Let’s take one more look at the silliness that has tried to pass for legal argument by the TDPK in his Motion to Order Plaintiff to Cease and Desist and for Sanctions Against Plaintiff’s Counsel in the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. case.
<mockery>Paragraph 5 is a corker. Let’s fisk it.
Incredibly and in the height of hypocrisy, Plaintiff, in paragraph 10, gets on his high horse and lectures about the First Amendment’s principles of expressing ideas that are offensive and disagreeable.
Yes, and as incredible as it may seem to TDPK, Mr. Backer cites a relevant legal authority, Texas v. Johnson.
Plaintiff then says in paragraph 11 that the way to oppose offensive speech is with more speech rather than censorship.
Clearly, TDPK doesn’t agree with this principle. Otherwise, he would have refrained from his initial attempts at lawfare via Peace Orders against bloggers who published truthful information concerning him.
Yet, as the Court knows, the instant case is all about Plaintiff suing Defendants for exercising their First Amendment rights to speech, and Plaintiff even asks this Court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from ever mentioning his name as the publisher of the Muslim hate blog.
Wow! Talk about densely-packed nonsense. Here goes … I doubt that the court “knows” that the suit is about punishing the Defendants for exercising their First Amendment rights. Judge Potter obviously has a better understanding of the law than that. The suit deals with such torts as defamation, none of which are within the protection of the First Amendment. Furthermore, no evidence has been offered that the blog which TDPK keeps ranting about was motivated by hate. If that is unproven, then asserting it as a fact could certainly be defamatory.
And he has sued Defendant Kimberlin and Breitbart Unmasked in Federal court for exercising their right to freedom of speech and access to the courts.
Ah, no, he hasn’t. The suit claims malicious abuse of process. Again, we are dealing with behavior well outside the protection of the First Amendment. It also claims tortious interference with business.
In that suit Plaintiff whines that Brietbart Unmasked said something offensive about him and counsel so he deserves to be sued and identified.
Whines? TDPK must be reading my posts; that’s the way I’ve been characterizing his murmurings. The idea that posting something offensive should be grounds for legal action was the theory behind TDPK’s Peace Order nonsense which wound up being shot down in the courts of Maryland. Aaron Walker’s federal lawsuit does not claim that Breitbart Unmasked’s posts were merely offensive. The claim is that they were “inflammatory, untrue, and scurrilous.” That sort of lying isn’t protected by the First Amendment.
When it comes to “the height of hypocrisy,” it sure looks as if we’re dealing with an expert when we encounter The Dread Pirate Kimberlin.</mockery>
Oh, and we should know in a couple of days whether or not TDPK complied with the judges order on discovery.