Obama Campaign Sanctions Libel of Political Adversaries

IsraPundit ^ | 07/11/08 | Bill Levinson

[Winged Hussar]

Democrats also falsely accused of crimes at Obama’s official Web site

We are not attorneys, and we are not qualified to give legal advice. We know, however, that a false accusation of a crime is automatically libel under U.S. law. ...Furthermore, while it is harder to libel a public figure than a private citizen or corporation, it is not impossible. A member of Congress could probably, for example, sue someone who falsely and maliciously accused him of taking a bribe or committing some other crime.

We are not going to re-post the specific libelous material that pervades Barack Obama’s official campaign site, even for the purpose of condemnation. Suppose, for example, we say that “the statement at my.barackobama.com that So-and-So is a criminal is libelous,” we repeat the accusation that So-and-So is a criminal even though we deny it immediately. If anyone wants examples, a keyword search of my.barackobama.com for terms like “criminal,” “war criminal,” “racketeering,” and so on, especially in combination with the names of people and entities that Obama’s people dislike, will turn up plenty of results. Some of the libel is, however, directed against Democrats to whom someone or other took a dislike.

[The article demonstrates that the site is under the Obama campaign's editorial control, and proves that the specific libels in question were brought to its attention.]

...The Obama campaign therefore knows about libelous material on a Web site over which it exercises editorial control, and it has allowed the libelous material to stand. We must therefore conclude that Barack Obama’s official campaign condones and sanctions libel, either because it agrees with it or because it doesn’t want to offend the followers who want to post it.

[Winged Hussar]

We will soon be posting a piece on how to make Barack Obama's Web site into his Verdun.

Free Republic can help take down his campaign by re-posting and circulating the anti-Semitic, misogynist, and even racist hate speech that appears at my.barackobama.com. Be sure to add that the site is under the editorial control of the Obama campaign, because "exercise of editorial control" makes the campaign responsible for it.

The German strategy at Verdun was not necessarily to capture what was a virtually useless position, but rather to kill its defenders. France, for political and not military reasons, could not live without Verdun, so Erich von Falkenhayn decided to make sure they could not live with it. He calculated that he could inflict five Franco-British casualties for every two Germans he lost by simply pouring artillery fire into the fortress. The strategy was working, and driving the French Army to the edge of mutiny, until the Kaiser decided that he wanted to capture Verdun. The Kaiser's incompetent orders resulted in massive German losses, and could well have saved France from defeat.

Barack Obama's campaign similarly cannot live without my.barackobama.com (aka MyBO). It is a major source of fundraising, and its participative nature makes his supporters more likely to donate. Our strategy is therefore to fix matters so his campaign cannot live with MyBO either. The procedure is to quote, word for word, every single piece of anti-Semitic, misogynist, and racist hate speech we find there, along with a wish that President Bush has been assassinated,* plus of course the libel story. All this reflects on the campaign because the site is under its editorial control. When quoting the hate speech and other unsavory content, be sure to use the phrase "exercise of editorial control."

* The individual did not actually threaten the President, which would of course have been a crime. He said it was "unfortunate" that an assassination attempt failed.

The libel is a bit harder to deal with because its repetition, even for the purpose of condemnation, gives it circulation. If we say, "MyBO is libeling So-and-So by calling him a criminal," we are still circulating the fact that So-and-So was called a criminal. On the other hand, the potential legal exposure (not legal advice, we are not attorneys) should be yet another concern for Obama's campaign managers because the campaign has millions of dollars, unlike some MyBO member who posts the libel from the basement of his parent's house. In other words, it's worth a plaintiff's and attorney's while to go after the Obama campaign itself.

This will force the Obama campaign to make a choice, none of which are pleasant:

(1) Do nothing while we quote reams of hate speech, a wish that President Bush had been assassinated, and reports of libelous content, all with the statement that the site is under the Obama campaign's editorial control. We have in fact posted screen shots of this stuff with Obama's picture at the top (as displayed on his Web site). This will hang the unsavory content around the campaign's neck like the Ancient Mariner's albatross.

(2) Screen and moderate every posting. When MoveOn.org did this in response to a similar scandal in 2006--and we know quite a bit about that scandal--its own members revolted and complained about censorship. People lose interest in a forum in which they have to wait hours or more for their postings to appear.

(3) Take down my.barackobama.com entirely, which was MoveOn's second move in 2006. The loss of its prized Action Forum crippled MoveOn.org permanently, and the loss of my.barackobama.com would probably be fatal to Obama's campaign.

Back the Attack!

[Winged Hussar]

General Karl von Clausewitz would probably have called my.barackobama.com Obama’s “center of gravity.” This is the objective that, if overthrown, results in the enemy’s defeat.

As examples, Clausewitz said that the capital was the center of gravity of most nations. Loss of the capital usually resulted in capitulation. (The United States and Poland are, by the way, two notable exceptions.) The Army was, however, Prussia’s center of gravity. That is, the loss of Berlin would not defeat Prussia but the destruction of its army would.

The Internet is Obama’s key resource and organizing tool, so it is his center of gravity. If we can turn it against him, it will be all over for his campaign.

[patriot08]

GOOD POINTS!

How can we take down the site completely? What do you mean?

[Winged Hussar]

Re: "How can we take down the site completely? What do you mean?"

As I said, by quoting the unsavory content word for word as widely as possible, while pointing out that the Obama campaign exercises editorial control over the site.

This will force Obama's campaign into a situation in which they must decide whether the site is more of a liability than an asset. If they shut it down (like an animal gnawing off a leg to escape a trap), they alienate their own followers. If they don't, the quoted hate speech will attach itself to the campaign. Either way, it will be all over for them.

I speak from experience, having been one of the people who forced MoveOn.org to make exactly this kind of decision in 2006. MoveOn had to take down its prized Action Forum for exactly the reasons described above.

[patriot08]

OK. Get it. Full steam ahead!!