Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Words have meaning.

pe·do·phile noun \ˈpe-də-ˌfī(-ə)l, ˈpē-\
: one affected with pedophilia

pe·do·phil·ia noun \ˈpe-də-ˈfi-lē-ə, ˈpē-\
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

Brett Kimberlin objects to being called a pedophile. Let’s consider the evidence.

When Brett Kimberlin was trying to get a music career going during his first parole back in the ’90s, he wrote and recorded a couple of songs, Teen Dream and Waiting to Meet. Both are about having sex with underage girls. Kimberlin said this about Teen Dream

I say things a lot of people are afraid to say. Yeah, Teen Dream is about fucking a teenage girl. Every guy who’s seen a good-looking teenage girl has thought about it.

OK, that was especially true when we men were teenage boys ourselves. It’s a more-than-a-bit weird fixation for a guy in his forties as Kimberlin was at the time.

During that same period, Brett Kimberlin married his wife. Subtracting her date of birth from the date shown on the marriage license shows that she was 16 years old at the time, that is, she was an underage teenage girl. Perhaps Brett Kimberlin will be able to convince us that they had a purely platonic relationship, but the natural assumption would be that they had a sexual relationship.

Being married to a child may “legalize” the relationship, but it does not change the child’s age. Brett Kimberlin was attracted to a teenage girl who he took as his wife while he was writing and recording songs such as Teen Dream. Gentle Reader, is it unreasonable to see that as an unhealthy preference for sex with underage girls?

I can’t publish everything that I have been told about Brett Kimberlin. A great deal of it is privileged information that may or may not come out at trial, but that information reinforces the conclusion that Brett Kimberlin is attracted to underage girls.

9 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. To put it in boring legal terms — which are now in play —

    The statement “X is a pedophile” is not defamatory if it is true; only false statements are defamatory.

    In addition, it cannot be defamatory if it is a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact. Whether or not a statement is opinion or fact depends on the context, and on whether the statement implies undisclosed facts. For instance, “I’ve reviewed Y’s tax returns and it is my opinion that he is an embezzler” implies undisclosed facts, and therefore can be defamatory even though it is couched as opinion. On the other hand “based on these two articles in the paper, Z is a thief” is classic opinion.

    This can apply just as easily to a statement “X is a pedophile.” Consider Torain v. Liu, 279 Fed.Appx. 46 (2nd Cir. 2008). There the Second Circuit affirmed a summary judgment against a plaintiff who complained that the defendant called him a pedophile. The Second Circuit found that the circumstances showed that the statement was one of opinion based on disclosed facts:

    “Having reviewed the statements in the overall context that they were made, see Brian, 87 N.Y.2d at 51, 637 N.Y.S.2d 347, 660 N.E.2d 1126, we conclude that a reasonable listener could not have believed that the statements were intended to convey objective facts. While Torain is correct that the term “pedophile” may be used in a way that has a precise meaning and that is capable of being proven true or false, see id., no reasonable listener could *47 have perceived Liu’s statements, in the context that they were made, to convey that Torain had committed acts of pedophilia. Rather, Liu was clearly expressing his disdain for Torain’s comments on the radio that he wanted to sexually abuse the four-year-old child of a rival disc jockey, using the term “pedophile” as an entirely warranted expression of opinion in view of the statements concerning the plaintiff’s intended conduct, statements which Liu does not dispute he made over the airwaves. Cf. Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 285, 94 S.Ct. 2770, 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974) (explaining that the use of the term “blackmail” to describe the plaintiff’s negotiating position was non-actionable because “even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered [the plaintiff’s] position extremely unreasonable”). Torain himself admits that his “war of words,” as he describes his remarks, received “extensive media coverage and commentary.” Compl. at ¶ 7. It is within this surrounding circumstance that we must examine Liu’s statements and how a reasonable listener would have perceived them.1 Thus, for example, when Liu described Torain as a “criminal” and as someone who “must be put behind bars,” a reasonable listener would have easily perceived that Liu was expressing his opinion that Torain should be imprisoned for his harassing on-the-air remarks, not for committing actual acts of pedophilia.2 In short, when examined in the context in which they were made, we conclude that none of Liu’s statements would “reasonably appear to state or imply assertions of objective fact.” Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 243, 566 N.Y.S.2d 906, 567 N.E.2d 1270 (1991).”

    And that is merely the first case I found on Westlaw in about three minutes. I suspect there are more about the use of the word “pedophile” (or words to similar effect), and there are tons of cases about epithets like “crook” and “criminal” and “thief” and so on.

    The context of your posts makes it clear that you are stating an opinion based on disclosed facts — namely, Kimberlin’s reported statements and the undisputed age of his wife at the time he married her. It will be very, very difficult for him to establish that your statements were ones of fact for purposes of defamation analysis.

  2. Pingback: Brett Kimberlin sues Bloggers! | Batshit Crazy News

  3. Sorry to nit-pick, but you’ve got “Team Dream” instead of “Teen Dream” in a few places in the article.

  4. Pingback: Lawfare In Maryland: #BrettKimberlain Is At It Again | The Camp Of The Saints

Leave a Reply