Posted on 07/09/2008 10:07:48 PM PDT by kristinn
...How important is calumny today? In 2000, calumny effectively led to John McCain's defeat in South Carolina. That smear campaign against him used robo-calls and fliers, and e-mail also played an important role, as the New York Times reported in February 2000. Arguably, calumny defeated John Kerry in 2004, and the infamous Swift boat television ads of that summer were, importantly, preceded by an aggressive Internet campaign begun that January that included perhaps the first viral campaign e-mail: a computer-generated image of Kerry and Jane Fonda beside each other on a podium at an antiwar rally. The image originally emerged at the Web site FreeRepublic.com, and Fonda had not in fact been at the event. But the damage was done. Today we are seeing viral anti-Obama e-mails, some of which I have traced to some of the same origin points for the 2000 and 2004 smear campaigns.
SNIP
A right to free speech is no excuse for lying. While strongly protected rights of free speech are critical to a healthy democracy, rights bring responsibilities. Citizens should, as a standard practice, take responsibility for their views -- the matters of fact and principle that they wish to put before the public for consideration -- by appending their full, legal names to their expressions, even in blog posts. While there are times and places for anonymity, it should be the exception. Unfortunately, the Internet has brought us to a point where anonymity is the rule, not the exception. Rather than facilitating free speech, this is corrosive to democratic discourse. It's time to rebuild a responsible culture in which people speak in their full, legal names and honor the truth.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Bingo.
She writes: "When lies work, why not lie?". Now we must wonder whose advice Hussein is taking as he attempts to obliterate the record of his prior positions. Can't be Danielle. She's a defender of truth.
There used to be several people hosting the fake photo of BUSH with Kerry and Fonda. One that the left doesn’t mention...
If you google search for images with the words bush kerry fonda, you’ll find a thumbnail of the image on one site, the URL may have changed. But the image existed contemporary to the discredited fake.
And that fake still gets them milage to blur the history on the real one.
Her hit piece gives gravitas to calumny.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire
sat·ire –noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.
[Origin: 1500–10; < L satira, var. of satura medley, perh. fem. deriv. of satur sated (see saturate)]
—Synonyms 1. See irony1. 2, 3. burlesque, caricature, parody, travesty.
Satire, lampoon refer to literary forms in which vices or follies are ridiculed. Satire, the general term, often emphasizes the weakness more than the weak person, and usually implies moral judgment and corrective purpose: Swift’s satire of human pettiness and bestiality. Lampoon refers to a form of satire, often political or personal, characterized by the malice or virulence of its attack: lampoons of the leading political figures.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
—
satire - noun
witty language used to convey insults or scorn; “he used sarcasm to upset his opponent”; “irony is wasted on the stupid”; “Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own”—Jonathan Swift [syn: sarcasm]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
“Comedy has to be based on truth. You take the truth and you put a little curlicue at the end.” ~Sid Caesar
Ay yi yi! All these words are giving me a hegemony. I'm going to bed. GOOD NIGHT!
The author is a useful idiot. Next thing you know, she’ll be complaining about this “faked” image of the Gore/Lieberman 2000 campaign logo which also “emerged” on the infamous Free Republic site:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=sore%2Floserman&gbv=2
Bwahahahaha!
Too late. The damage is already done.
Is that a hint for me, don't try it at home?
Congratulations Danielle, you display almost the same amount of chutzpah as your new God, Obeymao. Idiot.
Wow, that is pretty bold considering how often the media fight to protect "whistleblowers". These people are in fact felons leaking privileged information not whistleblowers.
It was a weak effort that everyone suspects was by someone who had created much funnier images and signed them.
The definition is for Danielle and any other Nancy Drews who think that they are blowing the lid of some giant secret or “dirty tricks” campaign. Denying that the Corbis photo exists is a lie of omission on her part (either willfully or ignorance of the subject).
Removing the hoaxed photo from the context of the thread saps the humor behind it. One thumbnail I saw on google even had the caption removed, making it a NEW composite image because it had been altered along the way to remove some of the telltale details.
It's like taking Henny Youngman’s “Take my wife, please!” as an invitation to adultery or kidnapping. It is the segue between the opener, “a lot of people yadda yadda... take my wife (implied “for example” but he follows it up with an appeal) please!” And then whatever observational joke he was making would continue.
“take my wife, please” on its own is not laugh out loud funny and can be seen as a cruel statement about the spouse.
The humor deprived are the Left who have no problems mocking the president or “Jeebus” or Christians or whatever but get near one of their sacred cows and watch out.
This time around there is to be no mocking fearless leader.
This will come as a HUGE shock to "progressives".
Hmmm, let me see, the Swift Boat ads were generated by EX NAVY MEN WHO FOUGHT WITH KERRY!!!..not Freepers or other conservatives. These people knew Kerry intimately. The leader of the Swift Boaters, John O’Neill, admitted to voting for Al Gore in 2000.
Unless you are a leftwing moonbat. And what about Al Gores Glo-Bull warming film? You don't see Danielle Allen crying about the entire global warming BS scam either. Typical leftwing nut.
The creator of the fake composite would have to come forward and assert copyright. And then prove it, no mean feat for an image that's been circulated around the world anonymously.
He'd be on the hook for infringing on the original photos -- despite your assertion, the original photographers do have a copyright interest in derivative works, and could claim substantial damages if they can successfully argue that the fake harmed their reputation or the salability of their genuine photos.
The Lefties at Snopes got a notice from Corbis which made them revise their copyright information but I doubt they PAY Corbis for the image that they host on their own servers.
They might have paid Corbis; I don't know, and neither do you. They also would have a pretty credible fair use claim, because the photo itself is the topic of a legitimate news story.
WOO-HOO! We can now cite AP publications again, eh? Did they back down?
The photo she mentions was indeed photo-shopped, as was noted by several here and on the Swift Vets forum, something she totally ignores.
She also seems incapable of showing where or when any Liberal Democrat engages in their own “calumny,” as was done against President Bush ever since he won the election in 2000.
Such biased writing as she engages in reduces her scholastic abilities to that of little more than a political hack.
The may have an "interest" but they can not protect their work from satire. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.