SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Words and Consequences

JANUARY 27, 2011

Words and Consequences

BY JEFFREY ROSEN

Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, likes to say that “no organization anywhere in the world is a more devoted advocate of free speech.” His response to the tragic shooting in Tucson came, therefore, as something of a surprise. In early January, Assange issued a press release arguing, despite the lack of any evidence, that right-wing vitriol had provoked the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, to go on a murderous rampage. Comparing himself to Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of the attack, Assange declared, “Wikileaks’ staff and contributors have also been the target of unprecedented violent rhetoric by U.S. prominent media personalities, including Sarah Palin, who urged the U.S. administration to ‘hunt down the Wikileaks chief like the Taliban.’” Taking the analogy one step further, Assange called on American authorities to prosecute Palin and other right-wing commentators, noting that, “when senior politicians and attention seeking media commentators call for specific individuals or groups of people to be killed, they should be charged with incitement—to murder.”

The spectacle of a self-professed free-speech activist calling for people to be prosecuted for their rhetoric shows just how muddled our discourse over freedom of expression has become. That confusion is understandable. The shooting in Tucson and the news that Wikileaks had acquired more than 250,000 leaked diplomatic cables occurred within two months of each other. Both events seemed to illuminate a disquieting, even dangerous, side to the freedom of expression and the uninhibited flow of information. They also prompted a difficult question: How should we deal with speech that we hate? As it happens, lessons from the tragedy in Arizona may also help us think about how we should deal with Wikileaks.

 

Across the political spectrum, the visceral response to both the Wikileaks release and the Tucson murders was to retaliate with the full force of the law. After the Wikileaks document dump, the Department of Justice began exploring prosecution options under the Espionage Act, and Newt Gingrich called for Assange to be designated an enemy combatant. Similarly, the knee-jerk liberal response to the Tucson shootings was that Loughner must have been responding to violent conservative rhetoric, and, therefore, that rhetoric should somehow be curbed. Assistant House Minority Leader James Clyburn called on Congress to clamp down on the vitriol by resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine, which legally required media to present both sides of an issue. “Free speech is as free speech does,” Clyburn contended.

In the case of the Arizona murders, it quickly became obvious that legal options for suppressing speech were limited. After the initial shock passed, the political culture realized that regulating the media was an insane response to an act of senseless violence by a mentally unbalanced individual, and Clyburn’s proposal was swiftly shelved. That doesn’t mean, however, that the shootings passed without a meaningful response. While there is no discernable connection between Loughner and right-wing activists, the shooting nevertheless prompted a constructive conversation about America’s poisonous political discourse. Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, announced that he had asked talking heads on the network to stop using polarizing language. “I told all of our guys, ‘Shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.’” In his memorial speech, President Obama made the same point, albeit more eloquently. “A simple lack of civility” did not cause the tragedy, Obama said, but “a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation” in a way that would make the victims proud. The speech resonated—many commentators described it as the best of Obama’s presidency, and his approval ratings rose. In other words, the culture responded where the law could not.

The Wikileaks matter unfolded differently. As with the Arizona shootings, it soon became obvious that the legal options were limited. Private Bradley Manning, who provided the documents to Wikileaks, is being court-martialed for violating the terms of the military code under which he was granted a security clearance. But the Espionage Act has historically only been successfully applied to leakers, not publishers of leaks, and there was no principled way to prosecute Wikileaks for its indiscriminate document dumps without also ensnaring legitimate journalists. In the U.S. constitutional tradition, moreover, speech can only be banned if it threatens to provoke serious and imminent violence or lawless action—a standard that Wikileaks did not come close to meeting. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote recently that the effect on U.S. foreign policy of the release of diplomatic cables would likely be “fairly modest.” A recent report by the Congressional Research Service has also concluded that Wikileaks did not break the law when it published the diplomatic cables, as well as classified records about the U.S. military’s activities in Afghanistan.

Yet the search for a legal punishment for Wikileaks persists. The Justice Department is still exploring possible grounds for prosecuting Assange as a co-conspirator who actively solicited Manning’s leak and in January subpoenaed Twitter for records of Wikileaks’ followers. Senator Joseph Lieberman, along with Republicans John Ensign and Scott Brown, has called for the Espionage Act to be amended in order to allow for the prosecution of Wikileaks. As Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago has pointed out, this proposed bill would almost certainly violate the First Amendment.

Lieberman has emerged as the A. Mitchell Palmer of the digital age—the politician who has threatened free speech more stridently than anyone since Woodrow Wilson’s attorney general, who used the Espionage Act to prosecute and deport suspected radicals after World War I. In addition to advocating for an unconstitutional crackdown on Wikileaks itself, and pressuring Amazon to stop hosting the site, he has also implied that media organizations might be punished for publishing details of the cables. “I certainly believe that Wikileaks has violated the Espionage Act,” he said, “but then what about the news organizations—including the Times—that accepted it and distributed it?”

But, although Lieberman is wrong to push for a legal vendetta against Wikileaks, he’s not wrong to deplore it. Wikileaks is a deeply troubling organization whose indiscriminate document dumps are antithetical to privacy rights and democratic deliberation. To be sure, Wikileaks has published a handful of leaks in the public interest—most notably the video released last spring of a U.S. Apache helicopter strike that killed several unarmed Iraqis and two Reuters employees in Baghdad in 2007. However, only a fraction of its leaks can be considered whistle-blower documents that expose wrongdoing, criminal activity, abuse of authority, or the waste of public resources. Instead, the vast majority involve the routine records of governmental operations, and, by revealing them, Wikileaks is attacking the entire notion of government secrecy. “Military operations, intelligence activities, diplomatic communications all depend on a capacity for confidentiality, and, if those activities are justified by law, then the secrecy they depend on is always likely to be justified,” says Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, one of America’s most respected campaigners against excessive secrecy and a leading critic of Wikileaks.

Of course, secrecy should have limits. But, by advocating for extreme transparency, Wikileaks has embraced the position that secrecy is always illegitimate—a view that doesn’t acknowledge that certain forms of disclosure can result in terrible injustice. In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera describes how the Czech police recorded the telephone conversations of a political hero of the Prague Spring and broadcasted them as a radio serial. When the nation heard Jan Prochazka telling dirty jokes and floating heretical ideas, his dignity was destroyed. Wikileaks has shown a similar contempt for privacy. Last summer, the organization published a raw police file that contained allegations that a leading Belgian politician had associated with a pedophile who was jailed for murdering children. The investigation revealed that the allegations were false, but the publication of the file unfairly tarnished the reputation of the politician.

Indeed, unlike responsible publishers, Wikileaks lacks not only editorial judgment; it has often abdicated any editorial function at all. Perhaps the most notorious example is the case of Afghan war records, where Wikileaks released the names of dozens of Afghans who had cooperated with U.S. military forces, with little regard for either newsworthiness or the safety of those named in the cables. Although there have been no known casualties as a result of the disclosure, the named individuals will be looking over their shoulders for decades to come, and others will be deterred from cooperating with the U.S. military in the future. Even Assange’s claim to value transparency above all collapses under scrutiny. In the conflict in Afghanistan, for example, Wikileaks has exposed the military secrets of Western countries but not those of the Taliban. Assange’s actions suggest that he is less interested in exposing corruption worldwide than in undermining the U.S. government.

 

Although prosecuting Wikileaks is neither feasible nor wise, that doesn’t mean there is nothing to be done about its most extreme methods. This is where the Tucson tragedy provides a useful lesson, which is that our response should be in the realm of culture rather than law. Just as prominent public figures sought to change the discourse following the Arizona shooting, institutions with powerful cultural authority could push back against the more harmful aspects of Wikileaks.

Media organizations, for example, could refuse to work with Wikileaks in its current form. Instead, they might embrace a model proposed by a group of disaffected Wikileaks staffers who recently announced the formation of a splinter organization called OpenLeaks. The group’s leader, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, has castigated Assange for allowing Wikileaks’ mission to become a “onedimensional confrontation with the USA.” OpenLeaks will not publish any documents, but will instead serve as a conduit that allows anonymous sources to deposit leaked information in a secure drop box and then designates news organizations to determine whether the information is newsworthy and to subject it to fact-checking as well as redaction where necessary. In other words, OpenLeaks would preserve the benefits of the original Wikileaks project while avoiding the dangers. By shunning Wikileaks and working exclusively with OpenLeaks, the Times and other newspapers could limit the threat posed by Assange’s operation while preserving the ability to publish vital information.

Given the horror that occurred in Tucson, and the unsettling aspects of Julian Assange’s crusade for transparency regardless of the human costs, it’s hardly surprising that many on the left and right are instinctively searching for new legal restrictions on speech and information. But our First Amendment tradition makes it clear that reckless speech should be engaged politically, not regulated by the state. Unfolding side-by-side, the Wikileaks saga and the Tucson tragedy raise the real danger of a backlash against free expression, leading to an ever-escalating clash between force on the one hand and chaos on the other, in which reasoned democratic debate is impossible. That’s the scary world that Wikileaks wants to bring into existence, and, although its methods shouldn’t be criminalized, they should be vigorously resisted by defenders of free speech.

Jeffrey Rosen is the legal editor for The New Republic. This article ran in the February 17, 2011, issue of the magazine.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 78 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

78 comments

"...indiscriminate document dumps are antithetical to privacy rights and democratic deliberation." Well, except that there haven't been any "indiscriminate document dumps," Jeff. You made that part up. And, even if they were, it remains to be seen if they were "antithetical to privacy rights and democratic deliberation." Furthermore, you ignore the military's grotesque harassment and punishment of poor Private Manning, as well as those who dare to associate with him. It is the Obama regime's behavior that is, in fact, "antithetical to privacy rights and democratic deliberation." But congratulations on not being as bad as Sen. Joe.

- AlanVann

January 28, 2011 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This is where the Tucson tragedy provides a useful lesson, which is that our response [to Wikileaks] should be in the realm of culture rather than law." Yes, I agree. But Rosen's suggestion, that the media define the "culture" (i.e., acceptable behavior), is an odd one, given that it's the media (or a segment of it) that publishes/broadcasts the vitriol that some believe reduces inhibitions for violence, and it's the media's failure to do its job that created the opportunity for somebody like Assange to step into the void; and it's distrust of the media on the right of "left-wing bias" that lead to the proliferation of the outlets that generate much of the vitriol, and it's distrust of the media on the left of "filtered" news that both motivated and created the "market" that Assange merely exploited. Again, I agree with Rosen that both Tuscon and Wikileaks should be addressed culturally not criminally (or legally). It's just that the US "culture" is so polarized, how can the "culture" (i.e., acceptable behavior) be determined?

- rayward

February 19, 2011 at 8:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AlanVann, Yes, agree. This article says much more about where TNR has gone over the last several decades than anything meaningful about Wikileaks. DoS, under Hilary's august leadership, is collecting credit card info on African diplomats--as revealed by Wikileaks--but of course THAT's not a matter of privacy. Does privacy figure into US intelligence collection on other countries? Of course not. The contradiction between Rosen's tacitly accepting these such compromises of privacy and his whining about Assange is stark.

- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old

February 19, 2011 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Our government classifies so much material that does not need to be secret that we do not have respect for the classifications. Sloshed together are the truly sensitive with absurd so that the sensitive is revealed along with the trivia.

- agreensfel

February 19, 2011 at 12:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is the problem in a nutshell, “Wikileaks is a deeply troubling organization whose indiscriminate document dumps are antithetical to privacy rights and democratic deliberation…… In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera describes how the Czech police recorded the telephone conversations of a political hero of the Prague Spring and broadcasted them as a radio serial. When the nation heard Jan Prochazka telling dirty jokes and floating heretical ideas, his dignity was destroyed. Wikileaks has shown a similar contempt for privacy. Last summer, the organization published a raw police file that contained allegations that a leading Belgian politician had associated with a pedophile who was jailed for murdering children. The investigation revealed that the allegations were false, but the publication of the file unfairly tarnished the reputation of the politician.” I have doubts that this will solve the problem of Wikileaks, “Media organizations, for example, could refuse to work with Wikileaks in its current form. Instead, they might embrace a model proposed by a group of disaffected Wikileaks staffers who recently announced the formation of a splinter organization called OpenLeaks. The group’s leader, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, has castigated Assange for allowing Wikileaks’ mission to become a “onedimensional confrontation with the USA.” OpenLeaks will not publish any documents, but will instead serve as a conduit that allows anonymous sources to deposit leaked information in a secure drop box and then designates news organizations to determine whether the information is newsworthy and to subject it to fact-checking as well as redaction where necessary. In other words, OpenLeaks would preserve the benefits of the original Wikileaks project while avoiding the dangers. By shunning Wikileaks and working exclusively with OpenLeaks, the Times and other newspapers could limit the threat posed by Assange’s operation while preserving the ability to publish vital information.” How is this different from the way leaked information is published now by legitimate news organizations?

- arnon

February 19, 2011 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When people complain about "where TNR has gone" all they're revealing is their own ignorance. The fringe nutcase left - where Wikileaks defenders properly belong - has always hated TNR. Comparing what it publishes now to when it published Ezra Pound makes it obvious it hasn't gone anywhere to the right

- Simon Greenwood

February 19, 2011 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't be absurd, Greenwood. TNR's relationship with Pound was strictly about freedom of speech and ending his incarceration at St. Elizabeth's. That was in the good old days when TNR was in the forefront of such activities--along with Le Figaro, The Nation, and even Esquire. No one (with the possible exception of you) ever thought Pound was indicative of TNR's politics at that time or any other. "The fringe nutcase left - where Wikileaks defenders properly belong - has always hated TNR." Wow--great point! Really gets to the heart of the issue. Having read TNR for about three decades now, I can say, for myself, that on foreign policy in particular it has moved steadily in the direction of a more paranoid, militaristic and aggressive US policy towards the world, and attacks on Assange and Wikileaks are indicative of that pathetic trend, which you, I guess, applaud.

- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old

February 19, 2011 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's not all that Rosen made up, AlanVann. The response to the Tucson shooting was not at all a call for regulation as Rosen claims. Rather, it was a call for the right to stop employing violent rhetoric and hate speech. Not the same thing a bit. So confused is Rosen over the meaning of freedom of speech that he thinks criticism of another's speech is antithetical to that freedom. Rosen seems not to understand at all what Jefferson meant by the contest of ideas

- roidubouloi

February 19, 2011 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To clarify a bit, the rightwing response to wikileaks, where the publication was by mainstream media, is to find a way to prosecute or criminalize. The leftwing response to Tucson was to criticize the violent and hate-filled rhetoric of the right, exactly the sort of "cultural" response that Rosen purports to commend. How then does he manage to equate the two?

- roidubouloi

February 19, 2011 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The leftwing response to Tucson was to criticize the violent and hate-filled rhetoric of the right, exactly the sort of "cultural" response that Rosen purports to commend." There were no single "left wing" or" right wing" response. This is made up nonsense. " How then does he manage to equate the two?" Easy you pay attention to the reasonable response on either side. Idiots like roidubouloi wouldn't know anything about that. roidubouloi likes to refer to any writer with whom he disagrees like Kirsch or Rosen as a "hypocrite" as if he were the absolute standard of sincerity.

- arnon

February 19, 2011 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kill for peace, gag for freedom of speech.

- skahn

February 19, 2011 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, arnon bleats again. You are still too stupid, way too stupid, to be posting here arnon. And your incapacity is not for a moment concealed by your reflexive belligerence. I appreciate that you are humiliated trying to keep up with a conversation that exceeds your reach, but you manage only to call attention to the fact that you are in over your head. When you limit yourself to agreeing with another poster, you do much better. Consider knitting. That might be something even your intellect may be able to master. Lots of repetition.

- roidubouloi

February 19, 2011 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ms. Palin likes killing moose? I've been told it's like horse meat. Great. Good on her. But she also wants to hunt someone down who reveals how a lot of diplomacy seems to be about expensive but unbelievably superficial assessments of character? Great does this mean that in Palinspeak moose = messenger? Maybe it's good to look at those memos and think about our assumptions? And Now the U.S. may veto an upcoming Security Council resolution that would force Israel to do what he so recently asked Mr. Netanyahu to do. And why exactly did Mr. Bibi snub the top three U.S. leaders? And won't 300 million Middle Eastern Arabs really admire a caved-in-Obama this? Is it all about the "military industrial complex" selling lots and lots of expensive toys? Is our view of democracy something like: "Everyone's special; it's just that some people are more special than others? Sadly, this kind of thinking will surely turn around and bite us all in the tukas! Saints preserve us! I remember U Thant yelling at the General Assembly in 1950: "If only everyone in this room would just meditate for 15 minutes a day, none of this crap would be happenning! Imagine what would happen if we stopped imagining that the Crusades are still going on and Judeo-Christian nations need to keep those olive skin Moslems in their place! Sorry, and excuse me, but it just seems as though nothing could be more idiotic!

- JohnC

February 19, 2011 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JohnC post must be the most incoherent comment posted here, even more incoherent than anything the idiot roidubouloi pounds out on his typing machine.

- arnon

February 19, 2011 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama was right in vetoing the PLO inspired anti Israel resolution at the UN. The resolution would only have encourages the PLO dominated PA as well as Hamas and Hebollah in their war against Israel. Hezbollah has recently thretened to invade the north of Israel again while Hamas is still launchjing missiles into the South of Israel.

- Packard

February 19, 2011 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Packard it doesn't really matter but congrats on getting right to the heart of Rosen's argument and making the connection between it and the veto.

- basman

February 19, 2011 at 8:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The connection between Assange/wikileaks and the Tucson shootings that this piece wants to establish as a base of argument would appear to be strained. The line appears to run as follows: U.S. government responds to the leaks -- Assange responds to Tucson murders -- comparison/contrast of A's response and government's response to Assange -- ironic parallels (or not). It is however a provable fact -- however you regard it -- that Assange was the key figure in the release of the Wikileaks material to the media. It is, however, not a provable fact (however much I or others might wish it so) that hatefilled rightwing rhetoric of the new GOP variety led Loughner to the meeting at the shopping mall with a gun. Hence the validity of the parallel (if that is what's being sketched out here by Rosen) is very shaky, as I read it. Maybe it's too subtle for me.

- ironyroad

February 20, 2011 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“The connection between Assange/wikileaks and the Tucson shootings that this piece wants to establish as a base of argument would appear to be strained.” “The spectacle of a self-professed free-speech activist calling for people to be prosecuted for their rhetoric shows just how muddled our discourse over freedom of expression has become. That confusion is understandable. The shooting in Tucson and the news that Wikileaks had acquired more than 250,000 leaked diplomatic cables occurred within two months of each other. Both events seemed to illuminate a disquieting, even dangerous, side to the freedom of expression and the uninhibited flow of information. They also prompted a difficult question: How should we deal with speech that we hate? As it happens, lessons from the tragedy in Arizona may also help us think about how we should deal with Wikileaks.” Ironyroad, I don’t know what kind of connection you imagine Jeff Rosen the author of the article set up, but to me he was merely using both incidents to try and clarify (to himself ?) how to think about freedom of speech issues. The only connection between them is that in each case some politician argued that freedom of speech need to be curtailed or at least limited.

- arnon

February 20, 2011 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What I have a problem with, arnon, is formulations such as this one (which you quoted yourself): "The shooting in Tucson and the news that Wikileaks had acquired more than 250,000 leaked diplomatic cables occurred within two months of each other. Both events seemed to illuminate a disquieting, even dangerous, side to the freedom of expression and the uninhibited flow of information." Firstly while one can genuinely raise concerns (of whatever kind) regarding the release of confidential government documents, those concerns are hardly the same as the concerns raised by the gunning down of a member of Congress and a group of innocent bystanders. Secondly, as I pointed out, the connection between wikileaks and "freedom of speech/information issues" is obvious in a general way and in a stricter sense provable, whereas the connection between the Tucson murders and "freedom of speech issues" is not. I don't necessarily disagree with Rosen when he says in relation to the post-Tucson atmosphere that "the culture responded where the law could not," but I find the speculative parallels with Assange/WL considerably less relevant than, for example, the connection between the Tucson killings and gun control, mental health assistance, or conspiratorial theories of language. Perhaps I also have a kind of odd reaction to journalistic pieces that yoke together two wildly disparate events on the tenuous thread of juxtaposition in time and an "issue" of some kind.

- ironyroad

February 20, 2011 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What I have a problem with, arnon, is formulations such as this one (which you quoted yourself)" Well, I had no problem with it because he explains in the rest of the essay why he brought these two dissimilar incidents together. You don't have to agree with him. I didn't think his conclusions were particularly adequate for the problems he raised. However, Rosen is a respect legal scholar and analyst and I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't think these two events were commensurate. "Both events seemed to illuminate a disquieting, even dangerous, side to the freedom of expression and the uninhibited flow of information." Do you disagree with the above, ironyroad?

- arnon

February 20, 2011 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat four words for you, a propos nothing: Freddie King Lulu Reid

- basman

February 20, 2011 at 6:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mercy! Merci.

- basman

February 20, 2011 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Do you disagree with the above, ironyroad?" Yes. Because freedom of information and freedom of expression are not the same thing, and I'm uneasy about the notion that Loughner's act is connected to an argument about freedom of expression. We had assassins back in the day (see, e.g. the fate of President McKinley in 1901) when we had no TV, radio, or internet.

- ironyroad

February 20, 2011 at 11:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Both events seemed to illuminate a disquieting, even dangerous, side to the freedom of expression and the uninhibited flow of information." No, they don't. There is nothing about the "uninhibited flow of information" even remotely implicated by the Tucson shooting and whatever inspired it, even if that did in fact include right-wing hate speech and invocations of violence. Neither has anything to do with information, nor with the core value of the First Amendment which is the ability to hold government to account through speech. Conversely, wikileaks is not about "freedom of expression" as that is understood, but about the free flow of information and the core concern of the First Amendment. Both are embraced by the First Amendment, but neither incident implicates both. They therefore present very different problems, but problems that are not new and are already addressed in our law: Hate-speech cannot be criminalized except in very limited circumstances where there is an imminent threat of violence. Similarly, publication of state secrets by a person under no special obligation to the government cannot be criminalized except in very limited circumstances involving aid to enemies or imminent threat of harm to the state. Of course, this means that there are dangers. No author of the First Amendment ever imagined that there were not. Rather, the harm that can be expected to follow from limiting freedom of speech, except in very narrow circumstances where there is direct and immediate harm, was thought vastly to outweigh the occasional losses that would inevitable result form freedom of speech. Further, in order to draw a spurious parallel, Rosen must invent his own reality. The Tucson shootings did not engender either calls for prosecution of anyone other than Loughner or for the criminalization of speech. It does not infringe or even impose on the freedom of speech to criticize other speakers. This is precisely the contest of ideas that the doctrine of free speech expects, that bad speech should be met with more speech, not with the force of law. On the other hand, even though the publishers were the mainstream media, wikileaks and Assange have inspired little but calls for his prosecution and, if the law will not now permit, criminalization of his actions. ___________________ The adults here, indeed all those with more than a fourth grade education, should skip the following. Once again, I am obliged to supply explanation in absurd to detail for the benefit of the belligerent boob, arnon, who has no idea what he is talking about but fancies himself a wit. In response to this: "To clarify a bit, the rightwing response to wikileaks, where the publication was by mainstream media, is to find a way to prosecute or criminalize. The leftwing response to Tucson was to criticize the violent and hate-filled rhetoric of the right, exactly the sort of "cultural" response that Rosen purports to commend. How then does he manage to equate the two?" the witless arnon says this: "There were no single "left wing" or" right wing" response. This is made up nonsense." Now, arnon, it is commonplace in colloquial speech to refer to the political right and the political left. There is a long history of this dichotomy and we make use of it for a variety of purposes including convenience, so that we do not have to describe in detail at every turn collections of ideas that are generally, but not exclusively, found together and are most often associated with particular strata of society. It is never the case that there is a "single 'left wing' or 'right wing' response" to anything. And people of even modest education and literacy do not understand by the references to political left and political right that there is an absolute uniformity of view within the political right or the political left. We none-the-less manage to orient ourselves with these terms. Most people, unlike you, are not confused by them. If you were not a dick straining to appear an intellect, you might have claimed that I had mis-characterized the responses from the left to Tucson or from the right to wikileaks. I don't think I mis-charactized them at all, and it would surprise me if anyone else thinks so, because it is difficult to find calls for criminalization of speech in response to Tucson and difficult to avoid running into them in response to wikileaks. But, had you made that point, and perhaps made some effort to substantiate it, it would have been at least a germane counter-argument. You, however, are too lazy and stupid. So, instead, you make the utterly inane point that there is not a "single" left or right-wing point of view on these events. Were that even occasionally the case in response to anything, why then, you might have said something sensible. But as it is never the case, you argument is devoid of meaning, it refers to nothing. You are a child, arnon. The things you say here are banal, boring, and, more often than not, very stupid. What is astonishing is that your stupidity should be accompanied by such grandiosity and self-importance. Have you nothing better to do than embarrass yourself in this manner?

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2011 at 11:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look at this, a whole post attacking me, someone the idiot roidubouloi thinks is “a child” who says “banal, boring, and, more often than not, very stupid.” Yet it he spent five hours attacking me. Thanks for the compliment, I don’t intend to reply to a self deluded angry jerk who thinks he knows more about constitutional law than Jeffrey Rose

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 12:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Arnon is as stupid as you say, roidubouloi, what makes you think that angry attacks by you will make him see the light? Whatever merits there are in your comments are being diluted by your unwise and intemperate use of language. Tone it down, roidubouloi.

- MaryNunaly

February 21, 2011 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hello, MaryNunaly, I haven't noted you here before. I have no expectation that anything I say could possibly make arnon understand anything at all. He is indeed far too stupid and self-important to be educable. Rather, he is just the latest wing-nut who, unable to muster any articulate argument, thinks that he can win the day with epithets and invective. You can find the opening salvo of this little spat right here, above: "02/19/2011 - 4:36pm EDT | arnon . . . Easy you pay attention to the reasonable response on either side. Idiots like roidubouloi wouldn't know anything about that." It is a project of mine not to permit boobs like arnon to have a monopoly of abusive language. Whenever they direct it at me, I respond in kind. Sometimes it takes a while (and I have had one notable failure with a particularly twisted individual), but generally when they discover that I am much more adept at bullying them than vice versa, they stop. This clears the air and allows normal people to have a discussion without their intrusions. I try to make it a point never to pick these fights, but I never shrink from them either. ______________________ My immediate purpose above was not to educate arnon (an impossibility), but to humiliate him by demonstrating clearly how stupid he is and how wide of the mark his grandiose comments. He offers another opportunity just above on several counts. For one, he imagines that what might take him hours to draft, if he could ever get there which is doubtful, requires more than a few moments of my time. It doesn't. Unlike arnon, I don't have to sit and think, think, think in the hope of finding the words to respond to a dolt such as he. It is my typing, rather than my thought process, that is the limiting factor. As ever, in trying to make a telling point, he once again exposes himself as an ignoramus. For one, my disagreement with Rosen is not about constitutional law as such, but about Rosen's characterizations of events in relation to the law. arnon doesn't know any law. Hence, he cannot recognize what is and is not a legal argument. In addition, arnon does not understand that, in legal argument, we do not appeal to authority, in the sense of authorship, as dispositive. That is, we do not stack up the credentials of the lawyers on one side and the lawyers on the other side, evaluate their prestige, and then decide on that basis who is correct. Legal arguments are appeals to precedent and reason, the proper application of law to facts. They are made in the open and anyone with the wit, whether a lawyer or not, is free to comment and explain why a given argument is wrong and another is better. The argument is expected to stand or fall on its on and to withstand counter-argument and criticism. Any lawyer who tried to advance a point simply by claiming that so-and-so agrees with me or disagrees with me would be laughed at. Regardless of his credentials, Rosen makes a poor argument because: (1) he bases his argument on an invented set of facts that will not bear scrutiny and (2) he improperly conflates too very different problems arising under the First Amendment. Were Rosen John Marshall himself, he should be criticized for these errors, and no lawyer thinks it amiss that another lawyer offers countervailing arguments. We expect it. It is our profession. For some peculiar reason, no doubt part and parcel of his general ignorance, arnon finds this offensive. Finally, who could not be amused by so moronic a reply as arnon's insistence that he doesn't intend to reply, followed immediately by his reply? This sort of thing is typical of such empty heads as his. Eventually, arnon will figure out that he is being successfully ridiculed. In his case, this may take quite a while because it requires a certain minimum level of intelligence even to understand that much. But he will, as he keeps offering up so many juicy opportunities.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roidubouloi trying to defend his mad behavior” “I have no expectation that anything I say could possibly make arnon understand anything at all. He is indeed far too stupid and self-important to be educable. Rather, he is just the latest wing-nut who, unable to muster any articulate argument, thinks that he can win the day with epithets and invective.” Roidubouloi must be the only one who believes that he is just responding to “invective.” This makes him a delusional idiot. He is also a prominent wingnut, a word he applies to anyone he disagrees with.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee, arnon, you keep insisting that you are ignoring me and refusing to pay any attention to what I say while hanging on my every word about you. The problem for you, you pathetic moron, is that anyone who wishes to can scroll up this thread and find you right here: 02/19/2011 - 4:36pm EDT | arnon resorting to epithets, although no one that I can see, certainly not me, had directed any such at you. Of course, you don't like the response. You wannabe bullies are all cowards in the end who whimper and cry when your own disgraceful behavior is turned on you. Well, get used to it, arnon. You are my butt boy until you grow up and learn to behave like a human being. I can successfully humiliate you from here to eternity because you are so stupid you furnish endless opportunity.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is emotionally disturbed. This is the only explanation for his obsessions with me.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's a fine explanation, arnon. I like it. And the reason why I am going to just keep kicking your sorry ass. You picked a fight with the wrong guy and now you can never escape. I get to toy with you, calling attention to your inanities, forever. But, arnon, you keep insisting that the only way to deal with me is to ignore me, and then you keep coming back for more. I don't have to go looking for you to smack you around. You are always right there begging for it. What sort of degraded masochist are you?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is emotionally disturbed. This is the only explanation for his obsessions with me.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's a fine explanation, arnon. I like it. And the reason why I am going to just keep kicking your sorry ass. You picked a fight with the wrong guy and now you can never escape. I get to toy with you, calling attention to your inanities, forever. But, arnon, you keep insisting that the only way to deal with me is to ignore me, and then you keep coming back for more. I don't have to go looking for you to smack you around. You are always right there begging for it. What sort of degraded masochist are you? _____________________ Gosh this is fun, arnon. How long shall we play? I know. Let's give the readers here a taste of your stupidity over on a neighboring thread. Be back in a flash.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/83635/indignez-vous-hessel-france-sarkozy 02/21/2011 - 1:59pm EDT | arnon Anyone who doesn't understand that using insults instead of avoiding posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid, is an idiot. 02/21/2011 - 2:10pm EDT | roidubouloi Nope, arnon, you could not possibly be any stupider. Here you are declaring that, by your own actions, your own compulsive need to insult "posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid," you are in fact "an idiot." And you don't even notice! No one could possibly make this stuff up. It is too incredible. _____________________ So what's up, arnon? Are you in truth an idiot as you declare yourself to be? Otherwise, how is it that someone with your firm convictions about proper behavior manages, without provocation, to resort to insults? I mean, I understand that NOW you would like to portray yourself as my innocent victim. But, dude, you've got a problem. This is the internet, man. You are PUBLISHED. Anyone can scroll right up here: 02/19/2011 - 4:36pm EDT | arnon and discover you resorting to insults without any provocation at all. Not only are you published doing this, but there is no way for you to expunge the evidence. It is here for all to see, kind of like until TNR goes out of business, and maybe not even then. Uh oh! Come to think of it, this is not just some one off accident either. Here you are over on the Hessel thread doing the exact same thing, again without provocation: "02/17/2011 - 9:39pm EDT | arnon The idiot roidubouloi garbled up purposely me thinks the points made above." This is beginning to look like a pattern, man. I think you're stuck. You've explained for the readership what it is that makes one an "idiot," and it turns out the idiot is you! Look, I'm perfectly willing to accept this at face value, that you are precisely the idiot you proclaim yourself to be. But fairness dictates that we give you a chance to offer up some alternative explanation. So, arnon, now that you've been outed, what would you like to say to the audience?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are limits to free speech, as classically defined by the observation that you cannot cry fire in a crowded theater. When that dimwit, Sarah Palin, "urged the U.S. administration to ‘hunt down the Wikileaks chief like the Taliban.’”, she was implicitly making a public appeal for Julian Assange to be hunted down and killed, as that is what Shrub promised to do with the Taliban. And as we know, there were "kill on sight" orders for bin Laden issued by the Shrub "administration". It would be absurd not to think that this applied to all lesser Taliban. If it is illegal to form a verbal threat against POTUS, then an average citizen of the world should receive the same respect. Given Palin's history of verbal agitation, and her following, it is not unrealistic to think someone would take her at her word. This woman is a ticking time bomb. God help us if we have enough stupid people to elect her President. "As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."---H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920 We came close with Shrub, and Palin would make Mencken's prediction come true.

- rpvmeyer

February 21, 2011 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"view full comment does not work...balance of my comment" "As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."---H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920 Shrub nearly proved Mencken's point, and Palin would bring it to fruition.

- rpvmeyer

February 21, 2011 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is emotionally disturbed. This is the only explanation for his obsessions with me.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 4:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/83635/indignez-vous-hessel-france-sarkozy 02/21/2011 - 1:59pm EDT | arnon Anyone who doesn't understand that using insults instead of avoiding posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid, is an idiot. 02/21/2011 - 2:10pm EDT | roidubouloi Nope, arnon, you could not possibly be any stupider. Here you are declaring that, by your own actions, your own compulsive need to insult "posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid," you are in fact "an idiot." And you don't even notice! No one could possibly make this stuff up. It is too incredible. _____________________ So what's up, arnon? Are you in truth an idiot as you declare yourself to be? Otherwise, how is it that someone with your firm convictions about proper behavior manages, without provocation, to resort to insults? I mean, I understand that NOW you would like to portray yourself as my innocent victim. But, dude, you've got a problem. This is the internet, man. You are PUBLISHED. Anyone can scroll right up here: 02/19/2011 - 4:36pm EDT | arnon and discover you resorting to insults without any provocation at all. Not only are you published doing this, but there is no way for you to expunge the evidence. It is here for all to see, kind of like until TNR goes out of business, and maybe not even then. Uh oh! Come to think of it, this is not just some one off accident either. Here you are over on the Hessel thread doing the exact same thing, again without provocation: "02/17/2011 - 9:39pm EDT | arnon The idiot roidubouloi garbled up purposely me thinks the points made above." This is beginning to look like a pattern, man. I think you're stuck. You've explained for the readership what it is that makes one an "idiot," and it turns out the idiot is you! Look, I'm perfectly willing to accept this at face value, that you are precisely the idiot you proclaim yourself to be. But fairness dictates that we give you a chance to offer up some alternative explanation. So, arnon, now that you've been outed, what would you like to say to the audience?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is emotionally disturbed. This is the only explanation for his obsessions with me.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/83635/indignez-vous-hessel-france-sarkozy 02/21/2011 - 1:59pm EDT | arnon Anyone who doesn't understand that using insults instead of avoiding posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid, is an idiot. 02/21/2011 - 2:10pm EDT | roidubouloi Nope, arnon, you could not possibly be any stupider. Here you are declaring that, by your own actions, your own compulsive need to insult "posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid," you are in fact "an idiot." And you don't even notice! No one could possib ... view full comment

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So what's up, arnon? Are you in truth an idiot as you declare yourself to be? Otherwise, how is it that someone with your firm convictions about proper behavior manages, without provocation, to resort to insults? I mean, I understand that NOW you would like to portray yourself as my innocent victim. But, dude, you've got a problem. This is the internet, man. You are PUBLISHED. Anyone can scroll right up here: 02/19/2011 - 4:36pm EDT | arnon and discover you resorting to insults without any provocation at all. Not only are you published doing this, but there is no way for you to expunge the evidence. It is here for all to see, kind of like until TNR goes out of business, and maybe not even then. Uh oh! Come to think of it, this is not just some one off accident either. Here you are over on the Hessel thread doing the exact same thing, again without provocation: "02/17/2011 - 9:39pm EDT | arnon The idiot roidubouloi garbled up purposely me thinks the points made above." This is beginning to look like a pattern, man. I think you're stuck. You've explained for the readership what it is that makes one an "idiot," and it turns out the idiot is you! Look, I'm perfectly willing to accept this at face value, that you are precisely the idiot you proclaim yourself to be. But fairness dictates that we give you a chance to offer up some alternative explanation. So, arnon, now that you've been outed, what would you like to say to the audience?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid is truly a marvel he keeps attacking posters and pretending that he is the victim. He is not just "emotionally disturbed" he is beyond that he is psychotic. No one here cares what he says and everyone knows what an evil guy this is. Don't bother responding to me RD I could give a shit what you say. And if you keep bothering posters they will make your life here miserable. Time to move on, Il Duce.

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is emotionally disturbed. This is the only explanation for his obsessions with me.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nr, I just saw your post. Thanks but, psychotic or not, I can handle (avoid) roidubouloi by myself.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon and roidubouloi Why don't you guys take it outside? I can't believe this site is monitored, or they would cut you off. No one cares about what you have to say to each other, how about exchanging e-mail addresses and carrying on with your low brow discussion. Let the rest of us discuss the topics at hand. Thank you

- rpvmeyer

February 21, 2011 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nah, this is just too much darned fun, having arnon avoid me and all. But if nr106646 is going to join in, it might get even better. __________________ So what's up, arnon? Are you in truth an idiot as you declare yourself to be? Otherwise, how is it that someone with your firm convictions about proper behavior manages, without provocation, to resort to insults? I mean, I understand that NOW you would like to portray yourself as my innocent victim. But, dude, you've got a problem. This is the internet, man. You are PUBLISHED. Anyone can scroll right up here: 02/19/2011 - 4:36pm EDT | arnon and discover you resorting to insults without any provocation at all. Not only are you published doing this, but there is no way for you to expunge the evidence. It is here for all to see, kind of like until TNR goes out of business, and maybe not even then. Uh oh! Come to think of it, this is not just some one off accident either. Here you are over on the Hessel thread doing the exact same thing, again without provocation: "02/17/2011 - 9:39pm EDT | arnon The idiot roidubouloi garbled up purposely me thinks the points made above." This is beginning to look like a pattern, man. I think you're stuck. You've explained for the readership what it is that makes one an "idiot," and it turns out the idiot is you! Look, I'm perfectly willing to accept this at face value, that you are precisely the idiot you proclaim yourself to be. But fairness dictates that we give you a chance to offer up some alternative explanation. So, arnon, now that you've been outed, what would you like to say to the audience?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really like this piece too: http://www.tnr.com/article/world/83635/indignez-vous-hessel-france-sarkozy 02/21/2011 - 1:59pm EDT | arnon Anyone who doesn't understand that using insults instead of avoiding posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid, is an idiot. 02/21/2011 - 2:10pm EDT | roidubouloi Nope, arnon, you could not possibly be any stupider. Here you are declaring that, by your own actions, your own compulsive need to insult "posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid," you are in fact "an idiot." And you don't even notice! No one could possibly make this stuff up. It is too incredible.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You miss the point roidubouloi. This is not your personal site and nobody gives a $hit what you and arnon have to say to each other. You are just clogging up the semi to intelligent flow of information, and demonstrating your mutual stupidity. This the last I will have to say on the topic, as I will not be drawn into your repetitive juvenile game.

- rpvmeyer

February 21, 2011 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh well. I guess the fun is over. Thanks, arnon, for a very enjoyable day. I look forward to the next such opportunity and I have not the slightest doubt that, as you have taught us, "02/21/2011 - 1:59pm EDT | arnon Anyone who doesn't understand that using insults instead of avoiding posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid, is an idiot." the opportunity will not be long in coming.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With all due respect, rpv, you miss the point. I don't expect you to give a $hit and the point is precisely to clog up the place until the discussion can be carried on without the deplorable, gratuitous, and unprovoked behavior of such as arnon. If that moment has come, great. Carry on.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is emotionally disturbed. This is the only explanation for his obsessions with me.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you want to handle this, rpvmeyer, or shall I?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meyer, roidubouloi is too far gone to stop. He is too stupid to realize that he proves my point about him each time he posts.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meyer, arnon is too far gone to stop. He is too stupid to realize that he proves my point about him each time he posts. _____________________ Really, I didn't know it was possible to have this much fun online. The copy and paste tool is so liberating! You have to admire someone who obsessively deplores obsessive behavior, declares that insulting other posters makes one an idiot as he insults other posters, repeatedly declares that he is avoiding that to which he invariably responds, and generally displays the self-awareness of a gnat. This is like the quadrifecta. You really don't see this degree of public stupidity all that often. It is one of the wonders of the world.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 5:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, hi malahat. Welcome to the party.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roiduboulois is either insane or in a mental hospital with only a laptop for a friend.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meyer, arnon is too far gone to stop. He is too stupid to realize that he proves my point about him each time he posts. _____________________ Really, I didn't know it was possible to have this much fun online. The copy and paste tool is so liberating! You have to admire someone who obsessively deplores obsessive behavior, declares that insulting other posters makes one an idiot as he insults other posters, repeatedly declares that he is avoiding that to which he invariably responds, and generally displays the self-awareness of a gnat. This is like the quadrifecta. You really don't see this degree of public stupidity all that often. It is one of the wonders of the world.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I spoke too soon. Is there such a thing as a pentafecta? I should have included "insists upon the insanity of obsessively re-posting by obsessively re-posting." What's next? I can't wait to find out.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What do you hope to achieve with your antics, Roid? All you have done is destroy and interesting discussion forum. No one is going to thank you for that.

- Newly84

February 21, 2011 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I intend to achieve the freedom to post my own thoughts about the subject at hand without being harassed by vermin such as arnon. And I shall. Just wait and see.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is till trying to prove that he is the smartest asshole here. This is what it's all about. No matter what he says he is not going to have a free hand insulting and harassing other posters or like the good little Nazi he is calling them vermin.

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 6:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

| rpvmeyer, I agree with you. But roidubouloi didn't miss the point. he always wants posts his way. He wants to harass other posters but get furious when he is taken to task for it. I suppose this makes him a juvenile narcissist. The only way he will ever modify his behavior is if more people like rpvmeyer and arnon and malahat hold him to account.

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Welcome to the esteemed company of morons and pompous asses, nr106646. Do yourself two favors. First, try to find some example in the last six years or so of someone "holding me to account." Anyone. And then explain to the congregation exactly what it was they were holding me to account for. Withal, it certainly wasn't you. You are not the smartest asshole here or anywhere. Just an asshole who keeps company with a pack of other assholes like arnon. Then, go back and re-read this thread. See if you can find anything I said here that could be considered by anyone other than a moron to be inappropriate other than in direct response to the pestilential arnon who, without any provocation from me, started in with his name-calling. The opinions I express here on the subject are germane and they display far more knowledge of the subject than any possessed by you on any subject. Because I'm a damned sight smarter than you. When you find anything here that is not intelligently addressed to the subject at hand or consists of any insult or rude behavior toward another poster who has not first directed personal insults at me, just quote it and explain why it was inappropriate. If you cannot, and I quite doubt that you can, then shut the fuck up and take your lousy piece of shit self somewhere else where there are other morons you can talk to. Surely you don't seriously expect me to reduce the level of my comments to the level of a suck-up asshole like you just because you are too dumb to understand.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Welcome to the esteemed company of morons and pompous asses, roidubouloi. Your name roidubouloi is synonymous with pompous asshole. Your days of bullying people here are over. You won't be able to post in peace here till you stop abusing posters.

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh really? My days of slapping the living shit out of you you moron have only just begun. What you don't understand is that, although I would prefer not to be distracted from the subject by the need to deal with garbage like you, I enjoy it. I regard it as a service to humanity to reduce abusive assholes like you goo on the floor. I am going to abuse the hell out of you until you are reduced to blubbering incoherence, just like arnon. His disintegration into an obsessive, whacked out mess is already well along. He can barely open his mouth any more without sputtering wildly. You don't strike me as being any more difficult to deal with than he is. We'll see who among us gets tired and overwrought first. Just as a start, you should try, try, try to think up your own insults. Merely repeating those that come at you makes you look like a puerile ninny, worthy only of peeing in your sandbox. Oh, by the by, I take it that you are unable to find anything said by me on this thread that could be objected to other than responses to the pestilential arnon. Just as I thought. You too like to claim falsely that I am attacking posters other than abusers who throw the first punch when the reality is that you are unstrung because you cannot understand what I am talking about and you feel stupid. Let me assure you, it is not just a feeling. You are every bit as stupid as you feel.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 8:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

oidubouloi "Welcome to the esteemed company of morons and pompous asses, nr106646." You met me before and then too greeted me with insults. Of course you do that so often that you don't remember me. That's ok I remember you and that's what counts.

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 8:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yeah, I should remember a moron known as 106646, but I get you confused with 847323. Wanna bet that, if I insulted you, it was you, not I, who hurled the first insult? Check it out, moron. Find that greeting. See if you can come up with a single instance, ever, of me gratuitously sending an insult in your direction without you having started in first. I don't expect you to have any more success with that than you did in finding any such incident on this thread. I am quite careful to let the putzim such as you throw the first punch, and often the second, just so we can be clear on who is who and what is what. I'll make the same bet for the indefinite future too. On every occasion from here to eternity when I am obliged to kick the crap out of you, it will be you, not I, who resorts first to insult, invective, and ad hominem. You can take that to the bank, putz.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Oh yeah, I should remember a moron known as 106646, but I get you confused with 847323." Everyone is a moron to a moron, roidubouloi. Like I said your tranquil posting days here over. Exchanging insults is all you will be able to do. Keep insulting me, I couldn't care less.

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 9:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, you will, you will. Just wait until you actually try to post a comment on anything. Given your manifest stupidity, you will be humiliated and then you will be whimpering and whining about how awful I am to you, as you are already whining and complaining. Unless, of course, you are too frightened actually to say anything of substance on any subject, which is the most likely case. In that event, the one who will be limited to exchanging insults will, as a matter of self-editing, be you. There are actually many people here who are thoughtful and intelligent, far from being morons. I enjoy talking with many of them. The company of the thoughtful and intelligent just does not happen to include you. Wouldn't surprise me if the only thing you have ever had to offer here is an insult. I rather doubt you are capable of more than that. If you have actually been here for a while, you would have noticed that I have never had any "tranquil posting days" because there are always jumped up putzes such as you who think they are the next great defender of the company of morons and pompous asses to which you belong, the usual cowards who like to employ insults but fall apart when they receive a condign response (look up condign, I know you don't know what it means). Somehow, none of them has ever caused me much difficulty. It would be nothing short of a miracle if you were the first to do so. Let's see how it goes. I wish I could make book on how long you last.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 9:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is the Nir Rosen of TNR. An insult from roidubouloi is another opportunity to point out what a fascistic little twit he is. So go ahead, insult me, I like it and I'll trade you insult for insult, you witless turd.

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 10:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have request that "roidubouloi" be blocked for disrupting the exchange of information on this article. I will be interested to see if TNR addresses this issue.

- rpvmeyer

February 21, 2011 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, rpvmeyer, I'll do the same. I wish there were a way of placing a poster on ignore and blank out their messages. The NY Times had such a feature many moons ago.

- nr106646

February 21, 2011 at 10:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, of course you will, 106646. That is all you are able to do, so I fully expect that is what you will do. It is not as though you actually have a thought in your head. That's what makes you a moron. "Witless" would, I think, overstate your capacities by quite a bit. And I am sure you do like it, very, very much. What else is there to brighten the day of a masochistic dung beetle such as you? Rolling your sad little ball of insults around to perfume this thread. You are really going to have to strive for a bit of creativity, eeny-weeny 106646. This sort of peashooter stuff is really not going to make much of a stir. Yet, oh my! Here you are disrupting to exchange of information on this article, but to such pitiful effect. What will be interesting, oh meyer, is to see if TNR will start blocking posts with personal insults and invective. That would be quite welcome. Then 106646 will disappear completely, as he does not do or say anything else here, and I could retire from the task of disciplining the eeny-weeny wannabe bullies such as he.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 10:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just go ahead and ignore, 106646. Drawing blanks should be within your mental range. No evidence that anything else is, but I am sure you have the ability to be absolutely vacant. So far, that is all we can see of you. A nothing of nothingness.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 11:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh look! No sooner do I surmise that you must at least have the ability to achieve totally mental vacancy than I find this on another thread: "02/21/2011 - 10:47pm EDT | nr106646 I didn’t copy and paste anything, but unlike you I know how to avoid comments that don’t interest me, roidubouloi." Very good, 106646. I knew that there had to have at least some sort of native ability. But, you know, somehow I just don't think you are going to be avoiding much of anything. Like your pal, that other über-boob, I suspect you are going constantly declaring that something is to be avoided and then conspicuously not avoiding it. It's okay. I understand. Self-control, even for purposes of dramatic effect, is quite unlikely to be within your reach. But, by all means, give it a shot.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 11:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know, I'm getting tired. I can see that my already strained eyesight is missing half of what I am typing producing lots of errors. Time for bed. Goodnight, 106646 (Do your friends call you that too? It suits you. Sort of a cipher, aren't you? No there there.)

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 11:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for your email! We have reviewed the comments by user “roidubouloi” and found them to warrant a first warning from our webmaster to the user that cautions him against future personal attacks in our online comment sections. If the problem persists we will proceed from there. Thank you again for alerting me to this issue, and let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.

- rpvmeyer

February 23, 2011 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This thread lost its threadness and became a a car crash that one looked at horrifically and irresistibly even while not wanting to.

- basman

February 23, 2011 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close