Remember I was saying that Brett Kimberlin had filed a request for a peace order against a rightie blogger named Aaron Walker? And the hearing on the request was this morning? Well, RS McCain reports that after the hearing the judge had Walker arrested.
Entire rightie blogosphere to go batshit postal in 5 … 4… 3 … 2… 1 …
The judge became “increasingly hostile” to Walker in the course of the hearing, McCain says.
Just going by McCain’s account, this is all very screwy. According to McCain, Kimberlin’s beef was that Walker continued to blog about him after Walker had obtained an earlier peace order. I’m certainly no lawyer, but I question whether a court can order somebody not to blog about somebody else as long as the contents of the blog posts don’t constitute libel, and if you stick to documented facts you can probably argue it’s not libel.
In an update, McCain says that Kimberlin claims to have received death threats as a result of Walker’s posts. What was Kimberlin’s argument that alleged death threats were directly connected to Walker’s blogging? No way to know.
The peace order conditions I found online and blogged about yesterday suggest that a peace order only prohibits one party from contacting or harassing the other. The rightie blogosphere insists Kimberlin is trying to stop them from discussing his criminal past, which is already in the public record and has already been discussed in Time magazine and a book issued by a major publisher.
One suspects we’re not getting the whole story. One also suspects the judge, whom McCain names, is about to learn the meaning of “blogswarm.” I doubt this will help Walker much, though.
Update: A copy of the court order issued today. Apparently the recent blogswarm against Kimberlin was one factor that caused the judge to rule in Kimberlin’s favor.
Update: Some Gateway Pundit commenters are certain the judge was acting on orders of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Samples:
So now the judges rule according to what the government wants, not what the actual laws are.
Hello Banana Republic.
For good or ill, arresting someone who disagrees with this administration is now legal precedent. No longer does there need to be even a figleaf of someone being a suspected terrorist to be snatched and incarcerated without trial.
This is tyranny of the first water.
Good times. I still don’t know what Walker was arrested for, specifically, or if he was charged with something like violating a previous peace order. I suspect the latter, and I suspect he’s already out on bail by the time you read this. If so, that doesn’t exactly constitute a violation of habeas corpus.
I’m getting all information about this from right-wing blogs; I have no idea if Kimberlin or any associate of Kimberlin has posted his side of the story. Someday we may learn what’s being not said.
GOP Bloggers:
‘OH NO’S!
The WRONG man’s been arrested!!”
Maybe he can escape, and it’ll be just like “The Fugitive.”
Please, please, don’t tell me that Kimberlin only has only one arm.
And that poor Judge C.J. Vaughey.
He/she may well wish they’d been swatted instead, once these reactionary morons and yahoo’s start e-mailing him/her and blogging about him/her.
Justice has a well-known liberal bias?
I don’t know whether or not justice was served, but it is kinda–well, let’s just say ironic–that the judge cited elements of the Rightwing shit-storm against Kimberlin (threats of violence in blog posts and comments in a whole lot of the “blogburst” posts, according to rw theorists) in granting the peace order.
Like I said… To outsiders–and probably to this judge–this “let’s all gang up on Kimberlin” coordinated attack made it look like THEY were the aggressors, not their target(s). They came off looking like a lynch mob out for frontier justice, trying to do the job that law enforcers and the courts refused to do. And it bit ’em in the ass.
Kimberlin / Walker Peace Order
“With friends like these…”
repsac3 — Thanks for the link. You are right; it looks as if the blog mobbing of Kimberlin is what caused the judge to rule in Kimberlin’s favor. LOL.
From an undisclosed location?.. How pathetic! Where do I mail in my box tops to get the official R. S. McCain decoder ring?
The need for validation is an essential part of the human condition. We all need validation to varying degrees, but watching McCain trying to craft an aura of intrigue and suspense out of a total non event is troubling. He’s just a nobody who’s using every tatic from the Malkin school of journalism to propel himself into the limelight.
It’s sort of like the bibical story of Esau and Jacob where Esau traded away is birth right for a bowl of pottage. McCain is trading away his credibility( if he had any to begin with) for a handful of computer hits… from an undisclosed location.
It’s good to see the classical liberals organizing themselves for mutual defense. A spectacle such as this seems likely to concentrate their minds and spur them to greater efforts. As for any immediate effect of their advocacy, I do imagine they are able to see more than just one step ahead.
There is something fishy with all this.
Patterico claims to have been “Swatted” last year. He has some evidence and I believe him. Now Erik Erickson is claiming to have been “Swatted” just recently, but only AFTER the blog-swarm started and only after he had “warned” the local Sherrif Dept that it might happen. Let’s just say I’m skeptical of HIS story for sure. It’s one thing to do a dirty trick when no one knows who you are. It’s another to do the same dirty trick when you’re in the “crosshairs” of a blog-swarm and your previous commission of the same dirty trick has already been publicized.
The behavior they are alleging is criminal and dangerous but they don’t seem interested in actually getting this guy arrested so much as portraying him as the “hit man” of the ENTIRE “left” and using that to outrage their readers and inspire them to …… do unpleasant things.
Something doesn’t add up.
It was all speech, though. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic.
Ive been analyzing this speech, especially the pronouncements against the left, the hints of violence, etc.
Conciously or not, it seems that the rightie blogswarm’s goal is to create enough hype to justify violence against liberals and anyone they don’t like. You hype this up, everything goes batshit, and then “all bets are off” and they can justify doing anything they want. It’s ginning up the crazy so it’s self-justifying.
I think this is going to end poorly.
If it is true that “the judge became increasingly hostile to Walker as the hearing proceeded,” then Walker’s courtroom behavior may have crossed the line one too many times.
Could have been something else entirely different, of course, but for now my nickle is riding on Contempt of Court.
I want a real news story about this. I’d settle for a New Yorker Talk of the Town piece — I just want someone other than a foaming-at-the-mouth wingnut with an agenda to tell me what the hell is going on. And don’t forget that that agenda is a political agenda — these people are eventually going to start telling us that the entire system is organized to thwart them and their kind, and the only remedy is the election of even more and crazier right-wingers or, possibly, armed revolution. I either want their new Antichrist arrested or I want their hyperbole exposed, whichever is appropriate. Either one would take some of the wind out of their sails.
Good point.
Here is a transcript from an earlier court appearance in which Kimberlin makes his case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/92645681/Brett-Kimberlin-Hearing-4-11-12-Transcript-OCR
Dolorous Stroke — thank you for the link. I had time to give it only a quick skim, but it seemed that Walker’s attorney was not refuting Kimberlin’s account of what happened as much as arguing that what Walker did didn’t constitute the legal definition of harassment. I was also struck by the fact that Kimberlin clearly stated his criminal record, and then Walker’s attorney told the court that “what Kimberlin won’t tell you is that he’s got this criminal record.” Except that he had just told the court about the criminal record.
Steve M.
Yeah, it is pretty much a manipulation. They essentially exist in a state of outrage justifying anything – and any opposition to their crazy is seen as them being oppressed. It’s really organized mental illness.
As I noted, it won’t end well. The fact that the had to dig up this oddball to create their conspiracy theories shows they’re desperate, obsessed, and pathological.
This is frigging hilarious!!!
I agree. I have read Pat Frey’s long list of grievances against Kimberlain as well as Aaron’s 28,000 word story of harassment. There is something else going on here that neither blogger is saying, or more likely, is not aware of.
Now it could be that Kimberlain is taking words out of context and twisting them into a threat. In fact, given his track record, I’ll bet that he is. But in absence of any information that gives both sides of the story, we just have to wonder what the heck is going on.
There will be much foaming of the mouth and spitting.
That transcript? Hilarious. Kimberlin is an utter boob. Guess Walker should’ve retained the same counsel from that hearing.
“water”? “order”? The commenter really got it that wrong?
“First water” is an old term that I think may have come from Shakespeare. It means fine quality or first rate.
“This is tyranny of the first water”
No me thinks this is some loser with shit stained underpants and a spibble stained wife beater in his moms basement who felt empowered by his “blog” to threaten a mans life, lock his ass up I say.
“I’m getting all information about this from right-wing blogs”
Was there ever a more reliable source?
“It was all speech, though. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic.”
I absolutely agree, which is one of the reasons I said I wasn’t sure justice was served, here…
Like others, I have a feeling there are two separate issues though; the peace order, which, if I’m understanding it right, had been in place short- term already, but was made long-term today, and Aaron Walker (Worthing)’s arrest, which may or may not have anything to do with violating the temporary peace order that was already in place, and which, if it does, may include his instigation and participation in the blogburst as a means of harassment. (Other theories / rumors include contempt of court for behavior in the courtroom today, assault, stemming from a previous physical altercation between Walker and Kimberlin (he hit him, or not; he took his iPad and refused to return it until officers showed up;…) There are also questions as to whether Walker’s continued participation in posting about Kimberlin would be a violation of the peace order.
The closest thing I’ve found to anyone speaking for the other side of this thing is the blog and twitter stream of BreitbartUnmasked. (The blog is two words, the twitter is one, I think.) I don’t know who it is, though the righties all seem to believe it’s one of the principle players–(whose names, I of course don’t remember, just now… One is a dem activist (Rasskoff?), one is the former Raw story guy (Ron, somethin’-or-other), and some even think it’s Kimberlin, himself.) ((I’d use the google, but I’m On the iPad, and I’m afraid I’ll lose what I have if I leave the page, especially from here–more on that, presently.)) Check it out, but since the guy’s anon, take what he offers with as much or little salt or other spices as your taste dictates…
I think at this point just about everyone left and right whose interested in the saga wants mainstream / lamestream media coverage, and law enforcement / legal system action, where necessary. (Though, it is a little scary how many rightwing commenters I’ve seen at various blogs today taking about “street justice,” or similar terms… Thankfully, they’re getting slapped down by others (mostly), but still…) If Kimberlin, etc. are guilty, I want them to face justice. But if there’s no evidence that they are, or that one or more of their accusers are stretching the truth, I want to know that — and perhaps, for them to face justice– too.
Lastly… Anyone else have an issue with this blog on an iPad? When I read the comments, it defaults to–and snaps back to–the top of the comment stream. I finally figured out that I could keep it scrolled to where I wanted by hitting the comment permalink that was as close to where i wanted to be as possible–for example, to write this comment in the box, i hit the permalink of the last comment submitted, and even now keep snapping back to that comment (which luckily, was short, so I can still see the comment box–but it’s something I’d never experienced on another blog…
I am hearing all kinds of rumors about what the arrest was for, also, and I’d rather not speculate about it. My best guess that it was about violation of previous peace orders, and we don’t know that those alleged violations were just things people wrote on the Internet. I feel we’re really all in the dark here. I’m with Steve M from another comment that I wish news media would get involved in this and look into it.
repsac3: I can’t help you with the iPad. My only techie gadget is my Kindle. Even my antique clam shell cell phone is a few years old now and doesn’t do anything except make and receive phone calls.
There’s a lot we don’t know, but the court order specifies a ‘countless number of blogs either threatening death” The statement is incomplete – your guess is as good as mine, and without a transcript or an account from a sane witness in the court it’s hard to know what the blog threats were. Was the offending threat(s) directly from Walker in a post or from the blogswarm of comments? Or both?
My guess is that Walker did NOT directly threaten Kimberlin (again). What he did is post offensive, insulting and inflammatory opinions – and he did nothing to discourage or censor direct personal threats up to and including death threats.
While I’m guessing, the point is interesting and similar to the obligation a host has who serves liquor to guests. He has to observe the consumption, prevent drinking to a point of being unable to drive (if the guest intends to drive home).
Possibly, Walkers defense was that he did not MAKE the death threats, he only expressed his loathing for Kimberlin and possibly Muslims. The threats were from comments, which Walker said he wasn’t responsible for. (Again, I am guessing.)
The judge decided that repeated posts which Walker made, expressing his loathing for Kimberlin invited comments which Walker did not delete or discourage. As the host of the blog, Walker had the obligation to discourage delete and/or report criminal threats. None of which he did.
The ruling does not exactly say that, but if so, the judge may have made a fascinating legal decision which could impact free speech in the Internet – that the ‘host’ has responsibilities which include conduct in the comments.
luddite.
ok, j/k, maha. i too am trying to discern exacly what happened, but of course, without reading any right wing blogs. because even if i could stomach a wade thru the darkside, i doubt stringly that any, let alone all, of the facts would be presented thereon.
firstly i wonder what proof anyone has that it was kimberlin that “swatted” patterico. i also would like some outside source confirming that patterico was indeed swatted.
Alas, I have looked for both of those things myself and could not find them.
actually i doubt strongly, not stringly. tho maybe i doubt stringly, too.
This is something of a random place for me to make this point, as I first visited in order to read what was being said regarding Kimberlin. However, I do not understand the way words such as “right wing” and “liberal” are used in America in our time; nor do I understand what seems to me to be the righteous fury toward the “right wing.” “Right wingers” seem to be all that is left of classical liberalism, and most of them are modified to one degree or another by leftism. They are not monarchic restorationists, and they are too diverse theologically to be papal restorationists, so they are not “right wing.” They are classical liberals resembling Locke and Smith. Moreover, if some of them are feisty, well, so were the classical liberals of previous centuries, and their spirited defense of each others’ life, liberty, and possessions seems to be what makes them liberal. If there is any liberalism left on the left, it seems one ought to be able to recognize the liberalism of the so-called “right.”
Techne — the meanings of words change over time, and the term “classical liberalism” as it was understood in the 19th century is a quaint artifact of history that has no place in current political discourse. Liberalism, as it came to be understood in the 20th century, has come to mean (quoting Webster) “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class).” The roots of modern liberalism were more or less laid by Theodore Roosevelt in his New Nationalism speech, delivered more than a century ago. Then FDR said —
That was more than 70 years ago. Do try to keep up.
Oh, dear. OK, son, this is 2012, not 1812. In 20th century political science, the terms “right wing” and “left wing” evolved to more or less be attached to conservatism and liberalism respectively.
I assume you know that the terms “right wing” and “left wing” originated in the French National Assembly of 1789, where the nobility was seated on the right. Just so, right-wing politics through the years has tended pretty consistently to favor property rights and the established order over the correction of civil and social inequality. Today’s right, for example, seems much more eager to cut taxes on the wealthy than addressing the needs of the extremely poor. That makes them right wing and not left wing.
Suggested reading: The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr (1949). One of Schlesinger’s points is that both right-wing and left-wing politics can end up as totalitarianism, when taken to extremes, which is why the center is vital for maintaining freedom.
Feisty? Try sociopathic. They are interested in their own life, liberty, and possessions and everyone who isn’t them can just go to hell. You could have said the same thing about 18th century royalists. There is nothing “liberal” about today’s right in the current meaning of the word.
“First water” comes from diamonds. A high-quality diamond should be “like a drop of water,” w/o impurities. Second water diamonds have some impurities, & so on.
Maha’s right, Shakespeare used the phrase in 1607 (Tymon of Athens) my sources tell me.
their spirited defense of each others’ life, liberty, and possessions seems to be what makes them liberal
Maybe if they were interested in everyone’s life, liberty, and possessions (Not “The Pursuit of Happiness,” just “possessions?”) instead of just each others we’d be more inclined to call them liberal.
By the way, it’s 2012, not 17XX. Let’s not worry too much about Locke & Smith, & let’s deal w/ the left-right divide as it is today.
“It means fine quality or first rate”
Well there you go, dithering again, was it fine or first?
I’ve seen six year olds behave better than these two supposedly adult men.
No longer does there need to be even a figleaf of someone being a suspected terrorist to be snatched and incarcerated without trial.
Funny, these guys were fist-pumpingly excited about extraordinary rendition, torture and the destruction of habeas corpus and constitutional protections for the arrested back when Bush implemented it.
Not that I think that is what happened here, but it’s amusing when the lawnorder chest-thumpers realize they’re not special snowflakes and they can also get crushed under the wheels of big-government legal machinery they cheered for when they thought it would only be targeted at people they don’t like.
Well, a quibble or two with the last couple of posts.
Hey, I do care about Locke and Smith, whose work was brilliant, and whose ideas remain valuable, even though the real world bears little resemblance to the Platonic free market that Smith identified (and Ricardo tightened up the logic of). Heck, I care about Galileo and Aristotle, too.
But — addressing Techne here — anyone who doesn’t understand the current US usage of the terms simply is going to be asking the wrong questions in this discussion. Read some of those “right-wing” (as identified here) blogs, and you will see how little there is of Locke or Smith and how much of what is much closer to, um, let us say totalitarian so we can avoid saying fascist. Locke or Smith or even Burke, honestly handled, would be a great treat to see in thoughtful blogs, but you won’t see it from the followers of the late unlamented Breitbart and others in that camp.
Here’s my definition of “Leftie” and “righty”;
The big ship is in peril;
the leftys are preparing the life boats while the righties are trying to assign blame, praying to God for help, and are fighting over seats (having already hoarded guns, ammo, freeze dried food, and gold)
As Don Henley wrote, “you don’t see hearses with luggage racks”
Now it turns out it’s only a drill…….
You know something, in this whole crazy and fascinating countries demise to where we sit today, I think I’ve finally found something I really couldn’t care less about.
I suppose the accusations by someone I don’t read, about someone I never heard of, and the arrest of some third party I don’t know anything about, is not only germane to, but an example of, the philosophical differences in this country between right and left, but I think it’s a diversion.
Republican politicians are determined to return to the disastrous economic policies that have already ruined this country for many of the 99% of us who aren’t rich, voting rights are being changed to help ensure they win, and women’s rights are being taken back, among a myriad of other threats and assaults on human, civil, and economic, rights by the right in this country – and I don’t think this amounts to even a small hill of beans.
It’s a tempest in a ‘teapotty.’
Sorry.
Let’s concern ourselves with the important issues.
This will resolve itself one way or the other.
There are much bigger fish in this toxic political ocean. Why spend time worrying about minnow’s, when there sharks are circling?
The comparison breaks down, though, in that internet hosts aren’t responsible for the content posted by others (see EFF on the topic here. It’s starting to sound like he was arrested for “incitement,” which is total BS and really would be a first amendment issue (in that the judge clearly doesn’t understand how the first amendment works)
jpe — Some of the righties are saying that the judge didn’t seem to grasp how Twitter works, and they may be right. This account by someone at the trial is especially interesting. From this account, Walker was being an asshole (of course, assholes have rights, too) and the judge was confused about Twitter. If this account is accurate, it appears the arrest was not justified. But Walker was released yesterday on bail, and hopefully another judge will sort things out.
“It’s starting to sound like he was arrested for “incitement,†which is total BS and really would be a first amendment issue (in that the judge clearly doesn’t understand how the first amendment works)”
Yep, I’m coming to that conclusion, as well…
I started following this because, having been the target of a micro-mini version of the blogburst one time, I found the whole thing kinda distasteful and vindictive. It’s a tactic designed to ruin reputations and generally allow folks who should know better to behave like low-rent internet bullies. It’s immoral, it’s unethical and it’s downright mean-spirited.
What it isn’t, though, is illegal. Free speech trumps political partisanship, and if the situation really is that the judge blocked Aaron Walker from speaking about Kimberlin, et. al. in public at all, in any way shape or form for the next six months, I’m really troubled.
I still have a whole lotta questions about the rest of the allegations and accusations, but on this one issue, I think Aaron Walker (and ultimately all of us who blog, comment, or tweet) is getting done wrong by the legal system. (OTOH, I’m pretty sure that section of the order will be reversed (or at least changed to comply with the first amendment) on appeal. One can hope, anyway…)
Maha: No worries on my weird iPad experiences here… I didn’t expect you to solve it; I just wanted to say it was weird, and to see if anyone else had it happen to them.
There still is no real consensus as to why he was arrested–but my comment about the first amendment as concerns the peace order (which is what I was intending to talk about) applies (and perhaps even moreso) to his being arrested for “incitement” while in the course of blogging, as well.
I mean yes, I do think that his posts led to the blogburst, which may’ve led to threats of violence and whatnot in posts and comments… but that too, is speech, especially given Kimberlin’s celebrity, due to the bombings. (There was a book, and articles in major news publications.)
Threatening to kill someone is NOT covered under free speech.
If you host a hatefest, even a virtual one, are you responsible also for threats made by guests? While the exact facts of this case are uinclear, the principle I addressed is significant.
Can the Internet become a vehicle of terrorism which is protected by free speech through a slick two-step where the known host does not overtly express a threat, but simply enables and directs the cyber-klan who have hoods in the form of screennames?
I’m sure there’s a line one crosses that makes this threat free speech and that threat potentially or actually against the law–the secret service visiting Ted Nugent to investigate that thing he said bears this out–but people on the internet make veiled and not-so-veiled threats of violence against each other every day. It’s sad, but it isn’t against the law.
As for “hosting a hatefest,” I checked out the laws when some nutty blogger threatened to contact Google, his lawyers, two different police departments, the FBI, and his congressman’s office because I told him I would submit a comment to every blog post that mentioned me on his blogspot blog, even though he verbally “banned” me. (And according to his posts, he actually did speak to the police–both departments–and his congressman’s office, at least, hoping they could enforce his stated blog comment policy.) ((And long story short, that’s when I realized he was crazy, and that crazy people can be dangerous… …which, getting back to the topic, is what a few more of these blogbursters probably should’ve considered before willingly getting themselves involved… I’m just sayin’…)) Under the law, a blogger is only responsible for the words s/he actually posts. Commenters on his/her blog are responsible for the words they post. Their isp and blog software provider are not responsible for what anyone using their services posts.
(See: Section 230 Protections | Electronic Frontier Foundation)
I’m with you morally… Launching this kind of coordinated attack on a person looks entirely too much like an angry, pitchfork-wielding lynch mob, to me… …but it is protected by the first amendment.
No.
Under federal law, you’re specifically *not* responsible.