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.