QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 16th February 2007, 11:37am)
If all this were actually happening now, as opposed to 14 months ago
Brandt said he's looking for an [intellectual property] lawyer now.
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 16th February 2007, 11:37am)
Kinsella hasn't been particularly active on WP since then - fewer than 20 edits in the last year -
yes, and after the way he was treated is no wonder. Also, the dubious sources about the organization he's connected with remain in that organizations entry.
QUOTE
Williamcw: This is not a notable criticism.
As for the SPLC being "notable", I've never heard of them before, and their web-traffic is smaller than that of Mises.org and LewRockwell.org by 2 orders of magnitude. Hardly seems significant to me. But accepting that they are, I stand by my assertion that Encyclopedias shouldn't be places where mud is thrown. Absent a response to this rubbish, it is a denigration to the LvMI; it shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged, simply because no-one there has gotten around to responding to it. [
presumably cited to Dr. Daniel J. Heinrich under a subhead
Unnamed "Opponents"]
(Also, the SPLC reference was authored by, guess who).
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 16th February 2007, 11:37am)
just because he's an IP law specialist doesn't mean he'd bear any relevance to the Brandt case, which is really about defamation and invasion of privacy. Besides, Kinsella isn't in Florida, and he apparently wants his own bio article to stay in, not be deleted...?
Kinsella is evidently an International Intellectual Property lawyer, and Section 230 reform is International in scope (maybe we can get Guy to input here). It appears he does want his bio to remain, but that's his business and we've no need to speculate further. This is Brandt's decision to contact him for whatever they may wish to discuss confidentially. I have in fact myself communicated with him privately to apprise him of the situation.
On a further aside, three Proposed Principals in the
Rangerdude/Will Beback/SlimVirgin case,
Controversial experts
Harassment of controversial experts
Focusing attention on controversial users
are plural, "experts", and "users", i.e. this refers to
both Kinsella and the author of the SPLC guilt by association smears. The Rangerdude/Will Beback/SlimVirgin case was a milestone. And I invite HK, before he wishes to pursue his proposal here further to comment on his posting,
The importance of this case (see also my next subhead,
bona fidas).
This post has been edited by nobs: