Category Archives: Shutuppery

The Best Part of the “Kimberlin Buys Trump Forgeries” Story

Not that Brett Kimberlin thought that evidence against a sitting president — a billionaire — could be bought for $9,000.

Not that his one chance for relevance to Democratic operatives just got destroyed by documents with the wrong dates and misspelled names.

No. The best part of this is in the headline.

Canada Free Press:


After all he’d done to change the narrative. To make himself a new story. To sue people who write the truth about him.

After all that, he’s a “convicted domestic terrorist.” Hey. Don’t take my word. Ask the Canada Free Press.

Buzzfeed reminds us why: 

Kimberlin earned the nickname “Speedway Bomber” by setting a string of bombs in Speedway, Indiana in 1978. Though nobody died from the blasts, one Vietnam veteran had his leg amputated due to injuries suffered during one bombing. Carl DeLong, the victim, committed suicide in 1983.

Kimberlin was deemed to be civilly responsible for Delong’s death by suicide and he was ordered to pay a large sum to DeLong’s widow. He has not. — Dave

Kimberlin, who is in his early 60s, served 17 years in prison for the bombing spree. He gained more notoriety in prison after he concocted a story about having once sold marijuana to then-Vice President Dan Quayle. The story was propagated by Cody Shearer, a political operative who worked for the Clintons in the 1990s. After being released from prison, Kimberlin has battled conservative activists who have drawn attention to his newfound career as a left-wing operative.

Buzzfeed didn’t want to look up his actual age, so I did:


And apparently, that’s what he’ll always be. 01035-079

Quote of the Day

About a violent incident of Shutuppery at Middlebury College:

In truth, many Americans, not just Murray’s poor whites, have lost patience with people who don’t respect the reverence for freedom of conscience, thought, and speech on which America was founded. So enjoy your run down the mountain today, students of Middlebury. Nothing lasts forever. — Myron Magnet, City Journal.

John Hoge Goes There

Brett Kimberlin won’t comply with discovery, and won’t pay sanctions regarding previous refusals to follow court rules.

Finally, John Hoge mentioned the one word many of us would think would be fair:


Why should Brett Kimberlin be allowed to fail to comply with court sanctioned orders? 

Fail to answer a traffic ticket, and you pay a stiff fine. Avoid paying the sewer and water bill, and you get the water shut off. But if you’re Brett Kimberlin and the state of Indiana awards a woman more than a million dollars because you blew her and her husband up with a homemade bomb…or you ignore every rule in your several lawfare suits in Maryland and Federal courts…

Nothing happens.



The Ukulele Award Goes to…

The Economist for agreeing with the Craft Blog on the subject of hate speech.  They reviewed what we discussed the other day, that politician Geert Wilders was convicted of hate speech by a Dutch court:

The Netherlands is far from the only democracy to criminalise “hate speech” that denigrates racial, religious or other groups. Such laws have widespread support, but they are misguided. Free speech is the oxygen of democracy—without it, all other political freedoms are diminished.

Here they really hit the nail on the head:

So the right to free expression should be almost absolute. Bans on child pornography and the leaking of military secrets are reasonable. So, too, are bans on the deliberate incitement of violence. But such prohibitions should be narrowly drawn.

Standing outside a mosque shouting, “Let’s kill the Muslims!” qualifies. [As an incitement to violence. — Dave] Complaining that your country has admitted too many migrants of a particular nationality does not.

I’ve said it before: I hate hate.  I hate censorship more. Can we please stop the drumbeat for additional government control over speech? 

Dutch Court Finds Politician Guilty

Of hate speech for encouraging a crowd which chanted “fewer, fewer” in response to Moroccan immigration. 

UK Telegraph: (Autoplay video of Dutch judge speaking. Dutch sounds a bit like German spoken by people who are from France.)

Dutch far-right wing politician Geert Wilders was today found guilty of hate speech and inciting racial discrimination for leading a chant calling for “fewer, fewer” Moroccans in the Netherlands.

Presiding Judge Hendrik Steenhuis said the court would not impose a sentence because the conviction was punishment enough for a democratically elected lawmaker. Prosecutors had asked judges to fine him 5,000 euros ($5,300).

This will happen here if the American people are not clear: We will not allow our freedoms to be infringed so that others can avoid bad feelings. This guy is a politician. In a democratically run country, the freedom to speak about political disagreements should never be restricted.

The Telegraph mentions Wilders also wants to ban the Koran, and take other actions. I can disagree with the court, without endorsing his whole agenda.

 “I still cannot believe it, but I have been convicted because I asked a question about Moroccans. The Netherlands has become a sick country. The judge who convicted me [has] restricted the freedom of speech for millions of Dutch. I will never be silent. I am not a racist and neither are my voters.”


The Latest in Fake Reputation Management: Fake Lawsuits

Suppose somebody said something I didn’t like about me online. (That actually has happened a time or two, but I am a grown up, so it doesn’t bother me much.)

I could hire a reputation management company.  Or I could sue the b@stard.  

There is a sneakier, more effective method, according to Eugene Volokh.  Someone could sue the a fake person, get a quick settlement — essentially conning a court into believing that the situation is settled.  Then, the offended party delivers the court document to Google or an internet content company, which agrees to deindex or erase the criticism online.  

It took me a few minutes to see how easy this is: The actual author of the comment, or review is unaware of the court case. Google and the court just assumes that the “I’m sorry, I give up” paper is legitimate.  I didn’t get any closer the law school than the LSAT, so I don’t know a better word for that paper, but Volokh and Paul Alan Levy did and do:

  • All the ostensible [made up] defendants ostensibly agreed to injunctions being issued against them, which often leads to a very quick court order (in some cases, less than a week).
  • Of these 25-odd cases, 15 give the addresses of the defendants — but a private investigator (Giles Miller of Lynx Insights & Investigations) couldn’t find a single one of the ostensible defendants at the ostensible address.

Now, you might ask, what’s the point of suing a fake defendant (to the extent that some of these defendants are indeed fake)? How can anyone get any real money from a fake defendant? How can anyone order a fake defendant to obey a real injunction?

The answer is that Google and various other Internet platforms have a policy: They won’t take down material (or, in Google’s case, remove it from Google indexes) just because someone says it’s defamatory. Understandable — why would these companies want to adjudicate such factual disputes? But if they see a court order that declares that some material is defamatory, they tend to take down or deindex the material, relying on the court’s decision.

Since I happen to know people who have been the attempted victims of small-time brass knuckle reputation management, I suggest they make sure Google knows they have not agreed to an injunction.

Volokh has an update on this situation here.  Just to review: There are few ways to be good, but there are thousands of ways to be a jackwagon online.