denies that any such statement was made and challenges Dr. Beisner to produce proof from his own tape recording to support his allegation. No such proof was produced.
We have demanded on behalf of Mr. Moyers a retraction from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance stating clearly and without qualification that Dr. Beisner's statement was erroneous, that Mr. Moyers never made any such statement to Dr. Beisner or anything colorably close to it, and apologizing to Mr. Moyers for the error.
You have re-published at http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/pay_no_attentio.html,
and perhaps elsewhere as well, Dr. Beisner's statement as if it were true, and without seeking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN, WEINRIB, RUDELL & VASSALLO, P.C.
Jimmy Akin
October 18, 2006 Page 2
corroboration from Mr. Moyers or proof from Dr. Beisner. In doing so, you have also defamed Mr. Moyers.
On behalf of Mr. Moyers, we demand that you immediately publish in full Mr. Moyers's response to Dr. Beisner, as well as the retraction and apology of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, if any, all with at least equal prominence to that given the false statement of Dr. Beisner.
Nothing in this letter should be construed as a limitation of the rights and remedies of our client, all of which are expressly reserved.
Neil J. Rosini
NJR/aws
Enclosure
cc: Bill Moyers
281309/1/0471/0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moyers, Bill
From: Moyers, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:47 PM
To: [Dr. E. Calvin Beisner]
Subject: What has come over you?
You are not telling the truth. In fact, what you wrote in the ISA newsletter is an outright lie. You claim that "When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats." I said nothing of the sort -- nothing. To the contrary, I told you that I am an independent - members of the crew remember my saying that to you specifically (there were, remember, three other people in the room.) You yourself taped the entire session with your own recorder; show me where in the transcript such a conversation occurred. I also told you, as I told everyone interviewed, that we of course could not usethe entire interview but that I would post it on our Website when the broadcast aired, as was done. If I had said anything approaching what you claim I said, if you perceived any bias on my part. you could have -- and should have refused to participate. But you did participate freely, you were treated fairly and honestly, and for you now to bear false witness is not only unChristian but astonishing. What am I to make of the many friendly emails you have sent over these months, signed: "In Christ, Cal"? Or our exchange on how much I have enjoyed your daughter's CD that you sent? Your conservative evangelical brothers who were also interviewed in the documentary – from Richard Cizik to Tri Robinson to Allan Johnson (not a liberal among them) have written in praise of how they were treated. You and you alone have chosen to bear false witness to our conversation and to defame – in your own words –the ethics and journalistic balance of the documentary. You owe me arid my team an apology and a public retraction.
Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 19, 2006
Neil J. Rosini, Esquire
Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P. C.
488 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022-5707
Re: Jimmy Akin
Dear Mr. Rosini:
This firm represents Jimmy Akin. I am in receipt of your correspondence to my client dated October 18, 2006, in which you claim—without citing any legal authority—that Mr. Akin defamed your client, Bill Moyers, by republishing certain statements from a newsletter penned by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner on behalf of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance dated October 9, 2006.
Mr. Akin categorically rejects your characterization of the blog post in question ("Pay no attention to that man behind the camera: Part Two," October 13, 2006—the only place my client republished the statements in question), and—having reviewed the relevant case law—I find it highly unlikely that you can sustain a case against my client for defamation.
That having been noted, Mr. Akin is certainly willing to "immediately publish in full Mr. Moyers's response to Dr. Beisner, as well as the retraction and apology of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance if any, all with at least equal prominence to that given the . . . statements of Dr. Beisner"; not because your client demands it, but because he believes it is only fair to allow Mr. Moyers to have his say on the matter. I will email you the text and links to such posts once they are published. A post containing Mr. Moyers's response to Dr. Beisner will be published on my client's blog today, and (as a showing of good faith) will be featured as the top post for a 24-hour time period.
It is my sincere hope that the foregoing actions will resolve this matter between our clients. If you choose, however, to proceed with a civil action against our client, notwithstanding his willingness to comply with Mr. Moyers's demands, please understand that this firm will vigorously defend Mr. Akin's rights and good name.
SLAD/cbt
Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media | Permalink
Comments
Wow. Can't wait to see what Cal Beisner says.
Posted by: Tim J. | Oct 19, 2006 11:46:16 AM
Is the Pope really one of your laywers? Just curious.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Oct 19, 2006 11:53:16 AM
Moyer's ratings must be slipping.
Posted by: Barbara | Oct 19, 2006 12:17:30 PM
LOL at Ed. Jimmy's law firm knows whose representatives have experience with justice.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Oct 19, 2006 12:18:58 PM
Does Moyers actually believe that nobody realizes he's an eager gun-slinger for any and all liberal/leftist causes? Or does he not himself realize he is?
Posted by: ELC | Oct 19, 2006 12:21:38 PM
What I find interesting in this is that BM, who alleges harm to his reputation, unleashes his New York lawyers on JA as his first solution to his problem. I certainly have no beef with a man who wants himself accurately portrayed in public, nor do I object to involving attorneys (obviously) in dispute resolution. But why assume there is a dispute in the first place? I know Jimmy; he is scrupulously fair, unlike some major players in the MSM. If BM's office had copied JA in on his personal note to ECB, Jimmy would certainly, at a minimum, have noted it in public.
Anyway, hats off to Jimmy and his counsel: it sometimes galls to the right thing when the right thing --which one would have done anyway-- is the subject of such an off-putting demand.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Oct 19, 2006 12:23:29 PM
What's with the Supersized signatures these attorneys are using? Is that an intimidation tactic or some way of indicating virility? It almost seems as if JA's lawyer made a point to demonstrate that his signature was bigger and even more outlandish than Bill's ...
Sorry for focusing on the mundane ...
Posted by: Mark | Oct 19, 2006 12:37:24 PM
Boy, do these guys really have nothing better to do...?
Posted by: Scott | Oct 19, 2006 12:45:33 PM
Bill Moyers' lawyers sound the way they do because that's the way lawyers sound. If you've ever received a stern, threatening letter after publishing the words "kitty litter" when you meant generic cat box filler rather than the trademarked product, you know what I mean.
They probably sent out the same letter to every web site that reprinted the Beisner claim without individually checking whether the person who runs the web site is ethical or otherwise. Fact is, though, that you can be guilty of libel or slander simply by reprinting or repeating somebody else's slanderous comment. Sort of reinforces that injunction not to gossip, eh?
Posted by: Carny | Oct 19, 2006 12:50:11 PM
Love the MACON, GA boys opening a can of whup-a** on them NEW YORK CITY fellas.
Posted by: franksta | Oct 19, 2006 12:51:47 PM
Go Feddie
Posted by: Papa-Lu | Oct 19, 2006 1:05:29 PM
Oh, and it looks like the letterhead and signatures of both law firms were scanned in.
Posted by: Papa-Lu | Oct 19, 2006 1:06:36 PM
The irony is that complying with Bill Moyers' demand has brought substantial additional attention to the allegedly defamatory remarks. I knew nothing about it until I learned of this entertaining exchange via Amy Welborn's site.
Posted by: Dan | Oct 19, 2006 1:07:15 PM
If it were anyone other than Ed Peters that posted it, I might be tempted to think that the reference to the "journalist" in question as "BM" was a coincidence and not a bit of toungue in cheek commentary.
Posted by: David | Oct 19, 2006 1:07:34 PM
Isn't the issue whether or not someone lied and in so doing attempted to smear another human being?
No? I guess it has to do with the size of signatures having something to do with the cahones.
It's good to see such clarity.
Posted by: Dan Crawford | Oct 19, 2006 1:07:48 PM
Isn't the issue whether or not someone lied and in so doing attempted to smear another human being?
It should be. As it is, it seems like it is word against word. I not sure they can make a defamation case out of that.
Posted by: Scott W | Oct 19, 2006 1:16:59 PM
Ditto to what Ed Peters said in his comment above, dated Oct 19, 2006 12:23:29 PM. All Mr. Moyers had to do was to e-mail his side of the story to Jimmy, and I'm sure that Jimmy would have been happy to publish it. There was no need for lawyers to get involved.
When Moyers threatens legal action without first pursuing other less severe remedies, it makes him look rather desperate and petty.
Posted by: | Oct 19, 2006 1:17:49 PM
Sorry, the anonymous post above was me. I didn't mean to leave my name off.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 19, 2006 1:18:23 PM
Dan Crawford,
Beisner may have lied, resulting in defamation to Moyer. But Jimmy published his post in good faith based on the information he had at the time. For Moyer's lawyers (fun, that rhymes) to send this letter was out-of-proportion and directed at the wrong source, proving that what it's REALLY about is intimidation.
Posted by: franksta | Oct 19, 2006 1:19:06 PM
I should also point out that Moyers' act of resorting to lawyers first, rather than simply contacting Jimmy first, conveys the impression that Moyers thinks that Jimmy is not willing to let all sides of this dispute be heard on his blog. In other words, it sounds as if he simply assumes that Jimmy's coverage of various issues is not fair and balanced.
It is only natural then to conclude that perhaps Moyers is projecting his own lack of objectivity onto Jimmy, and just assuming that because he (Moyers) does not always allow all sides to be heard, that others must follow the same practice. I'm not saying that this conclusion is necessarily true or not true -- for one thing, I don't watch Bill Moyers' show very often, and so I can't say just how badly slanted his coverage is or is not. But I do think that this is a conclusion that one could logically reach based on Moyers' actions.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 19, 2006 1:26:17 PM
Right.
Btw, Carny, that is NOT how all lawyers sound. I've seen plenty far less obnoxious notes on legal letterhead. In fact, plenty get resolved with a phone call. Also, do you have any evidence for the "this got sent to everybody" line? Curious to know. Finally, you need to brush up on libel law, there is considerably more to it than "repeating gossip", much as that might be morally wrong to do. JA's lawyers would have little problem defending in this case. Really.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Oct 19, 2006 1:26:22 PM
I remember when Bill Moyers was huffing and puffing about a quote he swore that James Watt said.
Guess what? Moyers was lying. And got caught.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009475.php
Sue that, Moyers.
Posted by: RW | Oct 19, 2006 1:28:13 PM
"But Jimmy published his post in good faith based on the information he had at the time. For Moyer's lawyers (fun, that rhymes) to send this letter was out-of-proportion and directed at the wrong source, proving that what it's REALLY about is intimidation
This kind of reminds me of 'Ben-Hur', where Judah Ben-Hur, although innocent, was punished by Messala in order to have him be made an example of, although Messala was aware of Judah's innocence.
Posted by: Esau | Oct 19, 2006 1:28:17 PM
If I call Moyer an idiot, I will not be sued.
Posted by: Karen | Oct 19, 2006 1:34:28 PM
I gave up taking anything BM said seriously back in the Reagan administration.
And isn't it surprising that Moyers, Steffy, Salinger, Andrea Mitchell et al have had access to demoncRAT administration either through their own efforts or through spousal influence (Mitchell is married to former Fed chair Greenspan)? And they say the MSM isn't biased...
Sue that, Moyers.
Regards,
Peter H.
Posted by: Peter Hughes | Oct 19, 2006 1:41:24 PM
BM an "independent"? That's just about as funny as letting BM stand for Bill Moyers....
This is the same BM who put together the anti-Goldwater daisy political ad. The arrogance of these left-liberal commentators is amazing! Another example of loving freedom of speech -- as long is you're speaking.
Posted by: Curious | Oct 19, 2006 1:51:12 PM
In the spring of 1969 I was a high school newspaper reporter. My class went to hear Bill Moyers speak on journalism at what was then North Texas State University.
Mr. Moyers told us words to the effect that there was no such thing as objective journalism, and that the reporter had a duty to report in such a way as to support progressive causes.
I don't have a tape recording of that speech, but it has stuck with me all these years, I hear it every time I see Mr Moyers on TV.
Posted by: Jim Howard | Oct 19, 2006 1:53:17 PM
Did anyone actually see that "Godly Green" thing? I did.
http://www.coalitionoftheswilling.net/archives/2006/10/not_only_is_god.html
If Moyers wasn't a such tool for the liberal left in that amazingly ready-just-before-election hit piece, no one would give a crap what anybody said. Lawyers ~ jeez. If you're gonna put it out there, Bill Old Boy ~ people are gonna talk.
(I'd sign my name real big like, but I don't have a pen.)
Posted by: tree hugging sister | Oct 19, 2006 1:59:01 PM
I get the chance to view Mr. Moyer's program each week. It is invariably critical of the Republican party or of conservative causes or individuals. I simply do not see how it is possible to be objective and yet always produce reports that are critical of the right, unless it were the case that no cause or individual on the left were ever wrong.
Posted by: Shane | Oct 19, 2006 2:04:41 PM
Did He of Didn't He:
"When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats."
Can Dr. E. Calvin Beisner provide unequivocal evidence of Mr. Moyers making the statement or not? Was the conversation taped and, if so, is there a transcript? If a lie was told, that needs to be the issue under discussion.
The rest is balderdash.
Posted by: Dick Mansuetto | Oct 19, 2006 2:12:22 PM
Jim Howard:
Mr. Moyers told us words to the effect that there was no such thing as objective journalism, and that the reporter had a duty to report in such a way as to support progressive causes.
Careful there, Jim. You'll be sued next. ;-)
Posted by: Eileen R | Oct 19, 2006 2:29:55 PM
Clearly, Jimmy's laywer has the MUCH cooler signature.
Posted by: Laura | Oct 19, 2006 2:30:39 PM
Back in 2000, during one of Mr. Moyers's watermelon pieces on his PBS show, he aired with a straight face the claim by an ecologist that the shifting of the water table for irrigation purposes would cause such an imbalance that the Earth's orbit and rotation would be altered. That was the first and last time this Astrodynamics-trained engineer watched NOW.
Posted by: Rinson Drei | Oct 19, 2006 2:40:40 PM
Don't worry, Jimmy. For it to be libel, it has to actually DAMAGE Moyer's reputation for impariality.
Posted by: tim | Oct 19, 2006 2:43:58 PM
There is no defamation on Jimmy's part. According to Electronic Frontier Foundation- http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php -defamation has to involve a knowledge on Jimmy's part that the statement was false. This would be impossible for BM to prove in a court of law.
Quote:
"A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet. "
Posted by: Tim | Oct 19, 2006 2:46:24 PM
It looks like Moyers's lawyers are hoping that Mr. Akin and his lawyers have never heard of the "actual malice" test of New York Times v. Sullivan.
Posted by: Seamus | Oct 19, 2006 2:47:08 PM
Wait a minute!
"Mr. Moyers's integrity as a journalist".
I think "journalistic integrity" is an oxymoron!
Posted by: Joe Gloor | Oct 19, 2006 3:03:43 PM
It looks like Mr. Moyers lawyers were hoping that Jimmy did not have a lawyer. The letter is ridiculous.
Posted by: b | Oct 19, 2006 3:13:16 PM
Don't be so hard on journalists in general. They fulfill a necessary social function, and many do take integrity and trying to be as unbiased as possible very seriously.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | Oct 19, 2006 3:14:23 PM
Bill Moyers is a silly old woman.
Posted by: Joshua S. Rubenstein | Oct 19, 2006 3:14:43 PM
There is a big difference between Jimmy's quote of the ISA news letter and Mr. Moyer's lawyers quote from the ISA news letter.
Jimmy's quote: He forthrightly told me before our interviews that he, as a liberal Democrat, hoped to use this program to divide the evangelical vote and return control of Congress to the Democrats in November’s elections.
Mr. Moyer's lawyers quote: When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats. Don't expect good science, economics, or ethics--or even journalistic balance.
Now the difference is Jimmy's quote says that Mr. Moyer's confession was done before the interview. Mr. Moyer's lawyers quote says that Mr. Moyer's confession occurred during the interview.
If the confession was done before the interview, it may not have been recorded and therefore could not be reproduced as requested by Mr. Moyer's lawyers.
Is it defaming someone by falsely accusing them of defaming you?
Posted by: Ben N. | Oct 19, 2006 3:30:43 PM
As my dad would say, "Bill Moyers can go pound sand!"
Posted by: Trubador | Oct 19, 2006 3:52:08 PM
Ben N., good catch on the difference in the quotes.
JRS: "(Journalists) fulfill a necessary social function..." Don't tempt me with straight lines like that. Several unsavory critters that "fulfill a necessary social function" just came to mind.
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 19, 2006 3:58:37 PM
"Is it defaming someone by falsely accusing them of defaming you?'
Sure, it can be.
And Tim's post is correct on the law. BM is a public figure, and there is no way that BM or his lawyers would ever be able to establish that our blog host published something he knew to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth. The "demand letter" was typical lawyer behavior. All too many of us law school grads earn our living thumping our chests and making threats. This is because (i) this is what our clients ask us to do and (ii) sometimes it works.
As far as Dr. Cal is concerned the issue is tougher. The legal question really simply distills into whether he was lying, "mis-remembering" or telling the truth. If a jury thinks he lied, then he loses. If they think he is telling the truth, he wins. If they think he made an honest mistake, then they will have to decide whether it was "reckless." Ties go to Dr. Cal, but not every "he said/she said" results in a tie. Juries can decide to believe one person and not the other.
Posted by: Mike Petrik | Oct 19, 2006 4:09:08 PM
bill912 and Joe Gloor,
Sorry, but my kinda-sorta girlfriend is a newspaper journalism major, so this is touching a bit close to home. Sure, there are unsavory journalists, and if you ask newspaper people broadcast journalism is pretty bad (apparently they don't check their facts), but it is not charitable or accurate to condemn a whole profession because of them.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | Oct 19, 2006 4:26:47 PM
Where is the offending post? It looks like Jimmy's lawyers advised its removal. Heh. This is the internet. IT's already copy/pasted in hundreds of other places. Let Freedom of Speech reign!
Posted by: Mia C. | Oct 19, 2006 4:29:10 PM
Mia,
The "offending post" is where it always was. Just below "Monogenism and Science." It has of course been bumped off the list of 10 most recent posts but click on October 2006 and scroll down below the most recent posts and you will find it, including an update about this issue.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | Oct 19, 2006 4:32:57 PM
J.R.
Thanks, I see it now! That's great, it still gives us ample time to copy/paste it everywhere!
Posted by: Mia C. | Oct 19, 2006 4:37:55 PM
I have just 2 words to say about Bill Moyers' alleged reputation for "integrity":
Posted by: Jay Anderson | Oct 19, 2006 4:38:50 PM
I am reading a book about negotiating written by an attorney - it is remarkably clear and easy to understand.
Today at lunch I read this quote from the book:
"For the most part if you get an attorney involved in the early stages of a dispute, the likelihood that the dispute will get worse instead of better is very high"
Mr. Moyer's involvement of his attorney, the letter from him, and the resulting posts/responses on the blogs illustrates this point very nicely.
Jimmy Akin had no choice but have his attorney respond.
Posted by: Mark Wyzalek | Oct 19, 2006 5:06:33 PM
The point is: Did Dr. E. Calvin Beisner tell a very serious, intentionally damaging lie?
Whatever one may think of Moyers is irrelevant.
Posted by: marianne | Oct 19, 2006 5:10:28 PM
While the claim made by Beisner is hardly unique, it's a statement against the professed integrity of the target. One either has to has evidence supporting the claim, or not make it. Otherwise, it's just hearsay.
Posted by: St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse | Oct 19, 2006 5:33:10 PM
Bill Moyers has just embarassed himself way more than Dr. Beisner possibly could have done.
This post needs a good round in the blogosphere. If Moyers doesn't like it when he is portrayed as a leftist enthusiast, there is no telling how he will react when he is exposed as a lawyer-loving sleazeball.
Posted by: Charlie | Oct 19, 2006 5:45:36 PM
It looks like Jimmy's blog gets more readership than previously thought.
I believe Cyrano de Bergerac would respond, "Is that all, young(old) sir? There are so many things you might have said, had you any tinge of letters or wit to color your discourse. But wit, no, sir, you never had an atom. And of letters, you need but three to write you down: A-S-S."
Posted by: David B. | Oct 19, 2006 6:51:10 PM
You need a paypal account so we can contribute $ to your defense.
Kick his liberal Donk
Posted by: DANEgerus | Oct 19, 2006 6:52:20 PM
Moyers really doesn't understand the new media, does he ? Well, this may be a lesson. Good lawyers usually tell a client when not to act the fool. These are either not very good lawyers or Moyers is determined to act the fool.
Posted by: Mike K | Oct 19, 2006 7:01:23 PM
Jay, what does the Daisy Ad have to do with Mr. Moyer?
Posted by: Shane | Oct 19, 2006 7:09:55 PM
Moyers doth protest too much. He elevates the quote to the valid. His supposed words are damaging only because they are believable. If they were so outlandish there would be no need for Moyers to react. BM has stepped in it and it's gonna stick. It's all damage control from this point.
Posted by: Fred | Oct 19, 2006 7:17:02 PM
He denys trying to split the evangelical vote with his documentary -- something he doesn't steer clear of even in the smarmy letter to you.
Posted by: Dave | Oct 19, 2006 7:19:15 PM
I'm no lawyer, but perhaps the real problem is the last sentence of Beisner's comment, i.e., the sentence that begins with "Don't expect" and ends with "journalistic balance."
In the context, it could be interpreted that Beisner was reporting that Moyers said something like that. I'll guess Beisner was just been giving his own personal opinion and that (in my non-lawyer opinion) a clarification on that point would be sufficient.
Posted by: Jim C. | Oct 19, 2006 7:31:54 PM
Jealous much?
Bill Moyers has had his statements read on the floor of the Senate, has a journalism degree, and is author of the New York Times Best Selling Book “How Would A Journalist Crush Dissent?" His comments often lead to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after just 9 months of blogging. I love how all you super-important rightwing bloggers attack me, I mean him, just to get traffic.
I bid you GOOD DAY, sir.
Posted by: Ellers Ellison "Ellsberg" McWilson | Oct 19, 2006 7:34:24 PM
Are we supposed to think that this EEEMcW character is Mr. Moyers himself?
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | Oct 19, 2006 7:40:03 PM
Actually that would be hilarious if Bill Moyers were posting such nonsense under a pseudonym!
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | Oct 19, 2006 7:42:28 PM
Just so everyone knows what the lawyers are talking about:
Defamation is a false written or oral statement that injures another's reputation.
Most jurisdictions would require Mr. Moyer to prove by clear and convincing evidence (since he is a public figure)that:
1. Mr. Akin made the alleged statement; and
2. the statement was about Mr. Moyer; and
3. the statement was false; and
4. that the statement caused special harm to M.r Moyer (because there is nothing inherently defamatory in saying that he is not impartial or that he is a liberal); and
5. the statement was published to one or more persons other than Mr. Moyer; and
6. Mr. Akin acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth against Mr. Moyer.
A statement is false when it is not substantially true. It is substantially true when the gist, substance or scheme of the statement is true, or is justified by the facts, taking the statement as a whole. The words must be given their natural and ordinary meaning, taking into consideration the circumstances in which the statement was made.
"Special harm" is an injury that is caused by the conduct of persons other than the plaintiff or the defendant acting as a result of the alleged defamatory statement. Special harm includes not only injury to reputation and exposure to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame, or disgrace, but also loss of income or business, loss of society, companionship and friendship. Mr. Moyer would also have to show that such injuries were proximately caused by Mr. Akin's statements and not some other source.
"Actual malice" occurs when a defendant makes a false statement either with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is false or not.
---------------------------------------------
Of course, truth is an affirmative defense. Mr. Akin might well enjoy a qualified immunity that members of the press might enjoy.
Finally, it would be interesting to see how Mr. Moyer or anyone else could prove that Mr. Akin was malicious or acted with reckless disregard. They would have to show that he had prior knowledge of the falsity of the statement or at the very minimum serious doubts as to the truth of the statement BEFORE he published the entry on his blog.
BTW~ and this is only my opinion if you ever read this Mr. Moyer, your program is a prime reason why the government should cease funding PBS.
Posted by: Paul Hoffer | Oct 19, 2006 7:45:06 PM
Forget defamation by falsely accusing someone of defamation:
Doesn't misrepresenting the facts by misquoting the ISA amount to something actionable (ethical charges?) against Moyers' lawyer, and perhaps Moyers?
Posted by: mockmook | Oct 19, 2006 7:52:18 PM
"Jay, what does the Daisy Ad have to do with Mr. Moyer?"
Posted by: Jay Anderson | Oct 19, 2006 8:28:20 PM
JRS, triple E is hiding behind a sock puppet. How very brave. OTOH, how very laughable.
When this post first went up, it occurred to me that the demand for the prominent display of the letters etc. would only demonstrate Moyers' overreaction. Thus is Romans 8 proved all over again, that all things work towards good for those who love God. (that's from memory so probably not word perfect)
Posted by: Mary Kay | Oct 19, 2006 8:40:00 PM
Is BM stepping in it, becoming a man-bites-dog story?
Posted by: ray | Oct 19, 2006 8:52:24 PM
Ha ha! Another sign that Moyers' cheese has definitely slipped off its cracker! How this guy, who is on the record as a "liberal" hater and moonbat, can think he will prevail in a libel suit is a testament as to his arrogance and cluelessness.
In fact, the suit is nothing more than an attempt to silence a critic. Using the legal system in a pathetic attempt to establish a specious legal claim comes damn close to the kind of "censorship of the powerful aka government" that the First Amendment was designed to protect against.
Moyers is doing nothing more than raising tiny little Fists of Fury against a blogger who has nailed his hate-contorted ass.
Posted by: fulldroolcup | Oct 19, 2006 8:58:50 PM
If I were a lawyer responding to the threats, my letter would read, simply:
"Puh-leeeeasse!"
I think that would be awesome.
Posted by: DaveS | Oct 19, 2006 9:06:29 PM
There goes all that taxpayer PBS money paid to this man. On lawyers! What would a Dem do without one. Mr. Moyer has always used PBS as his platform and he is now throwing it away for his fragile ego. If he does not think he has an agenda then let him live in his bubble of love.
Posted by: nike | Oct 19, 2006 9:48:21 PM
Ah, so that's why you needed the day off. :)
Posted by: Doogie | Oct 19, 2006 10:04:24 PM
"Another sign that Moyers' cheese has definitely slipped off its cracker!"
This is one of the best analogies ever...and comming from a southerner, and therefore a lover of analogies, that's a heck of a compliment.
I will certainly add that to my list!
Posted by: Kris | Oct 19, 2006 10:46:17 PM
I just happened onto this blog and this little debate by accident. You guys seem to be intelligent, thoughtful conservatives who appear to be legitimately concerned about protecting the right of freedom of speech. So I wonder: Do you really vote Republican? If so, WHY???? I don't get it...seems like all of your cheese has slipped off your collective crackers.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 19, 2006 11:06:27 PM
Here is a transcript of the Moyers/Beinstein interview, although as noted above, the Moyer's declaration of intent my have come before the tape was rolling:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/print/beisner_print.html
FWIW, "Triple-E" is a joke inspired by the Greenwald sock-puppetry, but I bet most people knew that.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | Oct 20, 2006 3:53:10 AM
So being called a "liberal Democrat" is defamatory?
T
Posted by: Tom | Oct 20, 2006 4:11:12 AM
I'm from Canada and don't understand any of this.Will Jimmy go to jail?Will Moyers become a multi-millionnaire?I'm told the border between us and the US is quite porous and a lot of baddies are going 'down there' from 'up here'..Jimmy: If you make a run for it now I could meet you at the border and you'll be safe.Canadians are also the biggest bloggers in the world so you could keep it going from up here...
Posted by: Charlie | Oct 20, 2006 4:24:35 AM
Fight the good fight, Jimmy. These guys have nothing but air, and the fact that BM (oh, such great initials - how was it that I've missed this before?) thinks threats and intimidation will help his case is hilariously mis-guided, belying his lack of character.
I find the idea of that BM reading these comments and harrumphing and harroopmhing in indignation rather funny, as uncharitable as that may be. :)
Prayers for you from Texas, Jim-Bo!
Chris
Posted by: Christopher | Oct 20, 2006 4:43:00 AM
Seems to me like BM has more money than brains if his knee-jerk reaction is to unleash the New York lawyers.
Posted by: jt82 | Oct 20, 2006 5:13:53 AM
Tom, yet another instance of how out-of-the-loop I am with popular culture. Thanks for the info. Guess I'll go crank up the Victrola now.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Oct 20, 2006 5:20:45 AM
I just happened onto this blog and this little debate by accident. You guys seem to be intelligent, thoughtful conservatives who appear to be legitimately concerned about protecting the right of freedom of speech. So I wonder: Do you really vote Republican? If so, WHY???? I don't get it...seems like all of your cheese has slipped off your collective crackers.
I'm not sure what you mean. My state is running semi-decent Republicans, so I will likely vote for them. Are you implying that the Republicans are against free speech in general? I don't see this as a particularly Republican shortcoming given that awful gift from the Left called politcal correctness.
Posted by: Scott W | Oct 20, 2006 5:46:16 AM
What the hell is up with Dillard's signature? Who does he think he is, Zorro?
Posted by: Mumblix Grumph | Oct 20, 2006 6:09:22 AM
Scott, under the new "Terrorist Interrogation" law recently passed by your Republicans (with the help of a few immoral Democrats) the President can declare anti-abortion activists to be terrorists lock them up, keep them locked up without filing formal charges, not allow them to petition a court for freedom, waterboard them until they "confess", and then use that "confession" to prosecute them in a military tribunal to either be sent away for a very long time or executed, all legally.
Like I say, you people have lost your cheese!
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 6:11:11 AM
Matt, you seem to have a rich fantasy life.
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 20, 2006 6:14:40 AM
Here's a quote I stumbled across recently. I don't particularly like applying the political party labels. It goes much deeper than that; maybe the humble and the arrogant.
"When caught the Republicans resign in shame (Gingrich, Foley, Livingston) the Democrats lawyer up."
Interesting how BM has lawyer'ed up.
Posted by: Brian R | Oct 20, 2006 6:28:42 AM
"Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media:"
Perhaps a new category is in order:
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Pride and Prejudice
sub-category: Egos and Lawyers
Posted by: Brian John Schuettler | Oct 20, 2006 6:37:13 AM
Hey, Jimmy. You've got linked at both The Corner and Instapundit.
Posted by: ELC | Oct 20, 2006 7:03:03 AM
An apologist named Jimmy Akin
Had attorneys hailing from Macon
So when journalist Moyers
Called forth New York lawyers
It was Jimmy who cooked Billy’s bacon
Posted by: franksta | Oct 20, 2006 7:15:50 AM
"Scott, under the new "Terrorist Interrogation" law recently passed by your Republicans (with the help of a few immoral Democrats) the President can declare anti-abortion activists to be terrorists lock them up, keep them locked up without filing formal charges, not allow them to petition a court for freedom, waterboard them until they "confess", and then use that "confession" to prosecute them in a military tribunal to either be sent away for a very long time or executed, all legally.
Like I say, you people have lost your cheese!"
You see folks, what Matt has tried to do here is appeal to our pro-life tendencies in hopes that we will finally see the evil ways of President Bush and the Republican party. If any of his claims be based in fact, rather than democrat rhetoric, it might have worked.
The act to which he refers protects us from terrorists--and not just the muslim ones. Good thing too, because we all know how unethical profiling is.
Sadly, the title of terrorist can be applied to some radical anti-aborition groups--the one's that miss the irony in bombing clinics to protect life. These are the one's the act can apply too--not your everyday life loving, rosary praying Catholics, who peacfully assemble in front of death clinics to pray for an end to baby killing.
Matt, with all due respect, I get enough liberal spin from my newspaper. How about a real representation of the facts for a change.
Posted by: Kris | Oct 20, 2006 7:24:34 AM
Oops, forgot to add:
(c) 2006 The Franksta. All rights reserved. Quote me without permission and I'll sue you, because that's what Jesus would do.
Posted by: franksta | Oct 20, 2006 7:28:34 AM
Every once in a while I see something that appeals to the 8th grader in me when it comes to humor.
"BM"
I can't stop snickering at that one. :)
Posted by: Stu | Oct 20, 2006 7:49:41 AM
I love how Moyer's smear of James Watt is based on "The Rapture".
This is why it is so important to teach everybody (Catholic, Christian, and otherwise) that "The Rapture" is not only no excuse for a carpe diem attitude that is anti-stewardship - "The Rapture" itself is not an article of faith to begin with!
"My people suffer for lack of knowledge..."
Posted by: Jamie Beu | Oct 20, 2006 8:14:21 AM
"Matt, you seem to have a rich fantasy life."
Bill and Kris, this blog seems to have a lot of lawyer types worked up over BM, why don't they comment to see if what I say is true? Under the law passed by peopel you support, the President can declare ANYONE a terrorist, lock him or her up, and you have no legal recourse. That is the fact, son. Your telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile President decides that Jimmy Akin's anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?
And you people are staying up late over BM...
Silly.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 8:37:55 AM
Oh, BTW I got over here from the Corner link.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 8:39:07 AM
Matt, these may be "facts" in the alternate reality you inhabit, but everything you posted is false in the real world.
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 20, 2006 8:42:29 AM
I wonder what Akin thinks about what I'm saying...He seemed awfully worried about a suit from little old BM. What about when the Feds come a knockin?
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 8:44:08 AM
"I wonder what Akin thinks about what I'm saying...He seemed awfully worried about a suit from little old BM. What about when the Feds come a knockin?"
What has Jimmy said or done which gives the impression that he is worried about legal action from Mr. Moyers? I certainly haven't gotten that impression at all.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 8:56:32 AM
"Your telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile President decides that Jimmy Akin's anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?"
What universe did you just step out of?
Talk about a 'slippery slope'!
I hear North Korea's nuclear tests were also the result of Jimmy Akin's anti-abortion stance as well! Kim Jong-il essentially wanted to put an end to people like Jimmy Akin and so he was endeavoring to solve the problem by trying to devise a way to get rid of America all together by developing nuclear capabilities in order to make certain of this!
Sorry... A vain attempt in trying to be just as ridiculous...
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 9:03:23 AM
Gee, I don't know, he lawyered up awful fast and gave Moyers everything he asked for and then proceeded to publish everything on his Blog so we could all see how he is being bullied by the big bad BM. Boo hoo! Yet any real legal protections for his right to say what he pleases has just been eliminated by the Repubs. Is this really that hard?
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 9:03:34 AM
Paul, that's because Matt sounds like a troll. No one else except Matt has gotten that impression and it's probably wishful thinking on Matt's part.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Oct 20, 2006 9:04:22 AM
"Gee, I don't know, he lawyered up awful fast..."
What would you have done?
Rolled over, played dead, and become a doormat for these folks to step on?
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 9:08:17 AM
Folks, I've got work to do, but this has been fun. A little weird but fun. I'll visit later to see if any of the legal experts who have been griping abou BM have anything to say about my posts.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 9:09:06 AM
"Your(sic) telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile president decides that Jimmy Akins' anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?"
Nope. I can never get the tinfoil tight enough to imagine that.
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 20, 2006 9:12:54 AM
I may be really dumb, but I don't get why the initials "BM" are funny.
Posted by: Michael Sullivan | Oct 20, 2006 9:13:30 AM
I am pround to have gotten in with the first "Daisy" reference to BM!
Matt, go back to Democratic Underground, or the Huffington Post, or Salon. You're not going to take in any cultural conservatives here. We know who our political enemies are and they've got BM all over them.
See ya at the polls!
Posted by: Curious | Oct 20, 2006 9:15:21 AM
"Your(sic) telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile president decides that Jimmy Akins' anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?"
Nope. I can never get the tinfoil tight enough to imagine that.
- CLASSIC!
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 9:21:51 AM
Ah, my public! How they love me!
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 20, 2006 9:26:09 AM
Bill912,
I just wished I thought of it! ;^)
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 9:27:04 AM
"I may be really dumb, but I don't get why the initials "BM" are funny."
Beats me -- I don't get this either...
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 9:28:47 AM
BM also stands for something that happens in the bathroom.
Posted by: Publius | Oct 20, 2006 9:31:22 AM
Thank you, Publius. I just had a V-8 moment.
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 20, 2006 9:32:56 AM
BM is abbreviation for "bowel movement".
Posted by: Trubador | Oct 20, 2006 9:38:46 AM
"Your telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile President decides that Jimmy Akin's anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?"
I suppose I could imagine that...perhaps if the president is a Clinton or another fan of baby killing.
Posted by: Kris | Oct 20, 2006 10:04:50 AM
"Gee, I don't know, he lawyered up awful fast and gave Moyers everything he asked for and then proceeded to publish everything on his Blog..."
Um, first of all, I'm pretty sure that Jimmy's lawyer is a friend of his who is a Catholic / conservative blogger -- though I'm open to correction if I'm wrong about Jimmy's lawyer's identity. So I don't think that Jimmy actually went out and hired a lawyer just for this exchange -- I think it's more likely that he simply enlisted the help of a friend and fellow blogger (who really is a lawyer though). That piece of information (if I'm right about it) might help you put Jimmy's response in perspective.
Second, based on my experiences as a regular reader of this blog for a couple of years now, I can say with confidence that had Moyers simply contacted Jimmy privately, Jimmy would have been happy to publish Moyers' side of the story here on the blog. But since Moyers chose to get lawyers involved from the get-go, I would guess that Jimmy figured a more appropriate response would be not only to publish Moyers' side of the story in the interests of fairness (which he almost definitely would have done anyway), but also to publish the whole exchange in order to demonstrate how ridiculous Moyers is being about this whole thing.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 10:07:12 AM
"...(Jimmy Akin) lawyered up awful fast..."
Actually, it was Moyers who "lawyered up awful fast". As Ed Peters pointed out, Jimmy would have posted BM's reply had BM just e-mailed him a copy simply because that's what a man of integrity does.
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 20, 2006 10:07:16 AM
Still no response to the substance of my arguments. A lot of silly avoidance of the subject though, and, of course, a quickie Google to post my work phone number. Nice touch. There's more out there should you bother to look.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 10:13:07 AM
"Still no response to the substance of my arguments."
Hi Matt,
OK, I'll bite. I'll respond to the substance of your argument, which seems to be as follows, if I understand it correctly: How can we vote for Republicans, considering that their anti-terrorism policies violate basic civil rights, and considering that these policies could later be used against conservative activists rather than against real terrorists?
Ok, well first of all, I would dispute your premise. I think that you are stretching credulity almost to the breaking point with your examples. However, I do agree with you one on thing: I do agree that there are many very valid reasons not to vote for many Republicans, even if I think that the particular reason that you gave is not one of them, or at most is low on the list. I agree that many individual Republicans, including President Bush, have enacted many bad policies, have made many mistakes, and are misguided in their approach to a number of issues.
Second, I have no idea how the folks who have commented here vote, so I can speak only for myself. And I don't consider myself a Republican. When I vote, I take the following approach: I consider each candidate for each office, and I pick the one who I think is the best, or the one who is the least bad -- sometimes excluding any third-party candidates who probably don't have a legitimate chance to win.
But here's the kicker: When I take this approach, I find that (at least for non-local offices) the Republican candidate -- for all the faults that he may have -- is a better choice (or a less bad choice) than the Democrat candidate, at least 95% of the time. And that's because while the list of reasons not to vote for many Republicans is a mile long, the list of reasons not to vote for most Democrats is about 50 to 100 miles long. And that's the sad truth of our current political landscape, as I see it.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 10:28:20 AM
"Still no response to the substance of my arguments."
I think Paul H had done just that.
Besides, do you really think any respectable legal type folks (i.e., law students, actual lawyers) would really waste their time on a legal technical analysis on what you just posed?
Most of it borders on the edge of outrageous fantasy and just plain ridiculous. It's surprising that you didn't go as far as to say that the sitting president was actually 'Tony Soprano'.
I mean look at what you just said:
"Your telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile President decides that Jimmy Akin's anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?"
Really now, does that accurately reflect reality?
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 10:34:55 AM
"Really now, does that accurately reflect reality?"
I think he really believes it does, Esau.
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 20, 2006 10:38:22 AM
Also, Matt, I would like to point out that your scenario implicitly assumes that at some point after Bush leaves office, a liberal, pro-choice (thus most likely Democrat) president is elected, and chooses to use Bush's anti-terrorism policies as a means for harrassing pro-life activists by labelling them as terrorists.
But if the hypothetical Democrat president is the one who is abusing these policies by prosecuting pro-life activists, then what conclusion should we draw from this scenario? Should we conclude that it is stupid to vote for Republicans because they enacted these policies in the first place? Or should we conclude that it is stupid to vote for Democrats, because apparently they are going to horribly abuse these policies at some point in the future? It seems to me even if I take your scenario completely at face value, and assume that it is 100% credible, that the Democrats come out looking far worse than the Republicans in this scenario, and far less deserving of votes.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 10:38:46 AM
Hey Paul, thanks for that. And so we disagree on a substantive matter: I think the Republicans are a threat to our basic rights as American citizens and have acted to make our country more like the fundamentalist islamic regimes who supposedly hate "our liberties". Well, under the Republicans there is one less liberty for them to hate.
I have been insistent on this thread because what has been lost affects not just the "terrorists" but you, me, Jimmy Akin, and every other citizen. There are some lines which should never be crossed and the Republicans have blown through it. BM's baseles threats to Jimmy pale in comparison to what may come in the future. Keep the faith.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 10:41:30 AM
"Folks, I've got work to do, but this has been fun."
From his first words to his last, Matt demonstrates that he is a troll, seeking only to divert the discussion from what's wrong with Bill Moyers and to have a little fun insulting those he disagrees with. As friends sometimes have to remind me, "please do not feed the troll."
Posted by: pst314 | Oct 20, 2006 10:44:27 AM
Matt,
a) Give people time to respond. I may be able to sneak some blog time at work, but I don't have the time to construct lengthy replies except on lunch, and that has to fit around silly things like eating.
b) You are coming across as a bit of a troll. That makes it less likely that people will take you seriously and respond with any thought to what you've written, apart from ridicule.
Whoever Googled him and posted his full name and work number:
That doesn't seem cricket to me. Respond to him at his e-mail address, by all means, since he was decent enough to use it instead of hiding behind anonymity and a pseudonym, but don't go Googling someone and posting their contact info. If he wanted all of us to have it, he'd have posted it himself.
That said, it's Jimmy's blog and if he has the opportunity to read these comments (I know he doesn't always), he'll make his own judgment. Just had to chip in my two cents.
End of lunch hour, end of message.
Posted by: Kasia | Oct 20, 2006 10:45:00 AM
"I remember when Bill Moyers was huffing and puffing about a quote he swore that James Watt said."
Thanks for reminding us of that. Moyers has a long history of, er, um, "creative" reporting.
Posted by: pst314 | Oct 20, 2006 10:46:20 AM
Kasia, um, don't take anything Matt says at face value. I didn't search (is it possible to Google search an email address?). However, I do know that the 506 area code is in New Brunswick. As in Canada.
Let me repeat the good advice given above:
*Please Do Not Feed the Troll*
Posted by: Mary Kay | Oct 20, 2006 11:00:00 AM
Now that all my BM jokes have passed, I think I'll return to what ought to be the thread of this exchange.
It is outrageous that Moyers should be using legal thugs to stifle free speech (which disagrees with him). Here we are seeing the soft fascism of the liberal left. This ain't trivial stuff. Jimmy is having to waste his own money and time to defend himself against this legal thuggery. People like BM have deep pockets for attacking innocents. This strategy is a great one for silencing enemies. Notice we haven't seen any real blog posts from Jimmy in 2 days because of this garbage. Courage, Jimmy!
Posted by: Curious | Oct 20, 2006 11:30:05 AM
Hi Mary Kay,
Actually, I did Google the e-mail address to see whether it was possible before I posted. It does work. That's why I said it didn't seem cricket. I didn't know it was a Canadian phone number, though - maybe he went there seeking asylum from the Republicans. :-)
Anyway, good point - trolls should not be fed. Thanks for reiterating. I was thinking just this morning about a former professor of mine who told me that I don't have to confront every bad argument I come across...
Posted by: Kasia | Oct 20, 2006 11:30:53 AM
"Scott, under the new "Terrorist Interrogation" law recently passed by your Republicans (with the help of a few immoral Democrats) the President can declare anti-abortion activists to be terrorists lock them up, keep them locked up without filing formal charges, not allow them to petition a court for freedom, waterboard them until they "confess", and then use that "confession" to prosecute them in a military tribunal to either be sent away for a very long time or executed, all legally."
Matt:
Do you even recall all the harm and injustice that was done to peaceful pro-life people who under the justice system of the Clinton Administration suffered tremendous injustices.
Look at what happened to Dr. Paul Schenck.
Dr. Paul Schenck was a Protestant pastor (who later became Catholic) in New York. Back then, a parishioner brought him a bag from an abortion clinic near her house. In them were the remains of 4 unborn children, little babies that would fit in the palm of your hand, little baby faces, hands and feet, little depressions where their toenail, fingernail would grow. They could tell the sex on two of the children. But, these babies were dismembered, eviscerated, decaptitated; one little boy's spine was sticking out of his back, arms and legs severed away. One little girl -- dimple in her cheek, her head cut straight in half.
Since then, Dr. Schenck participated in pro-life activities like praying in the front of abortion mills and handing out bibles there. For the latter, under the justice system of Clinton Administration, he was sent to two years in federal prison and fined $300,000. Furthermore, he actually went on to endure seven years of court hearings, serving several times in federal prison, placed under house arrest, and spent some $788,000 in legal defense expenses. In fact, President Clinton sent Walter Dellinger, his solicitor general, to argue against Schenck. Schenck though finally won in his case against the Pro-Choice Network following a 8-1 vote by the Supreme Court in 1997.
For those truly interested in hearing his story, go to:
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/searchprog.asp
Look for the Journey Home program where Marcus Grodi had interviewed him regarding his conversion which mentions some of the events.
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 11:34:06 AM
I'm gonna stop because you guys either can't get my point or don't want to acknowledge my point. Along these lines I respond to Esau: the Republicans just gave a future President Clinton the legal right to declare Dr. Schenck a "terrorist", apprehend him, waterboard him until he "confesses" to being a part of a terrorist anti-abortion network, prosecute him using that confession and using hearsay claims of abortion clinic employees ("He said he was going to blow up a clinic"), and send him away to jail for the rest of his life without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.
The scenario I have just presented to you can occur under the legislation just passed. It is not a fantasy. What is a fantasy is your stubborn belief that it could never happen to you.
And as for me being a troll, I am posting legitimate concerns within the thread of a post about some wealthy bully legally threatening a blogger's freedom of speech. You folks have no business making complaints about some supposed threat to freedom of speech as you have (apparently) willingly given up your constitutional rights in the name of...I don't know what!
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 11:50:05 AM
"...the Republicans just gave a future President Clinton the legal right to declare Dr. Schenck a "terrorist", apprehend him, waterboard him until he "confesses" to being a part of a terrorist anti-abortion network, prosecute him using that confession and using hearsay claims of abortion clinic employees ("He said he was going to blow up a clinic"), and send him away to jail for the rest of his life without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.
The scenario I have just presented to you can occur under the legislation just passed. It is not a fantasy. What is a fantasy is your stubborn belief that it could never happen to you."
You're missing the point: whereas the hypothetical situation you've come up with can resides only in pure conjecture and outrageous fantasy whereas what happened to Dr. Paul Schenck is actually real and DID HAPPEN to him under the auspices of the Clinton Administration.
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 12:02:52 PM
Matt,
You are making huge assumptions about who we are and our political affiliations. Plus, you are being incredibly patronizing about your overwhelming brilliance and our cosmic stupidity. Here's half your original post:
"Do you really vote Republican? If so, WHY???? I don't get it...seems like all of your cheese has slipped off your collective crackers."
Aside from that, you have hijacked this post to focus on your bitter, myopic political agenda. This is not a political forum so why don't you go light a candle at your Nancy Pelossi shrine and leave us alone!
Posted by: Mark | Oct 20, 2006 12:05:11 PM
Kasia, thanks, I learn something new everyday.
Matt, if you want a serious discussion, you might want to present yourself in a less troll-like manner.
You can't blame liberal lunacies on on Republicans or the recently passed terrorist interrogation act. For a number of years, abortion advocates have unjustly and inappropriately used existing laws to intimidate and harass pro-lifers.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Oct 20, 2006 12:06:38 PM
"I'm gonna stop because you guys either can't get my point or don't want to acknowledge my point. Along these lines I respond to Esau: the Republicans just gave a future President Clinton the legal right to declare Dr. Schenck a "terrorist", apprehend him, waterboard him until he "confesses" to being a part of a terrorist anti-abortion network, prosecute him using that confession and using hearsay claims of abortion clinic employees ("He said he was going to blow up a clinic"), and send him away to jail for the rest of his life without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom."
Let me try again to make my previous point in a slightly different way:
So you are advocating that we vote for the Democrats who (according to you, with your example of a future President Clinton) will abuse these anti-terrorism policies. Apparently, such abuse of these policies must then be a lesser evil than what the Republicans have done by putting these policies in place, since you think we should vote for Democrats instead of Republicans.
Let me accept your scenario at face value for a moment (but only for a moment). In doing so, I come to a different conclusion. If I see a man give another man a weapon, where that weapon could be used for good or for evil, and then if I see the second man use the weapon for evil -- well in that case, I may blame both men, but I would give much greater blame to the one who actually used the weapon.
If you are so convinced that a future Democrat president is going to misuse anti-terrorism legislation to go after pro-life activists, then can you please explain again exactly why this is an argument in favor of voting for Democrats??? Sorry, but I'm just not following your logic, at all.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 12:10:28 PM
OK, ok. I give up. Your cheese is obviously firmly planted on your cracker and 506 is the country code for Costa Rica. Shalom.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 12:13:21 PM
Heh heh, BM.
Crap, I'm too late..
Heh, heh, crap..
Posted by: Jay E. Adrian | Oct 20, 2006 12:14:04 PM
And please let me make one further attempt at simplifying my point:
Republicans, according to Matt:
Create anti-terrorism policies which could potentially be abused.
Democrats, according to Matt:
Abuse such policies to prosecute innocent non-terrorists.
Matt, please explain to me how the Democrats are the lesser of two evils in your scenario.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 12:14:59 PM
"Jimmy is having to waste his own money and time to defend himself against this legal thuggery. People like BM have deep pockets for attacking innocents. This strategy is a great one for silencing enemies. Notice we haven't seen any real blog posts from Jimmy in 2 days because of this garbage. Courage, Jimmy!"
I think Curious might have the right idea where we have got to encourage Jimmy in these times.
I should take Mary Kay's advice and "*Please Do Not Feed the Troll*".
It is indeed rather unjust that Jimmy, who is an innocent, got hammered with all this. Earlier I had brought up the Ben-Hur analogy where in this case Jimmy, the innocent Judah Ben-Hur, is being punished by Messala, BM and his cadre of legal goons, all, it seems, to make an example of him for other folks who might otherwise commit a similar action, in spite of their innocence in the matter.
Jimmy, if there's anything we can do, say somethin', brutha!
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 12:16:27 PM
I just logged in (after work for me... yay!) and I see that no one has mentioned "watchdog" legal representation yet. That is, once Bill Moyers hired his lawyer to deal with the issue between him and Dr. Beisner, the law firm would go on automatic pilot. A cursory search of the Internet would pull up Jimmy's post, which then would automatically be a cause for the firm to send out their letter.
It's not much different with what happened after Spaggo's restaurant managed to dupe the copyright office into giving them proprietorship over the word "spaggo" (which is "snack). They systematically threatened any restaurant with that name. A little restaurant off Woodward in Detroit had to change its name, even though it had been Spaggo since it opened when my dad was a kid.
Posted by: MissJean | Oct 20, 2006 12:23:05 PM
Oops, posted too soon. What I meant to add is that most law firms don't follow up on these threatening letters. Jimmy is no danger of being sued by Bill Moyers, unless Mr. Moyers' lawyer doesn't mind making his client look like a fool and/or a villain.
Posted by: MissJean | Oct 20, 2006 12:30:06 PM
Exactly -- I never thought that Moyers' lawyers had any intention of actually taking legal action. They probably just figure that a threatening letter will accomplish their goal -- even though a friendly letter would have accomplished it even better.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 12:33:08 PM
"Exactly -- I never thought that Moyers' lawyers had any intention of actually taking legal action. They probably just figure that a threatening letter will accomplish their goal -- even though a friendly letter would have accomplished it even better."
But let's be thankful that they did the send the letter. Without this whole incident, we would have never been exposed to "BM". :)
Posted by: Stu | Oct 20, 2006 12:36:49 PM
Matt, thanks for the clarification about the country code. Please remember that at the time, I had no idea that you worked in Costa Rica.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Oct 20, 2006 12:37:18 PM
Matt,
Do you have a link to the new Act?
Posted by: Sam Spade | Oct 20, 2006 12:49:28 PM
Upon studying the new Act, I've yet to find anything in it that hasn't been allowed in the past. Most if not all the tactics outlined in the act have been used at some time or another against organized criminals and gang...why not terrorists?
Posted by: Kris | Oct 20, 2006 1:28:26 PM
I think the other thing to bear in mind is that just about any legislation can be used to harass and intimidate. Anything can be abused. And for what it's worth, I seem to recall that one of the sticking points was waterboarding, so they (the sponsors) took it out.
Mark Shea does extensive discussion of torture and why we as a nation should not try to justify it, and John McCain is a Republican who is prominently against torture. I don't think it's as simple as breaking down to "you support the Republicans so you support torture (or this act specifically)" or "you support the Democrats so you support welfare and abortion". There are exceptions on both sides, and as someone pointed out early on, I think most people break it down to the least-worst candidate rather than the the nonexistent one who aligns perfectly with their views. It's a line of best-fit; it doesn't hit all the points.
Posted by: Kasia | Oct 20, 2006 1:47:38 PM
"Oops, posted too soon. What I meant to add is that most law firms don't follow up on these threatening letters. Jimmy is no danger of being sued by Bill Moyers, unless Mr. Moyers' lawyer doesn't mind making his client look like a fool and/or a villain."
Welcome to the discussion, Miss Jean. Unfortunately, Jimmy can't assume that these threats are empty. He has too much to lose. That's why this legal intimidation is so chilling to free speech. The mere act of making the threat, even if it is silly, requires some defense, which sucks away time and resources.
Also, from what little understanding I have of the law, ignoring the threat could give grounds for further, more damaging, legal attacks.
Bill Moyers is such a woosey. He can dish it out on TV just fine, but heaven forbid that someone in the new media challenge him at all!
Posted by: Curious | Oct 20, 2006 2:16:07 PM
>I've yet to find anything in it that hasn't been allowed in the past...why not terrorists?
Who gets to say they're "terrorists"? With no review at all? I think that's Matt's point, even though he didn't make it very well.
Paul's turnabout on Matt's argument is clever but, as I'm sure he knows, really does miss the real issue. I think it's not that one party would be any more likely to abuse power than another. It's that even if the current guy can be trusted, you don't know who the next dude will be, or the chick after that. Matt was just being ham-handed and condescending by trying to hit the abortion hot button. Bad Matt.
And yeah, Moyers's Lawyers need a refresher in diplomacy. And handwriting.
PS: Whoever posted Matt's personal information is reprehensible.
Posted by: NW | Oct 20, 2006 2:36:06 PM
Paul's turnabout on Matt's argument is clever but, as I'm sure he knows, really does miss the real issue.
I'm not sure that I see how it does miss the real issue. One point that I'm trying to get at is that if you are worried about the President (or Congress, or a state governor, etc.) abusing power, then it seems that there are two things that you can do to avoid such abuse:
(1) You can try to limit the power of the office, so that there is less power to abuse, or
(2) You can try to elect good people to the office so that they are less likely to abuse whatever power they have.
I think that BOTH (1) and (2) are important. But I have become convinced over the years that (2) is *more* important. As someone else pointed out above, if you have someone who is determined to abuse power, they'll find a way to do it. If they are determined to abuse power, then they probably don't care what the law says that they can or can't do; they only care about what they can get away with. So I'd like to see us do our best on points (1) and (2), but my own experience as a political observer has convinced me that (2) is more important than (1).
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 2:56:22 PM
"Also, from what little understanding I have of the law, ignoring the threat could give grounds for further, more damaging, legal attacks."
Actually, this is truer than you know.
Now, this might not be precisely the same predicament that Ole Jimmy might be in, but anyone heard of the news story where a blogger ended up with a judgment against her for $11 Million?
A Law University consultant had informed the news radio station that aired it that it was that big primarily because (now, please correct me if this isn't the precise term) it was a 'default judgment' that the judge had to render on the case since the defendent didn't defend herself.
Had that person (the blogger) actually defended herself in court, it may not have come to that. However, this person understandably couldn't defend herself in court because, as it was explained by the News folks, she couldn't even afford a lawyer to defend her since she happened to be one of the victims of New Orleans and, furthermore, had to be relocated elsewhere and couldn't even go back to that venue where the case was being held.
Talk about adding insult to injury!
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 2:58:07 PM
Also, as a follow-up to my previous comment: Regardless of whether my "turnabout on Matt's argument . . . does miss the real issue" or not, I have yet to hear a good response to it.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 3:00:08 PM
Also, there was an assumption made that what Matt posted was true (or might be). I just don't see that.
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 20, 2006 3:08:09 PM
Also, there was an assumption made that what Matt posted was true (or might be). I just don't see that.
Exactly. I tend to agree.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 3:25:35 PM
Whoever posted Matt's personal information is reprehensible.
Matt's personal information is gone. I wouldn't want that done to me; I won't have it being done to others on my blog.
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | Oct 20, 2006 3:29:16 PM
>(1) You can try to limit the power of the office, so that there is less power to abuse, or
(2) You can try to elect good people to the office so that they are less likely to abuse whatever power they have.
Option no. 1 = The whole point of the United States in the first place.
Option no. 2 = See option no. 1.
PS: Good on ya, Jimmy.
Posted by: NW | Oct 20, 2006 3:30:25 PM
Another example of the chilling of free speech which this legal intimidation causes is the fact that Jimmy is not commenting on the situation at all. He has probably been advised by counsel to make no comment on ongoing litigation. Thanks again BM!
Posted by: Curious | Oct 20, 2006 3:39:22 PM
Hey, knock off the cracks about BM. He's a champion of free speech. He'll fight to the death for your right to agree with him!
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 20, 2006 3:41:44 PM
Jimmy, hope you're okay. This has got to be stressful.
--Ann
Posted by: Ann Margaret Lewis | Oct 20, 2006 3:52:34 PM
"Matt's personal information is gone. I wouldn't want that done to me; I won't have it being done to others on my blog."
Kudos. As my dad would say, Jimmy, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
Posted by: Kasia | Oct 20, 2006 4:33:02 PM
He'll fight to the death for your right to agree with him!
LOL! :-)
Actually though, I did catch a bit of a PBS documentary the other night which I think Moyers was involved with, on "internet neutrality". And to his/their credit, I have to point out that the documentary used a pro-Second Amendment group as one example of a group whose free speech could be stifled if the big bad Republicans and the big bad telephone and cable corporations get their way. Ok, they didn't exactly use the words "big bad", but those words were implied. :)
Anyway, while I thought that this documentary was probably making too big a deal out of the whole issue, I was impressed that they at least gave the appearance of being concerned with the free speech rights of conservative groups.
Posted by: Paul H | Oct 20, 2006 4:34:23 PM
"Hey, knock off the cracks about BM. He's a champion of free speech. He'll fight to the death for your right to agree with him!"
bill912,
You're outta control, brutha!
You've been on a role since this morning!
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 4:38:12 PM
Matt:
You may be gone by now, but I think the main problem people have responding to your posts is that all you have done is made an assertion -- that some Republican-supported anti-terrorism act can be used to proclaim anyone a terrorist and take away his right to a fair trial, etc. But you have not provided any actual text from the act that says so.
Both people who work in the legal field and people who work in Catholic apologetics are accustomed to dealing with actual texts from source materials -- whether scripture verses or code sections -- and not merely people's assertions of what the texts say. If the act means what you say it means, then presumably few people here would favor it. So prove to us that it means what you say: quote chapter and verse, so to speak, so that we have something of substance to argue about and are not simply asserting and denying.
Posted by: Mark Johnson | Oct 20, 2006 4:40:44 PM
"Kudos. As my dad would say, Jimmy, you're a gentleman and a scholar."
Was there any doubt?!?! ;^)
Posted by: Esau | Oct 20, 2006 4:41:05 PM
Esau,
Well, I've not met Jimmy, but I'd suspected as much from reading his blog. This just confirmed my suspicions. ;-)
(And if I may take one swipe at a dead horse, it's one more piece of proof that Moyers' lawyers went completely overboard. Had to say it...)
Posted by: Kasia | Oct 20, 2006 5:05:32 PM
Can't resist, I'm still here. Here you go Mark:
http://ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/Docs/MCA_Signing_Briefing_Paper.pdf
If BM's letter has caused this much concern just imagine if Jimmy had received just the threat of being called an "unlawful enemy combatant" by the NSA. Heck you don't even have the option of bringing in your buddy the attorney. NW has it right, just because you think the power isn't going to be abused now is no excuse for accepting such an atrocious attack on our rights.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 20, 2006 5:29:12 PM
"If BM's letter has caused this much concern"
Matt, you seem to have missed what several people have posted above: that the "concern" expressed has not been excessive, but simply the normal and appropriate response to the letter that Moyer's lawyers sent.
It does seem that you are making an attempt to stir the pot.
The second thing is that I checked CCR. On several issues, it has taken positions contrary to Catholic teaching.
I've looked through the five pages that you linked to. I get that you are concerned about the recently passed act. However, one wonders why you are attempting to introduce such a political topic to a blog that is primarily about Catholic apologetics.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Oct 20, 2006 6:11:32 PM
Matt:
The link you provided is nothing but a list of further assertions about what the anti-terrorism act means. I don't see the point in arguing about what you think the act means, or what the Center for Constitutional Rights says it means, rather that what it does in fact mean. And the only way to argue about that is to cite chapter and verse *from the act itself*.
If you and I were to argue about the meaning of the Gettysburg address, would we do so by me citing Stephen Douglas's interpretation of it, and you citing your own interpretation of it, without looking at the address itself?
Since you started out making assertions about what the act means, it's incumbent on you to cite chapter and verse from the act to support your assertions. However for the heck of it I looked it up for myself (just by Googling "military commissions act") and found that it contains this statement which seems to contradict what you said the act does: "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter." Sec. 948c. So those subject to the act are not American anti-abortion protesters, but *alien* *enemy* *combatants*.
Sure, the Bush administration can claim that an anti-abortion protester is an alien enemy combatant, but for that matter he could claim that my grandmother is a trolley car. If you are worried about people ignoring the true definitions of words, then you may as well worry about every law on the books because in that case any law can mean anything the president says it means, and there's no more reason to worry about this law than about an anti-jaywalking law.
Posted by: Mark Johnson | Oct 20, 2006 9:32:55 PM
I will offer one more argument to Matt and then quit this topic at least on this thread, since it is off the topic of the thread. Matt (or anyone else), feel free to e-mail me if you want to continue the debate in private.
My argument is this: If you think Republicans are nuts for supporting the Military Commissions Act because it could be misused by this or future administrations -- and it makes no sense to not be worried simply because we believe the current administration to be benign, because after all some future administration may not be benign -- then I can't for the life of me figure out why you Democrats favor gun control. If you are so worried about the government currently or in the future oppressing and persecuting its own people, then why on earth would you want the people to be disarmed in the face of an oppressive government?
This is precisely the reason -- one reason anyway -- why the NRA opposes gun control (the other major one being the right of self-defense against criminals). Democrats who profess to be shaking in their boots when they contemplate how fascistic our government has become must be completely looney to favor gun control.
Posted by: Mark Johnson | Oct 20, 2006 9:51:32 PM
I never understood why Moyers does not have the integrity to put himself out there as a pundit like many other liberal and conservative COMMENTATORS have. A simple, "Hi, I am Bill Moyers, I am a Democrat and this is why... here I stand, this is what I believe, this is who I am" approach. Agree or disagree with his points, at least I could respect that as an action of someone not trying to pose as something he is NOT - an objective journalist.
Pat Buchanan has a journalism degree. Would anyone think of him as being an objective journalist? NO. He makes arguments for what he believes and is open about espousing it. Agree or disagree, that is what he thinks and he is telling the world just that.
If PAT were to approach PBS about doing a show as an "objective journalist" rather than what he is - a writer with a distinct political philosophy who has run for president and is active in politics, he would get laughed out of the joint.
Yet we are to believe that BM, a staff member of two Democratic White Houses, is an unbiased objective journalist? Sure, and Karl Rove has been thinking about getting a gig as a cub reporter for TIME.
Bill, just come out of the closet. You support liberal politics, you advance liberal causes, you are....
(DRUM ROLL)
a liberal commentator.
Just call a spade a spade.
Posted by: A Simple Sinner | Oct 20, 2006 10:04:40 PM
Mary Kay:
Most people in the world have taken positions against "Catholic teaching" In fact, there is a raging debate among Catholics yourselves about what Catholic teaching, correct? Please don't shoot the messenger.
Mark:
From the link I found via the Wash. Post:
"Could American citizens be held as “enemy combatants” or as “unlawful enemy
combatants?
Yes. The MCA includes language that states that persons who “materially
support” hostilities against the U.S. can be labeled and held as ‘unlawful enemy
combatants.’ This might include, for instance, someone who donates money