Its actually to me, very negative towards Hoge and everyone of the defendants –
Eugene states “its hard for me to have sympathy” – he then avoids telling the readers about Kimberlin’s record (because that would prejudice the reader obviously against him) – and then Eugene waxes on incorrectly about preliminary injunctions (injunctions stop construction, enforcement of a constitutionally passed law, people from earning a living, even critical medical treatment all preliminary – so this “oh its too sacred to stop someone from writing about someone until we have a trial – is sooo much bullsh$t) , then he uses the magic word “nonetheless” – what do you think NONETHELESS means – substitute notwithstanding or regardless or so what.
THese are my opinions but I don’t trust him, especially when he leaves out critical parts of the case to the Washington Post readers but keeps mentioning children in the context of family.
But leaving out the child bride, the adjudicated perjury, the bombing etc – was deliberate or compare to this article by the same author:
Volokh’s piece in the WaPo was limited to the constitutional aspects of prior restraint, Levy’s work, plus the ramifications of the Streisand effect. As a law professor at UCLA and a columnist for the WaPo, he’s not in a position to take off on a personal crusade. But when he opines that we must be free to write and speak about Kimberlin’s monstrous past, he is, in effect, publicly supporting Lickspittle efforts.
An opinion from Volokh carries weight throughout the hallways of the legal establishment, and he’s on our side, even if seems to be in a vaguely stated way. We can’t read Hoge’s mind, but I’m guessing he’s feeling pretty good about what Volokh wrote.
EPWJ has an unrelated beef with Volokh, and it colors his interpretation of anything the guy writes. I for one would take it with a grain of salt for that reason.
Shutuppery lawfare ultimately fails.
Pingback: Paul Alan Levy on Brett Kimberlin, Defamation and the ‘Streisand Effect’ : The Other McCain
A commenter in another Hoge thread brought up the concept of a Hogelanche. Now the Washington Post is going to experience one.
Congratulations Mr. Hoge. You’re going big time.
(Any time Eugene Volokh says something about a case, it’s best to sit up and take notes. The man is doing a favor.)
I’m sure Osborne will write a laudatory piece. NOT.
I hope you’re right that many will comment there, but so far only 6 comments; one is our own BKWatch. 🙂
Its actually to me, very negative towards Hoge and everyone of the defendants –
Eugene states “its hard for me to have sympathy” – he then avoids telling the readers about Kimberlin’s record (because that would prejudice the reader obviously against him) – and then Eugene waxes on incorrectly about preliminary injunctions (injunctions stop construction, enforcement of a constitutionally passed law, people from earning a living, even critical medical treatment all preliminary – so this “oh its too sacred to stop someone from writing about someone until we have a trial – is sooo much bullsh$t) , then he uses the magic word “nonetheless” – what do you think NONETHELESS means – substitute notwithstanding or regardless or so what.
THese are my opinions but I don’t trust him, especially when he leaves out critical parts of the case to the Washington Post readers but keeps mentioning children in the context of family.
But leaving out the child bride, the adjudicated perjury, the bombing etc – was deliberate or compare to this article by the same author:
Very unfair when compared to his earlier reporting on this: http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/29/aaron-walker-brett-kimberlin-and-the-fog-of-litigation/
Volokh’s piece in the WaPo was limited to the constitutional aspects of prior restraint, Levy’s work, plus the ramifications of the Streisand effect. As a law professor at UCLA and a columnist for the WaPo, he’s not in a position to take off on a personal crusade. But when he opines that we must be free to write and speak about Kimberlin’s monstrous past, he is, in effect, publicly supporting Lickspittle efforts.
An opinion from Volokh carries weight throughout the hallways of the legal establishment, and he’s on our side, even if seems to be in a vaguely stated way. We can’t read Hoge’s mind, but I’m guessing he’s feeling pretty good about what Volokh wrote.
An excellent guess.
EPWJ has an unrelated beef with Volokh, and it colors his interpretation of anything the guy writes. I for one would take it with a grain of salt for that reason.