Moyers Exchange

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

ORIGINAL PDF.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

ORIGINAL PDF.

Comments

[Tim J.]

Wow. Can't wait to see what Cal Beisner says.

[Ed Peters]

Is the Pope really one of your laywers? Just curious.

[Barbara]

Moyer's ratings must be slipping.

[Mary Kay]

LOL at Ed. Jimmy's law firm knows whose representatives have experience with justice.

[ELC]

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?

[Ed Peters]

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.

[Mark]

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 ...

[Scott]

Boy, do these guys really have nothing better to do...?

[Carny]

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?

[franksta]

Love the MACON, GA boys opening a can of whup-a** on them NEW YORK CITY fellas.

[Papa-Lu]

Go Feddie

[Papa-Lu]

Oh, and it looks like the letterhead and signatures of both law firms were scanned in.

[Dan]

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.

[David]

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.

[Dan Crawford]

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.

[Scott W]

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.

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.

[Paul H]

Sorry, the anonymous post above was me. I didn't mean to leave my name off.

[franksta]

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.

[Paul H]

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.

[Ed Peters]

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.

[RW]

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.

[Esau]

"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.

[Karen]

If I call Moyer an idiot, I will not be sued.

[Peter Hughes]

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.

[Curious]

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.

[Jim Howard]

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.

[tree hugging sister]

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.)

[Shane]

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.

[Dick Mansuetto]

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.

[Eileen R]

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. ;-)

[Laura]

Clearly, Jimmy's laywer has the MUCH cooler signature.

[Rinson Drei]

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.

[tim]

Don't worry, Jimmy. For it to be libel, it has to actually DAMAGE Moyer's reputation for impariality.

[Tim]

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. "

[Seamus]

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.

[Joe Gloor]

Wait a minute!
"Mr. Moyers's integrity as a journalist".
I think "journalistic integrity" is an oxymoron!

[b]

It looks like Mr. Moyers lawyers were hoping that Jimmy did not have a lawyer. The letter is ridiculous.

[J.R. Stoodley]

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.

[Joshua S. Rubenstein]

Bill Moyers is a silly old woman.

[Ben N.]

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?

[Trubador]

As my dad would say, "Bill Moyers can go pound sand!"

[bill912]

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.

[Mike Petrik]

"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.

[J.R. Stoodley]

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.

[Mia C.]

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!

[J.R. Stoodley]

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.

[Mia C.]

J.R.

Thanks, I see it now! That's great, it still gives us ample time to copy/paste it everywhere!

[Jay Anderson]

I have just 2 words to say about Bill Moyers' alleged reputation for "integrity":

"Daisy Ad"

[Mark Wyzalek]

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.

[marianne]

The point is: Did Dr. E. Calvin Beisner tell a very serious, intentionally damaging lie?
Whatever one may think of Moyers is irrelevant.

[St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse]

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.

[Charlie]

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.

[David B.]

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."

[DANEgerus]

You need a paypal account so we can contribute $ to your defense.

Kick his liberal Donk

[Mike K]

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.

[Shane]

Jay, what does the Daisy Ad have to do with Mr. Moyer?

[Fred]

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.

[Dave]

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.

[Jim C.]

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.

[Ellers Ellison "Ellsberg" McWilson]

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.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Are we supposed to think that this EEEMcW character is Mr. Moyers himself?

[J.R. Stoodley]

Actually that would be hilarious if Bill Moyers were posting such nonsense under a pseudonym!

[Paul Hoffer]

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.

[mockmook]

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?

[Jay Anderson]

"Jay, what does the Daisy Ad have to do with Mr. Moyer?"

"The 'Daisy' spot - which aired only once during the Movie of the Week on September 7, 1964 - was created by Tony Schwartz of the Doyle Dane Bernbach advertising agency in New York. The ad was green-lighted by Democrat Bill Moyers who later found fame as a television journalist for the PBS network."

[Mary Kay]

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)

[ray]

Is BM stepping in it, becoming a man-bites-dog story?

[fulldroolcup]

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.

[DaveS]

If I were a lawyer responding to the threats, my letter would read, simply:

"Puh-leeeeasse!"

I think that would be awesome.

[nike]

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.

[Doogie]

Ah, so that's why you needed the day off. :)

[Kris]

"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!

[Matt]

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.

[Tom Maguire]

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.

[Tom]

So being called a "liberal Democrat" is defamatory?

T

[Charlie]

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...

[Christopher]

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

[jt82]

Seems to me like BM has more money than brains if his knee-jerk reaction is to unleash the New York lawyers.

[Mary Kay]

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.

[Scott W]

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.

[Mumblix Grumph]

What the hell is up with Dillard's signature? Who does he think he is, Zorro?

[Matt]

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!

[bill912]

Matt, you seem to have a rich fantasy life.

[Brian R]

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.

[Brian John Schuettler]

"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

[ELC]

Hey, Jimmy. You've got linked at both The Corner and Instapundit.

[franksta]

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

[Kris]

"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.

[franksta]

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.

[Stu]

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. :)

[Jamie Beu]

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 http://www.catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp>not an article of faith to begin with!

"My people suffer for lack of knowledge..."

[Matt]

"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.

[Matt]

Oh, BTW I got over here from the Corner link.

[bill912]

Matt, these may be "facts" in the alternate reality you inhabit, but everything you posted is false in the real world.

[Matt]

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?

[Paul H]

"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.

[Esau]

"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...

[Matt]

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?

[Mary Kay]

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.