PhotoDude.com

Thu. Oct 30, 2003

The Stalking Litigant

The Stalking Litigant – Paul Krugman of the New York Times described Donald Luskin of the National Review Online as his ”stalker-in-chief.” No lawyers got involved. Luskin responded in May in an article with a title that claims ”We Stalked. He Balked.” No legal letters were sent. Back in May, Instapundit said, ”Donald Luskin is stalking Paul Krugman.” Despite the fact a lawyer was involved (Glenn himself), no billable hours were generated.

But months later in October, this tiny entry by Atrios, titled ”Diary of a Stalker,” is the catalyst for a threatened libel lawsuit by Luskin.

”Mr. Luskin demands that you remove the October 7th link and caption, and the comments section associated with that caption, as well as the comments posted in response to another link that you posted on October 10th, titled ’Liberal Incivility Watch,’ immediately. This is your opportunity to resolve this matter without legal expense and exposure to liability and damages. If the offending posts are not removed within 72 hours, further legal action will be taken.”

He doesn’t just want the offending phrase removed, he wants the entire entry removed, as well as one related to it. He doesn’t want to silence just Atrios, he wants to silence anyone who commented on that entry as well. He doesn’t want specific edits, he wants them gone. Silenced.

God Bless America, where media pundits can offer any opinion, and be protected by their editorial status, but regular folks who link to them using the same words are subjected to threats of litigation.

If you go to Google and search ”Donald Luskin” stalker, you should be able to see the primary source of that ”libel.” The #1 return is Luskin’s own words (it was on 10/30, but that changed as people piled on this idiocy). Perhaps he should sue himself. According to Google, Luskin seems to be the primary person spreading this meme, prior to late October. He started it.

If more than one person calls you a stalker (including yourself), and you choose to sue just one of those people, notably, the one most opposed to your political views, isn’t that sort of like … stalking? Isn’t that choosing one person out of many similar people to flood with your negative attentions? I’m just askin’. Not stating. Because that could get you sued, apparently.

So instead, I’ll just say it makes you look very foolish and petty, and diminishes your credibility as a journalist who ought to be the first to stand up for freedom of speech (as well as have a much tougher skin). Of course, I am merely stating my opinion that you are foolish and petty, and since being foolish or petty is not an illegal criminal act like ”stalking,” I suppose you can’t sue me. Or any of the dozens of others who are saying similar things about you today.

See? We learn quick.

In fact, if bloggers are going to face legal pursuit because they said the same thing that the principals did in their own columns, perhaps we should just stop reading those columns. Perhaps the National Review is just too dangerous to comment on or link to, since it seems they can print words that others will get sued for, like ”stalker.”

Perhaps Mr. Luskin ought to look at the reaction to his proposed lawsuit. From the left, and the right, the condemnation is spectrum-wide. There’s a lot of billable hours in there, should you decide to continue your litigious quest. Hundreds of people to sue (oops, you’re at the top of that list).

But in the end, I suppose Luskin will get what he wants; a lot less people commenting on his writings. Or paying attention to them.

Later: It’s interesting to me that the National Review’s weblog, The Corner, makes no mention of this lawsuit whatsoever. The only mention I could find states Krugman had smeared Luskin with the stalker comment (note, Luskin has not sued Krugman for libel). There’s no support for this suit, and no dissent; the issue simply doesn’t exist on The Corner.

Even Later: By late afternoon, The Corner had finally mentioned this, and Jonah Goldberg said: ”...it seems to me he made a classic new-to-the-web blunder. This sort of thing happens when you’re new to the hurly-burly argy-bargy of the interent and you think you have to take every little thing seriously. I used to respond to sooo much hate mail and every bit of criticism from every loony site—because I thought it would make a difference. I still get peeved when bloggers and other websters lie about their traffic numbers. I remember one website where there was a transgender poet who wanted to do something particularly worrisome to me with what some might call a marital aid. But what are you going to do?”

Well, I’m going to assume Jonah didn’t try to sue the dildo wielding poet.