Here are some words that bear repeating. They’re from replies filed by some of my codefendants in The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s RICO Madness, Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al.
First, from Ron Coleman, representing Patterico, Mandy Nagy, and Ace of Spades blog:
Brett Kimberlin may have changed his terroristic tactics from the random acts of bombing for which he was convicted, to targeted acts of ruthless “lawfare” – but his new tactics are still corrosive to fundamental values of free speech and commentary. If plaintiff disagrees with defendants’ speech, his remedy is more speech, not saddling his critics with frivolous litigation brought to silence voices on the Internet that may talk about his past. While Brett Kimberlin has not set off any bombs against these defendants, he does seek to use the United States District Court as a weapon against these defendants and to punish them for telling the truth about his violent and dishonest criminal history.
Next, from Michael Smith, representing Michelle Malkin and Twitchy:
This country long has recognized that the remedy for speech with which one disagrees “is more speech, not enforced silence.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377, 47 S. Ct. 641, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Mr. Kimberlin is trying to impose silence on speakers with whom he disagrees, and while his chosen tactic obviously differs from that of the terrorist who shoots up a satirical newspaper, the chilling effect on speech if he is allowed to continue would be largely the same.
During the preliminary matters during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit tried in state court last August, Judge Johnson asked TDPK the following question:
Is there any other ticking time bomb — well, that’s a wrong metaphor. Are there any issues laying out there that are going to come up that you can envision?
Maybe that was the right metaphor after all.