Registan -- a rather nasty and brutish discussion page, as I've outlined -- has done a rather mean-spirited thing -- attempted to tarnish my reputation by writing falsehoods about me and attempt to impugn my employment in my field with a series of nasty tweets. Those are pretty awful things to do just to win an argument -- indeed, it's part of the First Amendment jurisprudence in our country that you don't get to do that even in a setting of rich free speech principles because you then silence speech. To print falsehoods and attempt to harm somebody's livelihood -- those are the tests of libel. I've asked for the material to be removed because it is false and injurious, but I'm unlikely to have any resources to pursue this -- if anyone would like to help, for example by protesting to the administrators in a show of solidarity, they are welcome to contact me at catfitzny@yahoo.com
Note: I never deploy the accusation of libel lightly -- I think in my entire history of blogging in the last 10 years or so, I've used it only twice -- regarding Registan, which I asked to remove content that was false and injurious, and another time some years ago, against one of the 4chan/Anonymous types who was endlessly stalking and harassing me and attempting to publish long tracts that supposedly were "outing" my real life so my pseudonym Prokofy Neva would be linked and somehow discredited, and I would be bullied and humiliated into silence. The facts of my "biography" were wrong, and I several times warned this character, who once facetiously claimed he wanted to "interview me for the New Yorker" (snort) that he was vulnerable to legal intervention because of these constant falsehoods.
What people often do in arguments is Google witch-hunt, and what you find if you look up my name is a zillion other people with the exact same name (one of the reasons I always put my middle initial, which is my confirmation name, Ann). For example, there's a woman journalist with the same name found guilty of plagiarism in Milwaukee who has nothing to do with me at all; there are other people with various other things like sensational divorces or who the hell knows what -- I'll never forget what it was like to be accused of "real life crime" in the Second Life community because of a case of mistaken identity. That's how people try to win arguments; that's wrong.
Nathan Hamm has done much the same thing on Registan.
He has claimed utterly falsely that I called him "a Stalinist asshole." I've done no such thing; I don't call people names like that in a professional context, that's ridiculous. Nothing remotely resembling anything like this sort of obscene smear can be attributed to me -- whatsoever.
He claimed utterly falsely that I accused him of "censoring" him (he claims I "assumed he was censoring me and flew off the handle". That's just silly. Managers of websites don't "censor" -- they aren't the state (at least not yet!). They are non-state actors and if they want to moderate their discussion, even in tendentious and propagandistic ways, well, that's their right. He's not accused of anything remotely like "censorship". I didn't "fly off the handle," I just told him that he was being childish.
Indeed, given his petulance at my reasoned arguments against various slams on human rights advocacy, he is indeed childish and manipulative, trying to win an argument by stepping in and telling me that my effective interventions in fact are "too long" or even "libelous" (!).
Catherine was leaving exceedingly long comments. Those get flagged and require manual approval. She assumed I was censoring her and flew off the handle. I assured her I wasn’t, that I would approve her comments, but that I request they be shorter than the (very high) character limit I’ve set; they derail discussion otherwise. In response, I was informed I’m sectarian, an idiot, etc.
Again, the record shows nothing like that. In fact, my remarks fit -- they weren't longer than the software automatically cuts off, but long enough to make him irritated -- maybe I was winning the argument.
Since many might take his false accusations -- which he's made in the course of defending himself from the surprised and dismayed readers even among his site's loyal fans of inappropriate silencing of a critic -- it's important to look back at where his notions came from.
Recent Comments