Posted on 10/28/2002 5:39:36 AM PST by madfly
Edited on 05/07/2004 5:37:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A satellite cell phone in one hand and a global-positioning satellite unit in the other, Glenn Spencer of the American Border Patrol poses at the group's headquarters in Sierra Vista. In the background is an antenna that connects headquarters to the Internet.
(Excerpt) Read more at tucsoncitizen.com ...
Allegation #1: Glenn Spencer allegedly allowed a man named Willis Carto to be heard as a guest on Spencer's alleged radio show some time in the distant past. Carto is alleged to be a racist, anti-semite, holocaust revisionist.
Proof: HungoverComa allegedly heard the alleged radio show some time in the distant past and alleges that Spencer was too nice to the alleged racist who appeared on the alleged radio show that one time.
Allegation #2: Glenn Spencer allegedly "show up at" one or more unnamed "events" which were allegedly associated in some unexplained way with alleged racist Willis Carto some time in the distant past.
Proof: HungoverComa says he did.
So, the story has changed. I'll revise and extend the allegations as presented by you and dirtbag:
Allegation #1: Glenn Spencer allegedly allowed a racist "wingnut" to be heard as a guest on Spencer's alleged radio show on an unspecified date some time in the distant past.
Proof: HungoverComa allegedly heard the alleged radio show some time in the distant past and alleges that Spencer was too nice to the alleged racist who appeared on the alleged radio show that one time.
Allegation #2: Glenn Spencer has allegedly "shown up at" one or more unnamed "events" which were allegedly associated in some unexplained way with alleged racist Willis Carto some time in the distant past. This alleged showing up at unspecified events at which Carto was also allegedly present demonstrates some sort of vague association between Carto and Spencer.
Proof: HungoverComa says Spencer was at the unspecified events at unspecified locations on unspecified dates some time in the distant past.
However, the fact remains that Americanpatrol.com is on Mr. Robinson's list of sources that are NOT to be used or linked to. Perhaps he has more complete data on the subject.
No - wait. Robinson didn't make the accusations you've made. You and dirtbag made them. If you can't back the accusations up then you're both full of fecal matter and you're both guilty of posting baseless smears against a good person and organization.
Sure, I want JimRob to explain why he's banning American Patrol. But you opened your big mouth and out fell a bunch of crap that you can't back up. Don't defer to Robinson, he's got his own issues to deal with.
I want this problem solved. If you're not doing anything effective toward achieving that goal, then please either shut up or start doing something effective, I really don't care which.
What problem are you talking about? The border invasion? I'm working on solving the problem. My job would be easier if idiots like you and dirtbag weren't spreading lies and smears about someone who is also actually doing something about the problem. I think what Spencer plans to do would be very effective if little pricks like you and dirtbag aren't constantly allying themselves with the reconquista reds and the Morris Dees SPLC race-baiting lackeys by attacking him with baseless smears! You are not helping - you're undermining efforts to actually do something about the problem!!
Slow down there, turbo. You can't prove your smears are accurate simply by posting some leftist's smears? You have to prove the veracity of your source. I don't have to disprove YOUR charges or those of some leftist scumbag.
This caveat that you've attempted to push here PROVES that you know your argument is weak and that you may have done a little more smearing than you were prepared to back up. It proves that you know that your sources are equally weak.
So, now, you're going to post a few smears from leftist websites but you'll defend the ban of American Patrol which is a good website that is on OUR side?
What are you going to do now, post Morris Dees' baseless smears or somebody else's?
You earlier posited that when you lie with dogs you get up with fleas. Since you'll be posting baseless smears from radical leftist websites can we now associate YOU with those websites and the people who run them? And since you AND dirtbag are posting in the same thread making the same arguments can we now say that you AND dirtbag are associated together with those reconquista radicals? Can we use this against you and dirtbag from now on? Should posts from you and dirtbag be banned because of that association?
First of all, please knock off the personal attacks, Spiff - HoweverComma and myself have not done such to you. Second, I thought from HoweverComma's post that Willis Carto had appeared on Spencer's radio show. Since HoweverComma has not been able to back that up, or perhaps because I misunderstood his post, I will retract that. However, that does not fundamentally change the problem being debated here. The event where Spencer and Willis appeared together definitely had a whiff of racist elements (I'll go back out to Google and get the details, although I may not be able to get them posted until tomorrow), and I don't think it was a good idea for Spencer to go there. I do believe HoweverComma that Spencer allowed some racist nutbar to rant on his show without countering or disagreeing with him - and that, IMO, was a mistake - and apparently the management of the radio station agreed, because Spencer got pulled afterwards. And third, apparently JimRob agrees that there is a problem there, because he does not allow American Patrol on FR, so he has been convinced as well. It isn't because of the topic of illegal immigration - because that topic is robustly debated on FR.
So Spencer, with his actions, is steadily marginalizing his program and his cause. But you ain't gonna reverse that trend by running around hurling insults and calling people names - instead, you'll just drag it down further. In case you haven't noticed, HoweverComma and myself fundamentally AGREE WITH YOU on the problem of illegal immigration. However, we sincerely believe there is a problem with the public perception of this cause when Glenn Spencer associates with nutbars - and JimRob and the manager of a radio station apparently agrees - so why don't you drop the insults and maybe just listen to what we are saying? If you want to do something about illegal immigration, you and countless others are going to have to convince a sizeable number of voters to back you. But that will not happen when Spencer is handing to liberals the hammer to hit the cause with. Perceptions DO MATTER, whether you want to believe it or not.
I admit I get a little hot under the collar when people are unfairly tarring a good man and organization with a bunch of baseless smears and vague references to "perception". The insults were not entirely appropriate since you are now backpedaling and admitting that your source for some of the accusations was HoweverComma alone. And the source of his accusations were...equally worthless.
The problem is that, as you say, you "sincerely believe there is a problem with" a public perception that is not accurate. Instead of telling the leftists that they're full of crap when it comes to Spencer, you and HoweverComma attempt to appease them by submitting to their "perceptions" and joining in their attacks against a good man and organization. But you can't appease them. You let the wolves devour a sheep at the edge of the flock, and then another, and then another - they never stop - the next thing you know it will be you staring at a hungry pack of wolves and see that the flock has turned away from your demise because they prefer not to be "associated" with those on the "fringe" because they are afraid of how they might be "perceived".
I've seen it happen time and time again. Some leftist comes up with a baseless smear and the next thing you know it is accepted as fact for decades. I'm not a big fan of the John Birch Society, but that is precisely what has happened to them. When you dig right down to the source of the initial accusations you find that the sources were actually leftist enemies of the JBS who made it all up. Yet, look how they are perceived today in spite of the truth. Watch what happens when someone posts their latest Conservative Index ratings for members of Congress. It is bad enough that the leftists are doing all they can to destroy us, but then we don't hesitate for a minute to jump in and join the feeding frenzy when there's a little bit of blood in the water.
I've met Glenn Spencer on a number of occasions. I'm one of the sources for some of his articles and help him any way I can. I've seen what he's done lately and what he's doing with the American Border Patrol. I know, personally, some of the members on the American Border Patrol's board of directors. These are good people trying their best to do a good thing to begin to solve a problem that Washington refuses to properly address. You're not helping them or the overall border problem one bit by throwing them to the wolves. They're the good guys no matter what the leftist loonies have to say about it.
The truth is the truth. Being a slave to perception only serves the enemy.
So...
Allegation #3: Glenn Spencer and American Patrol are allegedly engaging in activites counter to their announced goals in order to intentionally continue the border invasion in perpetuity allowing them to gather more and more donations for Glenn Spencer's personal use.
Proof: The NAACP, SPLC, and other race-baiting organizations have historically engaged in such schemes so HoweverComma says that Glenn Spencer and American Patrol must also be doing it by sheer fact that they are an organization that accepts donations from the public to pay for their activites. No solid evidence of Spencer or American Patrol actually engaging in these activities is provided.
On a side note, I'm going to venture a guess that you hate "organized religion" for similar reasons.
That's just the smart way to bet. How come all of these problems never seem to get solved?
Only the ones that engage in political activism as their primary focus--most religious groups do not have an innate need for a public policy problem to continue, unlike secular organizations, where success in achieving the declaratory goals equals financial disaster.
Okay, that's the "smart bet" but you still don't offer one shred of evidence that American Patrol is engaging in such activity.
Allegation #3 (Revised): Glenn Spencer and American Patrol are allegedly engaging in activites counter to their announced goals in order to intentionally continue the border invasion in perpetuity allowing them to gather more and more donations for Glenn Spencer's personal use.
Proof: The NAACP, SPLC, and other race-baiting organizations have historically engaged in such schemes so HoweverComma says that Glenn Spencer and American Patrol must also be doing it by sheer fact that they are an organization that accepts donations from the public to pay for their activites. No solid evidence of Spencer or American Patrol actually engaging in these activities is provided but HoweverComma contends that it is a "smart bet" that they do.
Plea for summary judgement denied. Eyewitness (or, in this case, earwitness) testimony is relevant. Said testimony has not been rebutted. Pleadant Spiff's abject ignorance of the fact that Spencer actually did have a radio show shows that he shouldn't be complaining very loudly about a lack of evidence. Additionally, pleadant Spiff is hereby fined a $500 donation to FR for wasting the court's time by engaging in personal attack against two Freepers.
Your Honor, would you please tell the opposing pleadant to sit down and shut up.
I submit that beyond this single eyewitness's (earwitness's?) questionable and incomplete report of an alleged radio show (he's given no evidence that such a radio show actually exists or existed) upon which an unnamed, allegedly racist guest (he's given no name or date of this alleged incident) was allegedly treated too hospitably by Glenn Spencer that no concrete or credible evidence has been presented to support the allegations.
Further, even if that specific eyewitness testimony was corraborated, it would not come close to proving that Glenn Spencer is, in fact, a racist nor that his organization is, in fact, racist.
I wish to remind the court that proving a negative is impossible. Those making the allegations must prove their case and, given the breathtakingly negligent amount of actual, tangible, verifiable evidence, I submit that the accusers cannot and are instead engaging in baseless smears and perpetuating the false innuendo of the enemy and are not only wasting the court's time but are also engaging in activity which borders upon libel or slander (depending upon how your interpret statements made in an internet forum).
1ST CYBERCIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE JUDGE LYNCH PRESIDING, IS NOW IN SESSION.
Your Honor, would you please tell the opposing pleadant to sit down and shut up.
Pleadant Spiff is now fined an additional $1,000 donation to FR.
I submit that beyond this single eyewitness's (earwitness's?) questionable and incomplete report of an alleged radio show (he's given no evidence that such a radio show actually exists or existed) upon which an unnamed, allegedly racist guest (he's given no name or date of this alleged incident) was allegedly treated to hospitably by Glenn Spencer that no concrete or credible evidence has been presented to support the allegations.
The pleadant Spiff has raised valid questions, but has not successfully disproven the testimony.
Further, even if that specific eyewitness testimony was corraborated, it would not come close to proving that Glenn Spencer is, in fact, a racist nor that his organization is, in fact, racist.
The court notes that the pleadant HoweverComma is not claiming it as fact--he is merely stating that it calls the motives of Mr. Spencer and American Patrol into question, which is entirely true.
Additionally, the Honorable Judge Robinson has seen fit to rule that American Patrol is not an acceptable source for Free Republic. The rules of evidence that apply to Judge Robinson's court indicate that the ONLY reason for banning an entire domain is unsuitable content, with unsuitability being restricted to racist material, material from the Washington ComPost and Los Angeles Slimes, material that advocates the violent overthrow of the US government, and exceptionally bizarre conspiracy theories. A cursory examination of the americanpatrol.com website shows that the latter three cases are not met. This Court notes that, under the doctrine of stare decisis, the pleadant Spiff needs to change to an appropriate venue, such as LibertyForum.com, in order to begin the appeals process.
I wish to remind the court that proving a negative is impossible.
True enough. But in cases of direct personal testimony, it should be relatively easy to verify the facts of the case from the public record.
Those making the allegations must prove their case and, given the breathtakingly negligent amount of actual, tangible, verifiable evidence, I submit that the accusers cannot and are instead engaging in baseless smears and perpetuating the false innuendo of the enemy and are not only wasting the court's time but are also engaging in activity which borders upon libel or slander (depending upon how your interpret statements made in an internet forum).
Pleadant Spiff raises an interesting question at this point. Mr. Dees is an attorney. Mr. Spencer is, under the criteria established in the Sullivan vs. New York Times case, a private citizen, and not a "public figure." Proving libel or slander as a private citizen is relatively easy--Mr. Spencer must simply demonstrate that an specific allegation is not true (i.e., either that Mr. Carto did not appear as a speaker at subject rally, or that Mr. Spencer did not appear, or some other major defect of fact), and he must do so in civil court, with its correspondingly lower standard of proof vis-a-vis criminal court. If Mr. Dees has actually libeled or slandered Mr. Spencer by allegations of Mr. Spencer associating with Mr. Carto et al at specific events, then Mr. Spencer would be entitled to rather large sums of money (plus all of his legal fees--which would no doubt be nontrivial in amount) by way of compensation for the damage done to his reputation. Said sums of money would be more than enough to bankrupt the SPLC. Mr. Spencer has not seen fit to file a civil suit against Mr. Dees and the SPLC over this issue.
You're such a dork.
The pleadant Spiff has raised valid questions, but has not successfully disproven the testimony.
I've clearly proven that your accusations are vague and lack credibility and certainly are insufficient to ban all content from an entire website.
The rules of evidence that apply to Judge Robinson's court indicate that the ONLY reason for banning an entire domain is unsuitable content, with unsuitability being restricted to racist material, material from the Washington ComPost and Los Angeles Slimes, material that advocates the violent overthrow of the US government, and exceptionally bizarre conspiracy theories.
An indepth examination of the website in question shows that there is no "racist material" there either.
Mr. Dees is an attorney. Mr. Spencer is, under the criteria established in the Sullivan vs. New York Times case, a private citizen, and not a "public figure." Proving libel or slander as a private citizen is relatively easy--Mr. Spencer must simply demonstrate that an specific allegation is not true (i.e., either that Mr. Carto did not appear as a speaker at subject rally, or that Mr. Spencer did not appear, or some other major defect of fact), and he must do so in civil court, with its correspondingly lower standard of proof vis-a-vis criminal court. If Mr. Dees has actually libeled or slandered Mr. Spencer by allegations of Mr. Spencer associating with Mr. Carto et al at specific events, then Mr. Spencer would be entitled to rather large sums of money (plus all of his legal fees--which would no doubt be nontrivial in amount) by way of compensation for the damage done to his reputation. Said sums of money would be more than enough to bankrupt the SPLC. Mr. Spencer has not seen fit to file a civil suit against Mr. Dees and the SPLC over this issue.
Like you and dirtbag, Dees has not made any specific allegations of racism or hate beyond a false allegation that a derogatory cartoon depicting a Mexican is on the American Patrol website and implying that being against illegal immigration is inherently racist. Glenn Spencer has asked Dees to produce the alleged cartoon and Dees has not. That is because there is or was no such cartoon on the website. Spencer has also asked Dees for specifics in Dees allegations that Spencer is a racist and his website and organization engage in "hate." Dees has produced nothing.
Who are you going to believe - Dees or Spencer? I think I'm going with the conservative activist who is not suspected of being a child molester among other things and who doesn't make his living off pretending there are racists and haters under everyone's beds.
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.