So long, Matthew. Don't forget to take the stupid with you when you go.
OH. MY. I'm becoming perpetually amused by the fact that the very people who accuse me of profane intemperance are the same ones who can't seem to avoid legal grief for not knowing when to shut the fuck up.
Here's Matthew, dumping on MP Garth Turner:
More Garth Turner Hypocrisy!
First up, Platty does a little research and rightfully concludes that the MP for Bearded Bitter Bikers has no leg to stand on when lecturing others on the importance of voting. Maybe we should follow Garth’s rationale and make sure that all those Liberals lose the privilege that they’re not too keen on using. Just a thought...
Blah blah blah ... typical, Matthew, 12-year-old pissing. But hark! What ho!?
Earlier on Friday, I sent this email to the editor of a site called ThePolitic.com.
“This statement is published on your site today: “Thanks to a reader tip, we now know through Steve Janke’s work that Garth Turner is not only a hypocrite but a massive crook.”
You are served notice that this statement, accusing me of illegal activity, is false and injurious. Surely you understand that there are consequences to making public comments which are without foundation and which can injure the reputation of fellow Canadians.
I expect this to be removed immediately. You know what comes next.”
Curiously, when you return to Matthew's post, the accusation of Turner being a "crook" is nowhere to be found, but it's easy to deduce that it was there once, given the first occurrence of that word which occurs in comment 15:
Crook may be a bit over-the-top ...
Yes, Matthew, it might, but that's what happens when children don't understand how the grown-up world works and think they can spew libelous statements all over the Intertoobz. That's when they learn that the grown-ups take shit like that really, really seriously, and that those grown-ups have these things called "lawyers," and that's when addlepated twits like Matthew have to go back and quietly delete the incriminating and libelous content from their original post. And perhaps agree that, to avoid further legal action, maybe it's just as well if they hang it up and mosey on out of town.
And remember, kids, when it comes to the Intertoobz, you can always accuse someone of being an "ignorant dumbfuck." You can't accuse them of being a "crook" -- a distinction we here at CC HQ actually understand.
Herein endeth the lesson.
12 comments:
Oh, my gods, that's beautiful. Bravo, CC, bravo! Should you ever make it to the great state of Washington, I shall be rolling out the red carpet and breaking out the expensive alcohol for ye!
I guess merciless ridicule IS a cure for the stupid...
I hope that wasn't an April Fool's joke, because the best thing for Matthew would in fact be to give up nattering...er blogging...and go out and experience reality, a taste of which he got, not from CC, but from Garth Turner.
The exit was a bit graceless, but who cares. Good riddance.
I'll resist being celebratory because the idea of someone feeling forced to shut up (and not just realising he or she should, for their own personal growth) isn't a good thing. It's too bad he didn't that learn that sooner, before he decided to libel someone who can kick up a stink.
Ahh, that fucking "Red Tory" said he' retire, and look at how long that lasted!
At least RT didn't go out in a whimper of self-pity though!
The fact that it's April 1 had occurred to me but, if that's an April Fool's joke, it's really pretty feeble. And decidedly unfunny.
Its a BT. They aren't funny. lol.
I dunno, just by the wording I smell a rat.
Well, he clearly libeled Garth Turner. That's something you don't want to do all that off-handedly, even if you don't like the person being libeled. And I suspect, with the commercial interests of that web site, it's not something The Politic should take lightly either.
The worse thing they could do now is make this part of some stupid ruse.
Exactly, ti-guy. I don't think Garth would find it amusing to wake up tomorrow morning and read, "We're terribly sorry about the libel, and we've deleted it, and Matthew is stepping down as a contributor. (Pause.) Psyche!"
No, I don't think that would go over well.
And remember, kids, when it comes to the Intertoobz, you can always accuse someone of being an "ignorant dumbfuck."
Funny. I never had to learn anything about libel, or even have to have been threatened with one of those useless "notices of intent" to learn that. Although Canadian libel laws are still stupid, it's simply vastly easier to say what you want to say and forcefully if you simply keep that understanding in mind.
It's sad that people who make such an issue out of their freedom of expression don't respect it enough to figure out how to maximise it. Most of all, because they ruin it for the rest of us.
Thwap — Bad habits are hard to break.
Oh, and it seems that Matthew hasn't retired either. He's still plunking away at the Treehouse of Misogynistic Ignorance...
Penn Gillete of Penn & Teller pointed out a few years ago that one of the things he learned make the TV series Bullshit was that you can get sued for saying someone lied or stole money etc unless you have absolutely bulletproof evidence. You will not however get sued for saying someone is full of shit or that they are an asshole.
The other defence, some times now called the "Larry Flynt" is to argue that your claim was made in jest and was so outrageous that no one could reasonably be expected to believe it. No one could be expected to believe that Jerry Falwell's first memory of Camparni was associated with having sex with his mother in an outhouse, argued Flynt. (because it was well known that Falwell didn't drink)
If you do get sued for libel and you do have the proof (truth being the best defense for libel) it is teh sweetness as judicial types really really hate it when wankers waste their time denying they didn't do something they definitely did. So if you are a poltitician and you break the rules and a newspaper reporter finds out and writes about it, the stupidest thing you can do is sue him for "libelling you" if said reporter can produce proof of your douchebaggery. Judges really hate that and tend to kick a 2x4 up the backside of those bringing such duplicitous suits. And then the reporter gets to write about your additional douchebaggery in trying to sue him for telling people the truth about what you did
Post a Comment