The greatest avelange begins with a tiny pebble rolling downhill.
And so it also is that the most far-reaching court decisions often begin with a neighborhood cat fight.... like the Scopes trial, or the Chicago Seven trial.
And into this mix we might soon add the name Joe Albero.... Let me pause here while I shudder at the very idea the Joe might be right about anything.... okay, let's continue.
The basic facts are that Joe is a firebrand, a loose cannon, a rabble rouser, and he says things that irritate and annoy people. And, make no mistake, it not just public officials that he annoys. He irritates me as well, and I wish he's just take his lithium, take a nap and STFU. That said, however, I have to say that most of what he says about officialdom constitutes what is known as "fair comment."
That doesn't mean his histrionic comments are fair, as in "regular and even," or "free of bias or favoritism." Rather, it means that his political hyperbole largely falls within the confines of allowable political comment in the context of The First Amendment, and if the police chief, the mayor, or any other public official can't stand the criticism then they need to hike up their skirts and tippitoe back into the relative saftey of the private sector.
And every-damned-one of us needs to stand up for Joe, because if the the government is allowed to silence Joe through legal or any other kind of intimidation, then what's to stop them from silencing anyone else whose words they don't like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Just because you are a public figure does not mean that you are fair game for anything.
Joey's attacks are always extremely personal and rarely have anything to do with policy. When he does attack the Administration's policy he has been shown again and again (best layed out by the Soapbox blog) to use faulty facts and gigantic assumptions. Now this may be through incompetitance and a complete lack of understanding but I feel as though with his personal vendetta against the Mayor he is purposefully putting this false information out there as fact with the intent of harming her reputation.
To me that is illegal.
Now whether he is a blogger or a journalist, he has certain responsiblities as a citizen. His liberties only go so far
Perfect example from today:
Prices at a local sandwhich shop rise. This is OBVIOUSLY a result of the horrible policies of the Mayor.
(Technically not an offensive comment, but using it as an example...)
Now, he provides no information as to how his observation is tied to his opinion.
He also manages to be completely incorrect. The tax hike was for residential homes, not businesses. As a matter of fact, Little Joey conviently forgets that he has previously criticized the Mayor for giving too many breaks to businesses.
Why should this type of discourse be protected? He puts out opinions with no facts, no expertise on the situation, and ties it in to something wrong or illegal the Mayor is perpratrating.
Hi Idiot:
Yes you are fair game for the slings and arrows outrageous comments. WHen you hold yourself out as a community leader and public figure, you necessarily give up some level of personal privacy and open yourself up to public criticism over policy decisions you make.
Now, I don't know you, but I checked your blog. And that, combined with your near-rabid defence of city oficials makes me wonder if you are one of the personally aggreived. If so, you have my sympathy, but you also have to admit that you volunteered to this gig. Moreover, for city officials to pursue this action will portray to the entire world that Ms Barrie and Barney Fife are so incompetant that they can be distracted from their official duties by a noisy political mosquito.
Listen, if the city attorney has already cautioned official about this suit, they need to listen to him. And if he hasn't - or even suggested they take this issue to court - he needs to have his ass fired.... No matter what happens in court, this is going to a be public relations train wreck: If the city wins, it's going to look like some out-back East German burg
that can't stand criticism. And if the city loses, it's going to be laughing stock, a one-liner on Letterman and Leno... Yeah, that will attract high-tech businesses and the best and brightest students.... In effect, the city is about to shoot itself in nthe foot to teach Joe Albero a lesson... and, by the way, whose paying for these lawsuits; is it the taxpayers? And who will be taking care of the city while officials are busy trying to repeal the First Amendment?
Joe's an ass, but the First Amendment protects his right to be one . . .
Idiot, in Joe's world, the Mayor is responsible for EVERYTHING bad that besets Salisbury. Rain? The Mayor's fault. Expensive wraps? The Mayor's fault. That pesky genital rash? The Mayor's fault. And on and on it goes, all apparently because the Mayor hired and supported Jim Rapp, who may have hooked up with and then definitely fired Joe's wife from the Zoo. That's where all this appears to arise from. The man knows how to hold and nurture a grudge . . .
Making connections devoid of a rational basis, however, does not equal defamation . . .
Perhaps some things Joe has said on his blog will be determined to constitute defamation, even under the higher standards applicable to public officials. Perhaps not. That's for the courts to decide . . .
Most of what Joe says is foolish blather, no doubt. But it's foolish blather protected by the First Amendment . . .
Rat's right . . .
Sorry Turd, but the City isn't going to win or lose; it isn't involved in the suits. These are civil suits brought foward by the Mayor and Chief as private citizens.
I agree that public officials need to have a thick skin as a job requirement, but they do not have to tolerate having their families and themselves stalked by a nut with a mouth and a camera.
Worse, Joe has made threats on his blog against more than one individual, both public and private, one of them being the Chief.
They also do not have to tolerate an idividual/journalist (depending on his mood) making up things from whole cloth, and posting them as facts.
He never explains where he gets
his "facts". He does not investigate any information given to him on any of his posting.
He throws a fit when asked to provide documentation, or cite sources.
Can you say whatever you want about anybody true or not? Yes. You are most certainly free to do so.
Do you have to take responsibility for any consequences arising from that decision? Yes. Slander and Libel laws are on the books for a reason.
The thing is, Grant, nthe city does pay for whatever its top officials do.... maybe not in term of a real cash outlay, but certainly in terms of how the city is percieved by the actions of it leaders. So ultimately it won't matter who footed the legal bill for this pissing match, it will only matter that two of the city's top officials took their eye off the ball in order to sue some poor schmuck in need of medicine and lessons in civility. And those officials and the city will be seen as trying to supress free speech.... It won't matter that Joe might have said vile and untrue things.... this will become a media event where the "truth" comes in 10 second sound bytes. And nthe media is going to concentrate on Joe grievances with the government, because that's what most people can identify with.
So again, Ms Barrie and Deputy Fife are about to take a huge dump on the front steps of city hall. And "The Whole World Is Watching."
It wasn't that long ago that Joe made the break and stepped away from Hadley's blog, and launched his own. Hadley and Joe both shared a common foe. However, Hadley being a lawyer, and more skilled at wordplay, could direct his animus at his opponent without resorting to boorishness. Joe , on the other hand readily acknowledges his lack of writing skills. His style of attack may have come from a bowling alley, but you can't question his ardor. I doubt he'll ever employ syllogisms, and metaphors properly, or ever learn what a backhanded compliment can accomplish. He's the pit bull of our blogosphere, and not the poodle. Problem is (IMO) most readers of blogs are better read than Joe. That doesn't mean that Joe is stupid. After all, you can't amass the load of cash he reminds us he's made, without having some savvy. As far as the 1st amendment goes, sure Joe gets a pass. If (and I assume) it will consist of a jury of his peers, how can he lose?
Post a Comment