None Dare Call It Slander

The amusement value of the “Dump Bachmann” “blog” (“the blog that did more than any other to send Michele Bachmann to Congress”), wore out long, long ago. All the thing is really good for these days is seeing which of Eva Young’s pack of remedial writers and “artists” will get arrested for stalking first. She’s pretty much reduced to nonsensically prattling “MOB parrot! MOB parrot!” in response to criticism – ironically, a bit like a trained parrot (and just you watch, it’ll be her big “response” to this, too!)

But occasionally, the ongoing train wreck emits a more-than-normally piercing squeal.

Karl Bremer – an occasional writer and more-occasional subject on the Dump – has long been known for being a big, big talker who pours forth boundless aggression from the safety of his keyboard.

And in the Dump’s comment section, he slanders Drew Emmer.

I thought I saw the name Drew Emmer among those arrested with Larry Craig for cruising MSP airport bathrooms for anonymous sex. I could be wrong, but Emmer’s behavior and comments seem oddly similar in both form and content to Craig’s.

Bremer’s a class act!

Oh, relax. When I say “slander”, it’s only in the ethical sense of the term; Drew’s public enough a figure to entitle him to take all sorts of morally-retarded abuse with no legal recourse.

The real point, of course, is that Bremer is a big part of the Dump Bachmann clicque – both the blog itself and the little clacque of crazed zealots that rails away in the Sixth District (among others). He is the face of the Anti-Bachmann crowd.

Will Eva Young condemn this homophobic slander and condemn her buddy Bremer? Or will she erase the comment and pretend she and her blog are ethical?

Posted

October 4, 2007

Blogs

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

22 responses to “None Dare Call It Slander”

angryclown

October 4, 2007

Daddy Warblogs said: “Will Eva Young condemn this homophobic slander and condemn her buddy Bremer? Or will she erase the comment and pretend she and her blog are ethical?”

So does this mean you take responsibility for the content of all comments from your Mitchketeers that you don’t specifically and immediately repudiate?

This should be interesting.
David Poe

October 4, 2007

Commenters vs. Contributors, kiddo.
Mitch

October 4, 2007

So if Ann Coulter goes to your circus and says something wacky, do you take responsibility?

Of course not – because Coulter is just a spectator, not your employee! When Coulter comes to the Silezi/Rypauf Cirkus to watch you and your colleagues Grumpy, Gassy, Arrogant, Stinky, Sleazy, Dim, Irascible, Cranky, Excrescent, Flabby, Incontinent and Loud Clown climb out of the car, she is a customer, not part of the production!

But as a matter of fact, I have removed comments that I thought were defamatory.

So when you say “this should be interesting”, what you really mean is “this should be really really dull”, since it’s pretty much a non-issue.
Kermit

October 4, 2007

Incontinent Clown. That explains the large shoes.
angryclown

October 4, 2007

Angryclown isn’t calling for you to stand behind every idiot commenter on your blog – so many! – but merely suggests you should observe the same standards you demand from others. Seems to Angryclown, you should at least be responsible for the comments of all the bloggers you choose to associate with – all your True North and Northern Alliance droogs.
David Poe

October 4, 2007

Of course you do….
Chaosfish

October 4, 2007

Ac, bringing obtuseness , misrepresentation and vapidity to new heights!

You go Clown!

I meant that …

go
angryclown

October 4, 2007

Mitch, I formally call on you to repudiate Chaosphish’s Clownophobic comments!
Mitch

October 4, 2007

Can one defame a pseudonymous, anonymous personality?
Jeff Kouba

October 4, 2007

Mitchketeers? Cool! I call dibs on playing the role of Cubby.
Mitch

October 4, 2007

Oh, maaaan – that means we’ve got an Annette somewhere.

Totally cool.
Mitch

October 4, 2007

Indeed, can one anonymous, pseudonymous commenter be defamed by another anonymous, pseudonymous commenter?
angryclown

October 4, 2007

Answer: yes. Angryclown will monitor his PayPal account for his damages payment.
Mitch

October 4, 2007

“Damages” to anonymous, pseudonymous commenters can be paid in monopoly money.
peevish

October 4, 2007

Psuedonymes (sic) are still possible to slander, if the assailant (Mitch) knows the person behind the pseudonym, and someone else does too.

But then again, Mitch, considering your apparent inability to grasp the Constitutional assaults of this administration, and also the irony of this complaint by you (considering how often your blog grossly exagerates, missrepresents and distorts), I’m not exactly surprised you don’t get that even a pseudonym can be slandered if the origin is known and public.

Given you don’t exactly show ‘ethical’ restraint – I’m not sure how you are justifying your complaint?

Where again is your ethical code – you know, the thing you complain about where MINMON is concerned?

Where again is your explaination for the fact that you refuse to use the word Democratic as an adjective, and instead use the noun Democrat – considering your english usage pendantic nature in all other things?

Oh – that’s right, you don’t answer those questions. It’s a laugh, but at least where you are concerned, it’s not slander.

I’m not sure M Bachmann can actually BE slandered – she’s such an idiot I’m not sure there is anything she wouldn’t do, and therefore, using the idiotic logic the President used to invade Iraq, I believe Ms. Bachmann has the incumbant responsibility to PROVE she DIDN’T do whatever she’s accused of, or we’ll invade..err assume she’s guilty.

As far as removing comments that were defamatory, WHEN? if they weren’t aimed at you? When? Your mitchkateer sychophants have said innumerable ugly, childish insults aimed at me, at AC, at Jeff, Rick, Flash, etc.. some of the most purile, juvenile, scatalogical garbage, and you stood by.. so WHEN? I must have missed it.
Mitch

October 4, 2007
Psuedonymes (sic) are still possible to slander, if the assailant (Mitch) knows the person behind the pseudonym, and someone else does too.

Huh. Well, if that’s the case (and I sincerely doubt it is) there’s the little matter of “reasonably” (where “reason” means “a jury will buy it”) proving damages to the pseudonymous reputation and livelihood. That, and being a willing participant in the whole thing.

“Assailant” (Mitch)? Oh, good lord, Peev. Dramatic much?

But then again, Mitch, considering your apparent inability to grasp the Constitutional assaults of this administration,

…for sought englightenment, and got:
- more ranting from you
- not much else
Given you don’t exactly show ‘ethical’ restraint – I’m not sure how you are justifying your complaint?

I won’t even dignify that little outburst with a response.

Where again is your ethical code – you know, the thing you complain about where MINMON is concerned?

That’s simple – I have never published one! But I follow one; I fully disclose any income that might be seen to influence what I write (that isn’t visible in my ad bar), and I never willfully mispresent anyone (including myself).

Pretty simple.

Where again is your explaination for the fact that you refuse to use the word Democratic as an adjective, and instead use the noun Democrat – considering your english usage pendantic nature in all other things?

I don’t “refuse” to use it, so there’s nothing to explain. I use the terms pretty interchangeably, and figure anyone who worries about it could use some more challenge in their life.

Oh – that’s right, you don’t answer those questions.

Oops.

I’m not sure M Bachmann can actually BE slandered…

Well, it sounds like you’re rarin’ for a test case! Go to it!

As far as removing comments that were defamatory, WHEN?

I don’t keep a log.

if they weren’t aimed at you?

Oh, but then it’s OK?

Your mitchkateer sychophants have said innumerable ugly, childish insults aimed at me, at AC, at Jeff, Rick, Flash, etc.. some of the most purile, juvenile, scatalogical garbage, and you stood by.. so WHEN? I must have missed it.

Yes, some people have done exactly that. Some people have written offensive stuff, about you (who are anonymous and pseudonymous) and me (who am neither) and, eventually, just about everyone that’s left more than one comment here. If she leaves enough comments, someone will eventually insult Pianomomsicle. It’s a comment section.

But nobody has defamed you. Reading what you’ve written here, I’m not sure you’re clear on the difference.
buzz

October 4, 2007

Pianomomsicle sucks.
There. Welcome to SITD.
angryclown

October 4, 2007

Mitch: repudiate!

Pianomomsicle does suck though.
Mitch

October 4, 2007

Mitch: repudiate!

I repudiate you!

Pianomomsicle does suck though.

You oughtta be ashamed of yourself.
Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Free Association

November 12, 2007

[…] But Karl Bremer was deeply disingenuous (and playing to the Daily Mole’s audience’s ignorance) to turn Eberly’s article into a smear of the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers (MOB). Nobody expects anything but skulking yellow hackery from Bremer, as worthless and yellow a “writer” as exists, an embarassment even to “Dump Bachmann”. But neither does one expect “Drinking Liberally” (the left-of-center social group) to enforce any standards of behavior on the local Sorosphere, because, duuuuuude, they’re just a bunch of lefties who get together to drink! So why is the MOB – whose charter is, if anything, less politically motivated than DrinkLib – suddenly accountable for its members’ opinions? The MOB strives to be apolitical, and I have dozens of email invitations to local leftybloggers (and apolitical bloggers) to prove it. The MOB is mostly center-right and/or non-political bloggers, of course; my theory is that too many regional leftybloggers are afraid to be seen in a room with people they disagree with, but I don’t know. At any rate, there is no enforcement arm to the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers; there is no MOB editorial board; the sole function of the MOB’s capi di tutti capi, Brian and Chad and King and I, is to call Terry Keegan and ask if it’s OK to invite 100 of our closest friends over to drink on a Saturday night. The MOB is a blogroll and two annual parties that are explicitly open to everyone who wants to show up. And that means you, whether you’re Michael Brodkorb or Steve Perry for that matter. The entire “when will the MOB police itself?” “argument” is akin to asking “when did you stop beating your wife”. It’s a cowardly stawman set up (and supported) by yellow hacks with intent to obfuscate. […]
pianomomsicle

February 18, 2008

Oh no! i just googled myself and found this. Too bad. It’s a good thing i still like Mitch, but buzz and AC are officially on “my list”.:)
Come on, i’m way too non-confrontational and open to new ideas for anyone to actually think i suck, right?
Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Just The Wrong Politics

March 28, 2008

[…] Dave Thul – an actual Iraq veteran – writes an excellent piece on his interchange with Karl “Howlin’ Mad” Bremer, a man who’s spent the last ten years of his life dedicated to attacking Rep. Michele Bachmann. (Although various conservative commentators have linked Bremer to the campaign of harassment that caused Flake High to shut the Veterans for Freedom down, Bremer disclaims any direct involvement in the campaign. He also notes that he is himself a veteran, and that he’s been harassed as a result of the belief that he’s been involved. While I’ve condemned Bremer’s monomaniacal focus on Rep. Bachmann, and his frequently yellow and self-indulgent “journalism”, and think that he is the personification of the “bad speech” that the First Amendment bids us to provide “more better speech” to counter, I condemn any personal harassment, and salute his service as an MP back in the seventies). […]