Paul Alan Levy is one of the nation's top First Amendment lawyers and the nation's top expert, period, in a particular specialized field-- in the defense of John Does, anonymous writers, from subpoenas seeking to "out" them as part of a lawsuit. And defending online speech as a general matter -- see this case, for example, which is pretty egregious.

He is the country's most authoritative jurist on this subject, and his track record consists almost entirely of wins.

He has kindly agreed to represent me in fighting Brett Kimberlin's motion to compel a third party to give him my name and address, so he can then sue me in a suit which, in my opinion, is entirely baseless, and once again an attempt to chill Free Speech rights.

Which is what this has been about since the beginning.

What makes me particularly happy that Mr. Levy is representing me is that he is, by his confession, a "lefty." It has bothered me from the outset of this entire affair that people who I thought might take an interest -- people in the left-leaning media who ought to care about attempts to chill and punish Free Expression, left-leaning bloggers whose very jobs put them in danger of having the same tactics used against them -- failed to do so.

Instead, what seems to have happened is everyone just "picked teams," based on the typical tribal impulses. If anyone on the left wrote about this -- not because they agreed, politically, with any of Brett Kimberlin's targets, but because they supported the principle that people ought to be free to comment on news and newsworthy stories without the threat of a lawsuit hanging over them. (One person did cover it, briefly, in an "Interesting Thing Going on on the Internet" sort of way, but without actually examining the issues raised.)

And as far as the media, I'm afraid, the idea seemed to be "a pox on both their houses." One guy is using the courts to pound critics and stifle free speech; but on the other hand, these guys are conservatives, so, of course, they are Unpeople, and They Were Probably Doing Something Bad Anyway.

I am very grateful that people like Mr. Levy exist, who do not simply pick tribes, but who undertake to support and defend important principles, whether any particular support of this principle might help someone on the right, or someone on the left, or someone not particularly political at all, like someone who anonymously criticizes a company's performance on a message board, and whose identity is then sought by a company willing to use a little bit of lawfare to shut down criticism.

I am heartened by this. I am not just heartened to have impeccable representation in this matter (and by this matter, I mean only the subpoena to out me), but I am heartened to know that even in this state of utter polarization, in which people routinely declare an allegiance to The Tribe Ãœber Alles, there are still people who will fight for principle, not tribe, and for what's right, not what's politically agreeable to one's "side."

I should also note that the Maryland ACLU has agreed to serve as Mr. Levy's co-counsel in the matter. (Levy will be applying to the court to appear pro hac vice, just for this matter, and he needs Maryland co-counsel to do so, I think.)

I did not expect the Maryland ACLU, either, to come to my aid, but come to my aid they have.

Mr. Levy has written a blog post about the matter here.

If you like reading motions, you can read his response in opposition to Kimberlin's motion here. It was just submitted yesterday.

Mr. Levy is taking this case pro bono -- donating his time and expertise. However, Public Citizen does, of course, take donations, and if the mood strikes you to support someone, on principle, who is himself taking on a fight not his own, on principle, you can donate to Public Citizen's efforts to protect online speech, to protect the First Amendment, here.

I should note that Public Citizen is one of Ralph Nader's organizations. The donation button I've linked is specifically the donor button for the organization's First Amendment practice, not its other efforts.

If you were thinking of hitting the the donation button for me recently, hit it instead for Mr. Levy. He's already spent a lot of time on this case, and will undoubtedly spend a lot more.

One last point: I know that this is obviously a newsworthy subject, and that people naturally like commenting on newsworthy subjects, particularly when the subject is one you personally know (sort of -- in a fake internet friend sort of way).

I would however just caution you all, as usual, to exercise judgment and discretion in commenting. The problem isn't the law, per se: The problem is, as ever, an extremely litigious person.

Posted by: Ace at 01:20 PM | Comments (260)
Post contains 870 words, total size 5 kb.

I had an exchange with Emperor of Icecream. Because this idea is central, in my opinion, to the mechanism by which we lose elections we could and should win, I'm popping it out as a main post.

Below, the exchange. Emperor's comments signaled by my ">>>" idiosyncratic quotations. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 AM | Comments (430)
Post contains 855 words, total size 5 kb.

One of those neat "whiteboard" exhibits where they draw pictures and charts while delivering their verbal argument. The video argues that sex, like anything else, can be analyzed as an economic exchange, an exchange of one good for another. And that the "price" women "charge" for sex has dropped precipitously, resulting in men who in turn understand that the market is signaling the price for sex should not be high, and are therefore unwilling to "pay" much for it.

Via Instapundit, who links this New York Post article about the video, if you just want to read the quotes and basic thrust of the argument.

Key insight: "Men tend to behave as well, or as poorly, as the women in their lives permit."

There's a documentary called Sexy Baby, directed by a couple of women interested in exploring current sexual mores. (Trailer here: Content Warning.)

There are several storylines, two of which are particularly interesting. The one that's relevant here is 12-year-old Winnifred's story. She's very precocious, and "gets it" on an adult level. She notes, for example, that FaceBook and other social media pictures of girls must always at least include the suggestion of being open for sex -- of being "DTF," as she says. (Down to F***.)

She says (or implies) that she's rather trapped by the current market forces, in which boys just won't take an interest in girls who don't broadcast that sexual availability.

Remember, she's 12.

The pictures she posts online are not graphic or overtly sexual. They do, however, subtly signal that she might be DTF, which is actually her intent. I mean, it's her intent to signal that, in order to attract boys; based on her interviews, I don't think she actually is ready for a sexual relationship. (But then, her dad knows she's giving these interviews, so who knows what the truth is.)

Remember, again: She's 12.

Her dad argues with her about this, and tells her the sort of things dads tell their daughters, about respect and so forth. But she tells her interviewers, basically: This is the marketplace. If I want to have any boys show any interest me at all, I have to conform to what's being bought in the marketplace. This is just the way it is.

A lot of feminists criticize this sort of argument, claiming it's "slut shaming" girls. I don't buy that at all. I certainly don't buy that two women filmmakers, who seem to me to be feminists themselves, are "slut shaming" girls, and I don't think Winnifred is slut shaming herself or the other girls she's competing with.

And remember: She's 12.

Feminists take this argument to be only about girls' behavior, and seem to believe -- or at least claim -- that anyone who discusses these things "hates" girls or only wishes to "slut shame" them.

Untrue. You can't watch Sexy Baby and not feel sympathy for Winnifred. She is a 12 year old girl, stuck in an ADULT CONTENT WARNING world. Nor can you not feel, by extension, sympathy for the millions of other Winnifreds suffering under the current sexual regime.

You don't have to claim "This is all girls' fault" to recognize that there is a social problem here which is forcing (or, at least, urging) girls into sexual activity at increasingly young ages.

It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is -- huge segments of society are implicated; the "fault" is diffuse.

The important issue is that the issue exists, undeniably. And how can you change that -- how can you try to make things easier for Winnifred -- without discussing the problem at all?

I have a problem with feminists on this point. They are so eager to attack me, a convenient member of the hated "Patriarchy," that they're unwilling to listen at all to Winnifred, or lift a finger to help her.

Helping Winnifred would involve some positive social messaging from role models saying, "Hey, don't listen to boys about sex. Boys are programmed to lie, cheat, and steal (or worse) their way into sex." Hearing a hip-sounding role-model young feminist say that would probably count for more in Winnifred's mind than hearing her fuddy-duddy worryword daddy say it.

But instead of helpful messaging like that -- messaging that might help Winnifred set the "price of sex" in the marketplace a little higher (a higher price from which she gains) -- feminists are just determined to stay in their favorite, easy wheelhouse, their eternal wooby, attacking politically convenient targets, calling everyone who worries about Winnifred a member of the retrograde, evil Patriarchy, and so on.

It is politically easy to attack "The Patriarchy." It is a more difficult conversation to honestly discuss if our current sexual marketplace is behaving correctly, and if our current sexual marketplace is serving Winnifred -- or harming her.

And people love taking the easy way out. And they especially love taking the easy way out when they can then clap themselves on the back and call their cowardice "bravery."

Remember: Winnifred is 12.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:18 AM | Comments (484)
Post contains 848 words, total size 5 kb.

Uh oh.

Some powerful images coming out of Kiev.

[ RSS]

[On iTunes]

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (321)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Eh, looks fun-nish. The conceit that they're not heroes per se, but intergalactic outlaws (who I assume will, in a Firefly-like way, wind up fighting for good despite themselves), is attractive.

I dunno. Eh, I'll probably see it.

But on DVD. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:23 AM | Comments (336)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Aurora Alert! Residents of MN, WI, ND, MI, VT, ME, AK and southern Canada (where skies are clear) are enjoying a great northern lights display as of 11PM local time. Go outside and look up!-CAC

Because stomach unhappy tonight's grumpiness factor is 4 - you have been warned.

Liberals Support Higher Taxes to Punish the Rich Rather Than Bring in Revenue

Okay this is from the UK but I have little doubt that a poll of liberals in the US would get similar results. Envy and spite over perceived injustice drive a lot of human behavior and hence a lot of politics.

Sixty-nine per cent of Labour supporters would want a top rate tax of 50 per cent even if it brought in no money.

I'm sure they'd dispute the premise. I'm sure they'd insist that it did bring money in. And, on one level, they'd believe it; it's human nature to start with the result we want and then rationalise it to ourselves with what look like hard data. I think their rationalisation would be false, obviously - once the behavioural consequences of the tax are factored in, it becomes a net drain on revenue - but I might be subject to my own confirmation bias in the other direction.

Anyway, this isn't a blog about the statistics - I've already posted one of those. No, this is a blog about the mind-set of people who see taxation, not as an unpleasant necessity, but as a way to punish others.

In her last Commons appearance as prime minister, Margaret Thatcher was asked by Simon Hughes whether she was proud of the fact that, for all her undoubted successes, inequality had widened during her eleven years in office. She replied magisterially:

The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.

But Mr. Perkins here has only taken a step that progressives took a few generations ago, when they embraced escalating rates of taxation as a foundation for economic justice, and applied it to a different problem. If our political liabilities - taxes - should be as a matter of justice proportional to our income, then why shouldn't our political input be likewise proportionate? Why should proportionality be the rule in one context and not the other? The leap from "No taxation without representation" to "proportional taxation with proportional representation" is not a very dramatic one. But Mr. Perkins has been received as though he were the offspring of Marie Antoinette and an unreconstructed Ebenezer Scrooge.

The case for an income tax that is proportional is far from obvious, and the case for one that is progressive even less so. The principle of equality under the law suggests, to my mind at least, that every man's standing in relation to the state should be the same as every other man's, regardless of his wealth or income. So why should somebody pay 20 times or 50 times or 10,000 times the taxes that another man pays? ...The usual answer given to that question is "the rich can afford to pay more." That is true, but it is not a principled reason. A rich man could afford to pay more for a Big Mac or a Honda Civic, too, but we do not expect him to do so. Another popular explanation is: Paying the same rate as everybody else would be too hard on the poor man. True, but that is an argument for lower taxes, not for progressive taxation.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:37 PM | Comments (595)
Post contains 1656 words, total size 17 kb.

• When And Where To Watch Olympic Quaterfinal Hockey
  
• War On Women, More From The Leftist Front
  
• VDH: Lessons Of World War I
  
• CBO Just Went And Fouled Up A Great Democratic Election Issue
  
• In Which Buzzfeed Andrew Demonstrates What's Wrong With America
  
• Lefty Meltdown Leads To Latin Revival
  
• Protests In Ukraine Take A Deadly Turn
  
• Bipartisan Uproar Over Obamacare's Insane Menu Rules
  
• NSA Reform Bill Idles In Congress
  
• VW Workers Escape From Detroit
  
• John Kerry vs. Dissent
  
• Why It's A Great Time To Be A Dictator
  
• Sidewalk Philistine Destroys 1 Million Dollar Vase At Museum
  
• An Opening For Lindsey Graham's Opponents?
  
• Harry Reid Attacks Kochs Just Before Heading To Billionaire Fundraiser
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:24 AM | Comments (286)
Post contains 123 words, total size 2 kb.

On February 4th, the CBO released a report projecting that Obamacare will result in the loss of 2.5 million jobs in the next ten years. Kathleen Sebelius just disputed that, and you should believe her, because she oversaw the Obamacare Website.

Now the CBO says that another one of Obama's policies, hiking the minimum wage by three bucks, will cost the country another half-million jobs.

Oh, and not by 2024, either. By 2016.

Countdown until Nancy Pelosi comes out to tell us, once again, how exciting it is not work at all.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (287)
Post contains 184 words, total size 2 kb.

Good Lord.

Obviously: R E T R A C T E D

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (94)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:01 PM | Comments (603)
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.