Well this explains why everyone was being so nice to PM, rather than stating the obvious…that he’s a fucking idiot incapable of reading for comprehension.
For some of the others trying hard to stand up for Kirby Delauter, I believe than any sane court will find that there is a wide gap between a journalist calling for a comment during the course of his/her job and harassment, especially when dealing with a public figure.
You have to draw the line somewhere, at some point even a journalist should be considered harassing a person, instead of just doing their job.
For me, the easiest and most logical place to draw that line would be when the subject being called says “I don’t want you to contact me anymore.” It’s not ambiguous, you don’t need to be a constitutional scholar to understand it, you don’t need to divide up professional and citizen journalists, or public figures and private citizens.
Yes.
Ha!
I recall his name but can’t recall ever having noticed him before. Still, he’s approaching a paper towel tube level of idiocy here.
“She made things up!”
“What things?”
“They’re all in her article!”
“What article?”
“The one that was already posted!”
“This one?”
“Yes!”
“She didn’t write that article.”
“Then this one!”
“She didn’t write that one either.”
“SHE IS A TERRIBLE PERSON AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU NEED TO PROVIDE CITATIONS!”
Free press, mate.
I would be more than happy to link to one of his many imbroglios involving James Randi and water dowsing, should the thread find it amusing. (I sure do.)
I don’t know that I can handle any more of him today.
I think this thread has enough of Mr Morris at the moment, thanks.
And Cheesesteak, I can understand not wanting to be bothered, but you do realize that our system is very easy and logical right now, yes?
Journalists contact people in order to research and question because we have freedom of the press. Full Stop. The end. No need to be a constitutional scholar or worry about public or private citizens, or professional vs “hobby” journalists.
The onus is on you, as the person being (depending on your perspective) contacted/harassed, to prove that the person contacting/harassing you is NOT a journalist in the course of their duty. If one asshole is pestering you and claiming to be a journalist, it’s pretty easy to prove if they’re just an asshole, then you peg them with damages and your court costs, get a restraining order, and move on with life.
Unfortunately, if they’re assholes AND journalists (see paparazzi) then sadly, you’re shit-outta-luck. Free country, freedom of speech, free press, and all that useless commie rot.
If you want to be left alone, then be boring, or move somewhere else.
Does Peter Morris get paid by the stupid post?
(my bolding) His demand that she never reference or use his name again certainly wasn’t unintentional, and it’s hard to read it any other way but literally:
When we are both on the Supreme Court and adjudicating just this matter, one of us will be writing the dissenting opinion.
Aside from the “problem” (should one choose to see it that way) that would be the First Amendment implications, there is also the fact that (like many things), one (wo)man’s assertion of “harassment” will logically and reasonably be seen by others as “nonsense”. “Harass” is one of those terribly misused words, not unlike “stalk” and any number of others.
Where someone has a legal purpose to contact (as in legitimate, since some people interpret “legal purpose” as meaning on the topic involving a legal issue), they may contact unless and until a court order/injunction says otherwise. There’s a reason that creditors are not prohibited from contacting someone simply because that person doesn’t want to deal with an issue (and there’s a reason creditors are in a different category that debt collectors).
If each individual were able base a criminal case on a subjective declaration, legitimate or bullshit, “that annoys [alarms-harasses] me!” and there were due process and equal protection in the (mis)application of (generally bad, overbroad) law, the criminal justice system couldn’t handle it. In an already clogged system filled with hysterics, imagine if law enforcement and prosecutors (who possibly didn’t want to look for or do “real” work) decided to process every case every time friend/coworker/relative/business contact/[whatever] decided (s)he’d take advantage of a badly written or misapplied criminal law as a diversionary tactic in addition to the misuse of civil remedies. If in this case Delauter had his (original tantrum) demands met, I don’t want to think about the implications.
That someone doesn’t want to deal with X doesn’t mean another person doesn’t have a right to attempt to resolve/address a given issue or impart and acquire information. (Indeed, if some anti-abortion organization for instance wants to mail you awful brochures on a daily basis, they are free to so do.) Again, to be unlawful (as in criminal) harassment absent a court’s civil order or injunction, in Maryland if not many states, the party doing the contacting/communicating would need to be seen by a reasonable person (which is not Delauter) as having specific intent to annoy-harass-alarm. (And he didn’t even mention the criminal code angle.)
Rather obviously, one is free not to answer his/her phone, open an email, open a text, open a letter. For someone actually intent on a purpose of annoyance-harassment-alarming, that’s the person who would start using many different phone numbers or opening up email account after email account to get around a block. Also rather obviously, if someone is coming onto your property and you tell them to leave and that they’re not permitted to enter again (or you post “no trespassing” signs), if they trespass thereafter, you’re free to call the police on them.
Was one of them Natalie?
I’m rather more amused by his insistence that “woo-woo” refers to a vagina because Urban Dictionary.
I’m interpreting this whole thing as “Kirby Delauter doesn’t like this reporter/news organization, and thought he could exert power over it by refusing to comment on the record, and was pissed that his dumbass stratagem didn’t work”. There’s never been any indication that the reported information was incorrect, or that he even cares about what was reported. He simply thought that he could claim veto power over what this media organization says about him, then threw a tantrum when it didn’t work.
I think the paper comes out looking just fine unless someone can show that what they reported was incorrect. They were 100% in the right to report on this issue, and 100% right to make as much fun of a moron politician who doesn’t understand incredibly basic things about our society like freedom of the press. The fact that Kirby Delauter has neither indicated nor proven that they reported something incorrectly when it is greatly in his benefit to so leas me to believe that it was correct. It is 100% not required that you verify a statement with the person who supposedly said it if you can verify it in other ways.
For all we know, there’s a letter signed in blood that both councilmen submitted to the person in charge of allocating parking spaces. I mean, not really, but there could easily be evidence that meets the newspaper’s standards without confirmation from Kirby Delauter.
Yes.
You can check his post history whenever the subject of Randi or his challenge comes up for numerous, incessant, and inane examples, alluded to in this post:
He is a politician, a public figure. If he doesn’t like the limelight and the attention he can step down and step off. He’s already established the fact that he doesn’t know the law or the first amendment. Lawmaker? Spoiled brat is more like it.
By the way, worth pointing out that even if it were harassment, it’s not unlawful harassment and Delauter would have found no (viable, successful) course of action if he hadn’t realized he’d made an ass of himself and noted that he was wrong about the reporter’s rights to refer to him in an article despite his demand that she not do so.
Probably not. It’s more likely likely that Bethany Rodgers once wrote an article that portrayed James Randi in a positive light.