Senate candidate who claims he invented e-mail loses libel suit against Web site that claims he didn't

UPDATE: Ayyadurai will appeal, lawyer says.

A federal judge in Boston today dismissed V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai's libel lawsuit against a California tech Web site that published more than a dozen articles disputing his claims to have invented e-mail as a 14-year-old in 1978.

At best, US District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor ruled today, Ayyadurai invented an e-mail system; whether he is the father of all e-mail, however, is a question that is open to legitimate public debate.

And because Ayyadurai, who is running for the Republican nomination for US Senate in next year's election, has thrust himself so vigorously into the discussion of the issue - through Web sites and articles and claims to being "a world-renowned scientist, inventor, lecturer, philanthropist, and entrepreneur" - he is a public figure, which means that even if Techdirt were wrong, it would be protected under a Supreme Court ruling that public figures must prove not only that something written about them was wrong, but that it was published with "actual malice" towards them, Saylor wrote.

And, the judge continued, the question of who invented e-mail is a matter of "public concern," which further burdened Ayyadurai with first even proving that what Techdirt wrote was false, rather than requiring Techdirt to show that what it wrote was true.

That, he concluded, Ayyadurai failed to do. In fact, the ultimate answer to who really invented e-mail might be unreachable, because it depends in part on how one defines e-mail - which some say actually dates to 1965. And if that is unknowable, then it becomes impossible to judge Techdirt's allegations that Ayyadurai's claims are false, because those, too, depend on the issue of just what e-mail is.

Here, even a reader who agrees with defendants' view that plaintiff should not be credited as the sole inventor of e-mail may not agree that his claim is "fake" or "bogus." One person may consider a claim to be "fake" if any element of it is not true or if it involves a slight twisting of the facts, while another person may only consider a claim to be "fake" only if no element of it is true. Thus, whether statements such as "Dr. Ayyadurai is perpetuating a ‘fake story' with respect to his claims of invention of email," [from his complaint], are provably true or false depends not only on how one defines "e-mail," but also on how one defines "fake." Because both terms, in this context, are imprecise, the statements are not actionable.

Saylor continued:

In short, the [Techdirt]articles disclose the non-defamatory facts on which they rely; make clear that the conclusions drawn from those facts are simply an interpretation of them; and do not rely on other, undisclosed and potentially defamatory facts that are not available to others. ... Furthermore, by providing hyperlinks to the relevant information, the articles enable readers to review the underlying information for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

Saylor also rejected a claim by Ayyadurai, who has publicly said he would be running as "the real Indian" against Elizabeth Warren, that Techdirt libeled him by questioning whether people who disagree with his claim are racist.

Saylor noted that one Techdirt article on the issue:

[I]ncluded a lengthy excerpt from plaintiff’s Twitter feed, including tweets challenging journalists who, following his death, credited Ray Tomlinson (a former Raytheon employee) with creating e-mail and a tweet stating that "[w]hite journalists since 2012 have joined in the lynching and whitewashing of facts on email."

The article also included an exposition on the topic from Ayyadurai's own Web site.

Finally, the article also included links to information about work performed by Tomlinson in the area of electronic messaging. By providing all of that information, [the Techdirt writer] made clear that he is drawing his own, subjective conclusion, and he enabled his readers to draw their own conclusions from the information provided. Furthermore, no reasonable reader would conclude that his statements about plaintiff’s claims of racism were based on any non-disclosed, objective information. Accordingly, the statements are protected.

Saylor concludes that Ayyadurai failed to show actual malice on Techdirt's part - and pointedly rejected his argument that the fact that the failed Gawker Web site - bankrupted by an unrelated libel suit - settled with him is proof he was right:

Here, the complaint fails to lay out such facts. It alleges that defendants made the allegedly defamatory statements “with the knowledge that they were false,” but fails to provide any specific factual allegations to support that conclusion. (See Compl. ¶ 48). It alleges only that defendants made the allegedly defamatory statements despite knowing that another website,, had settled a defamation claim brought by plaintiff concerning similar statements. (Compl. ¶ 51). However, even assuming that the statements at issue in the Gawker litigation were substantially similar to the statements at issue here (although the complaint does not allege as much), a settlement is not a direct reflection of the merits of a claim.



      Free tagging: 

      PDF icon Order dismissing case against Techdirt266.01 KB


      i like

      I like this guy, V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, but I don't like his campaign pitch. The one I saw was the video of him at Parkman 8/19.


      By on

      Literally his entire set of policy positions is "Elizabeth Warren is a gross woman with gross cooties. I disapprove of cooties, and will work hard to keep them away from you, the hardworking people of Massachusetts." Other than that, all I know about him is that he's stuck by an utterly unhinged claim that he invented email six years after it was in wide use, and that he decided it was a good idea to speak at the Nazi picnic on the Common last month. If this is the best the GOP can do, Warren is going to win by eighty points.


      I used to work for him, he is no prize...

      Be careful...

      By on

      Watch out, Friar Tuck, you may end up being the recipient of a libel suit...

      now I don't know whether the

      now I don't know whether the stuff i read is true or not. I read about his activism at MIT and his coding projects when he was growing up.

      I also had access to computers when I was in middle school and high school, coded in multiple languages and hacked operating systems. there was a college student who worked at the computer center who was always willing to teach us the math we needed to know to design the algorithms that made out projects work.

      I guess i related to his experience. my politics compared to his at this time couldn't be more different. I don't like his politics.

      As a candidate, I think his job is to undermine the narrative that the GOP-- party of Lincoln --has been lost to nativists, and that far right white supremacists are welcome in it.


      He's a flake and has not

      By on

      He's a flake and has not treated some girlfriends very well. I'm watering this comment down, because I don't want him to sue me!

      We can do better for a candidate (Geoff Diehl).

      Geoff Tool

      Has one big "accomplishment" reducing revenue for transportation in Mass. The inflation adjustment on the gas tax he got repealed would have raised significant revenue, about $1b IIRC, while costing the avg driver about $15 a year.

      In his last race he ran for state senate and lost.

      Massachusetts has the 2nd lowest gas tax in New England.

      I agree he's a flake

      By on

      But you kidding yourself if you think Warren isn't. She has accomplished absolutely nothing since being elected, other than publishing a few books.

      It's true, she cemented her

      By on

      It's true, she cemented her bona fides by proposing and founding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before she ever ran for office.

      She's in the minority

      By on

      Her votes and speeches against the monstrous idiocies and crimes by the party in power are accomplishments. She's one of the most thoughtful and clear-headed people to sit in the senate in many years. Her books are accomplishments - they aren't mere ghostwritten vanity-jobs like most politician's books. She might be the most accomplished person in the Senate. Though Al Franken comes close.

      Sen Warren is pretty sharp. I like her aww shucks okie.

      Under Warren's questioning in two five minute Q & A's with the CEO and chairmen of Wells Fargo Bank she laid out the compelling case for unethical and illegal aspects of Well Fargo business model including opening new accounts without customers' consent, high pressure sales tactics, abusing low wage sales force and terminating them when the pressure was on management for shady business practices, misrepresentations to shareholders and potential securities fraud.

      In ten minutes for all the room to see as well as C-SPAN viewers, Warren established unethical and potentially illegal behavior and asked the CEO how the board was holding him accountable and whether he'd return ill-gotten gains.

      In the months that followed, the CEO left (resigned/was fired?) Wells Fargo, other sr managers did too. $100s of millions were clawed-back from them and returned to shareholders and Wella Fargo settled with the Justice Dept for $100s of millions. Many agencies were involved in nailing it all down including CFPB (which returns financial ill-gotten gains to consumers), SEC and DOJ.

      Warren, like many high-performing individuals, can suss out what's happening, talk about all the aspects of it, summarize it in plain language and leave others to make it right. She's good at that with individual cases and she's good at looking at the big picture and formulating remedies for the system. Before she ran for office and aided with her expertise in bankruptcy law, she used to do research for Ted Kennedy on what was destabilizing middle class families.

      Early in August she gave a speech about her campaign platform. It is focused on addressing some financial challenges poor and middle class Americans face that are obstacles on the ladder to a prosperous career.

      Warren was a Republican until 1995.

      People are allowed to have

      By on

      People are allowed to have opinions, no?

      I hate warren. You got a problem with that? My reasons are just as valid as yours for liking her.

      It's time to stop the nonsense - agree to disagree.

      your secret reasons?

      I respect your right to your opinion, but you must respect my right to debate the facts presented.

      If a person asserts that Sen Warren has "done nothing since she was elected", clearly that is false on its face. If it was meant to imply "done nothing" of value then that is very subjective.

      I can't respect your right to wag your finger at the posts in a thread that no one forced you to read.

      I will never like warren.

      By on

      I will never like warren. She lost me with the "you didn't build that" speech and all the idiots clapping like seals behind her. You know what warren, the company I work for actually pays many, many taxes. We have departments that do just that. Want to compare with yours?

      Tell me warren doesn't take every tax break afforded to her, you'd be lying. But according to her, others are supposed to not take the same advantages? Ha, I wonder if she checks that magical box on MA Income tax returns. I'll be not.

      She hates that the 1%, of which she is a part of, doesn't pay enough? Change the laws. Don't screech.

      Shes a partisan loudmouth who understands the US Banking system and Wall St. inside and out. That is no reason for me to like her. She could actually be doing more to correct the banking system if she wasn't in politics. She is like the loudmouth of the democratic party whom I wish would shut up. She talks nonsense when she tries to sound politically adept, which she isn't. Remember her presser when Gov. Patrick had to answer her questions? I do.

      Ever see her in public? A timid little mouse unless she has a script in front of her.

      She hasn't earned my respect as my US Senator. Ever contact her office? Good luck with that.

      I detest warren. I detest the sound of her voice, her mannerisms. Everything about her personality offends me.

      In my opinion, she has no business being a US Senator.

      My opinions are just as valid as yours.

      Well that's where she got my support.

      Finally someone is telling the truth. We don't have a free market, the system is rigged and our legislature helped them set it up. And the factory owner speech is based on the words of George Lakoff. Giving tax breaks to business and expecting workers to benefit is fake trickle down economics.

      You are entitled to your opinion, surely, but your reasons seems superficial. Warren's tax returns are available to you (unlike, he who shall not be named). Why do you assert the validity of an opinion based on an assumption? look it up.

      She is trying to change the laws, but senate is controlled by republicans. It seems odd that you challenge to change the banking system by working in it. The only reason she ran for the senate was because republicans refused to approve her to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she created.

      You don't like her fine, but your reasons are not valid.

      You're allowed to have your own opinion

      By on

      People are allowed to have opinions, no?

      Yes, but they're not allowed to have their own facts. You stated something that is factually incorrect. Own it and move on.

      I hate warren. You got a problem with that?

      I'd say that YOU have a problem with it, and you might want to look into it for the sake of your mental health (really, what has she ever done to you?), but that's your lookout. Be crazy and miserable if you want.

      My mental health is just fine

      By on

      My mental health is just fine, Thank you. (I am one of the few adults that don't need a pill to get through their day)

      I despise warren. What did I state that was untrue? You didn't say.

      I am neither crazy or miserable. Actually I seem much better off than many posters here!

      All of your Warren posts/comments are accurate...

      By on

      You'll be told to take your meds and that you're (insert buzzword of the day) and that you're a sad person and whatever else these people like to say to others who don't completely abide by the mantra of the left.

      It's pretty funny actually, I take pride in it. I should have kept a diary of all the stupid names I've been called on UHUB, just to look back on it for a laugh someday.

      Whenever you're being ridiculed on here, it means you're doing something right.

      Just like a bot

      all of Patricia's statements about Sen Warren were inaccurate, and fact free.

      She said that she assumes that Sen Warren takes all her tax deductions. Why assume, why not just look at her returns?

      She says "Change the laws, don't screech." So Sen Warren should file legislation and be quiet when it is voted out?

      Patricia says "She could actually be doing more to correct the banking system if she wasn't in politics." Well the only reason she ran for Senate is because they wouldn't let her run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she created.

      the only honest thing she said was that she hated everything about her.

      I haven't been instructed on

      By on

      I haven't been instructed on anything.

      Where do you people think this stuff up? In your minds?


      Invoking "you didn't build that" is further proof

      By on

      That's a small quote, take completely out of context that the Brietbarts of the world lied about and you swallowed it whole. You could easily fact check these things but your writings keep repeating these simple (out of context) phrases and slogans that have been fed to you by cynical people who count on your unquestioning allegiance. You don't think that you've been instructed but that's just another thing to explain.

      All opinions are not equally valid

      You are allowed to have any opinion. If you hold a stupid opinion and tell people about it, you run the risk that they will think you are stupid. You can minimize that risk by researching whether any actual facts support your opinion. Reading Breitbart and watching Fox news is not doing research.


      By on

      Too bad Gawker didn't have the funds to fight his lawsuit, because they would have won too.

      The reason Gawker had no funds

      Is quite a twisted story.

      “Nothing came of it,” Denton told me, and this is not surprising. For by the time he received that note Thiel had already begun pouring millions of dollars into a campaign to crush Denton and Gawker Media, using Hulk Hogan, of all people, as his cudgel. And by the time Denton and I spoke, Thiel had annihilated them all more completely than even he could have imagined, thanks to a Florida jury’s awarding Hogan $140 million in his Thiel-funded lawsuit last March, sending Gawker Media and Denton into bankruptcy and then killing off altogether.

      Yep, and the Thiel funded

      By on

      Yep, and the Thiel funded lawyer who represented Hulk Hogan against Gawker (Charles Harder), also represented Ayyadurai against both Gawker and Techdirt. Whether Thiel was behind the Techdirt lawsuit is murky (as far as I can tell).

      Gawker deserved to die

      By on

      It's unfortunate that Gawker, Thiel, Hogan, and Ayyadurai couldn't all be buried in the same cess-pit, but at least when it's asshole vs. asshole, some asshole loses.

      Whether Gawker were assholes

      Whether Gawker were assholes or not isn't the issue though. When billionaires have the ability to bankrupt news sites that are publishing stories they don't like, we are all in trouble.


      By on

      But that being said, Gawker, Thiel, Hogan, and Ayyadurai in a cess-pit would be a reality show I would totally watch.

      Gawker pioneered

      By on

      peeping-tom journalism. Their operating principle was that anyone who can by the vaguest of definitions be called a celebrity - i.e. anyone you might possibly have heard of - has no right to privacy whatsoever. In my opinion even assholes like Thiel and Hogan have the right to screw who they want without having it be reported - with video, where available - on the interswamp.

      Gawker "pioneered" peeping

      Gawker "pioneered" peeping-tom journalism? Are you serious? Are you 12 years old? Have you ever heard of the National Enquirer? Or the dozens (hundreds?) of gossip mags that preceded it?


      By on

      doesn't mean you have to be the first. Was there only one pioneer who went west beyond the Mississippi ? It just means you head out for new horizons. You know, like posting stolen sex-videos on the Internet and calling it news.


      verb: pioneer; 3rd person present: pioneers; past tense: pioneered; past participle: pioneered; gerund or present participle: pioneering
      develop or be the first to use or apply (a new method, area of knowledge, or activity).
      "he has pioneered a number of innovative techniques"
      synonyms: introduce, develop, evolve, launch, instigate, initiate, spearhead, institute, establish, found, be the father/mother of, originate, set in motion, create; More
      open up (a road or terrain) as a pioneer.


      By on

      Oh no, he is crushing me with his dictionary! I am reminded of Eddie Izzard’s bit about the British conquering the world with flags. Excuse me, have you got a flag? No, but I have a dictionary! Take that!

      The word “pioneer” is routinely used for someone moving into a new territory, or, as a verb, for the act of doing so. Since its use is nearly always figurative - it was originally a military term - it is used with a great deal of flexibility. People are called pioneers if they cross a frontier, even if that frontier has moved only slightly, and even if they cross it in the company of a great many others. Daniel Boone was a pioneer once in Kentucky, and then again in Missouri twenty years later. Willa Cather’s O Pioneers! is set in Nebraska. Those who participated in the Oklahoma Land Rush are routinely called pioneers, even though there were fifty thousand of them, and most of the West had been populated for decades when the Rush took place.

      So anyone who participates in breaking new ground is a pioneer, no matter what your dictionary says. When I said that Gawker pioneered peeping-tom journalism, I didn’t bother to add “on the Internet”, because I thought that was obvious. Clearly it wasn’t obvious to you. Or perhaps you’re just an especially zealous defender of the pioneer-claims of the National Enquirer

      Interesting to read his Wikipedia profile. Impressive

      education, but everything else about him screams "sleazy right-wing fraud", as well as Nazi-coddler. Also, he once claimed to have become Mr. The Nanny, but that turned out to be without merit, too.

      Is he nuts, a sociopathic attention whore, a highly-skilled troll? Why not all three?

      I'd never heard the story, but per Wikipedia,

      "Beginning in 2014, Ayyadurai was romantically connected with the actress Fran Drescher. On September 7, 2014, Ayyadurai and Drescher participated in a ceremony at Drescher's beach house. Both tweeted that they had gotten married, and the event was widely reported as such. Ayyadurai later said it was not 'a formal wedding or marriage', but a celebration of their 'friendship in a spiritual ceremony with close friends and her family'. The couple split up in September 2016."

      I'd never heard the story, but per Wikipedia,

      "Beginning in 2014, Ayyadurai was romantically connected with the actress Fran Drescher. On September 7, 2014, Ayyadurai and Drescher participated in a ceremony at Drescher's beach house. Both tweeted that they had gotten married, and the event was widely reported as such. Ayyadurai later said it was not 'a formal wedding or marriage', but a celebration of their 'friendship in a spiritual ceremony with close friends and her family'. The couple split up in September 2016."

      I'd never heard the story, but per Wikipedia,

      "Beginning in 2014, Ayyadurai was romantically connected with the actress Fran Drescher. On September 7, 2014, Ayyadurai and Drescher participated in a ceremony at Drescher's beach house. Both tweeted that they had gotten married, and the event was widely reported as such. Ayyadurai later said it was not 'a formal wedding or marriage', but a celebration of their 'friendship in a spiritual ceremony with close friends and her family'. The couple split up in September 2016."

      Mutual buyers' remorse? Maybe Ayyadurai has a horrifically grating speaking voice? At least it didn't involve a jaw-droppingly stupid court action to settle, I guess.

      At first I was disappointed

      By on

      At first I was disappointed that I had to scroll down this far to find the first Nazi reference. Then noticed Aryan in the first comment.

      Yes, he was at the Nazi rally on the Common

      By on

      And he's the guy the Nazi sympathizers kept saying was "black" as if to prove that no, they don't hate blacks, because they apparently can't tell the difference between African-Americans and people born in India.

      Other "FREE SPEECH" speakers who came to Boston in August

      Some of the Boston "Free Speech" speakers in August;

      • Holocaust denier
      • Outspoken Homophobe
      • Author of "10 things I hate about Jews"
      • Founder of fascist alt-right street-fighting militia called alt-knights, famous for attacking people with a bat; recently arrested and arraigned for carrying a firearm and a knife to a Free Speech rally in Berkeley.

      Same weekend in August #BostonResist protested white supremacy at FreeSpeech rally in Boston, Nathan Damigo was recruiting on college campuses in New York state for his white supremacist grievance club Identity Evropa that opposes people of color. They carry tiki torches like the KKK and chant they're worried people of color and Jews will replace them.

      Nathan helped to organize Charlottesville with Richard Spencer and 10 other far-right groups. He became famous as an internet meme for punching a girl in face at a rally in Berkeley in the Spring.

      Nathan Damigo's father, who lives in Maine, disavowed him after Charlottesville. He grandmother remarked to Newsweek, “He’s not a neo-Nazi. He is not KKK. He’s somewhat of a white supremacist."

      Nathan spent four years in jail for a crime on an immigrant cab driver. Before that he was diagnosed with PTSD after two tours in IRAQ. He read a David Duke book in jail and it spoke to him, which means he probably sought protection with white male gang probably KKK in prison. He's credited with founding Identity Evropa (sounds fancier than KKK, almost dignified huh?) and he goes to college campuses to recruit. The have a twitter account in every state.

      News for you, anon. *Everybody* knows those people are Nazis,

      not just the tiny group that comprises Antifa. A shit-pile by any other name still smells of shit. (Though I will vigorously defend their right to be steaming, corn-flecked turds in public. Americans need to know who these people are.)

      Fuck your risible, disingenuous implication that they are anything but Nazis and Klansmen in the flimsy disguise of khakis and white golf shirts. Who the hell do you think you're kidding?


      By on

      There's the MCSlim I know.

      They're not all nazis... some are just regular people who are not racist and sick of the liberal PC bullshit that has overtaken the universe. It's an absolute joke, and people like you scream "racist/bigot/nazi" at the top of your lungs for no reason other than to hear yourselves cry. It's fucking embarrassing.

      By the way, you love "dreamers" and "undocumented" citizens, which is fine. Some of these people have killed innocent Americans... you would freak if everyone said all "dreamers" are murderous thugs who deserve to be deported.... yet you have no problem painting a whole group of people as Nazis because a few white power assholes showed up.

      Fuck your broad assumptions and fuck your arrogant/condescending/liberal mindset. Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

      Geez, I feel like a member of the "tolerant left" with all that name calling. How did I do, MCSlim? I probably still need a little work on my delivery.

      Nice strawman you got there.

      Look again at the list of speakers that the rally featured. Maybe you are sick of "liberal PC bullshit", but maybe you want to air those grievances in better company than people who unabashedly shout nakedly racist white nationalism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and assorted other ignorant hatreds as their credo.

      You're on the spongiest kind of sophist ground in arguing that opposing bigotry is a kind of bigotry itself. It's a pitiful defense. Find better friends with which to take up common cause. Yours don't reflect well on you.


      By on

      From boston.cbslocal: "Organizers of the midday event, billed as a “Free Speech Rally,” have publicly distanced themselves from the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and others who fomented violence in Charlottesville on Aug. 12."

      Some of those losers still showed up, presumably to troll everyone and act like the assholes they are, so you jump up on your soapbox and get your high and mighty attitude going full throttle..... you somehow "know" that everyone there is a Nazi and state that "everybody" also knows they're all Nazis... and then you tell anon to fuck off in an earlier comment to prove how everyone knows they're Nazis and there is no other plausible explanation. At the end of the day, you just know better than everyone else.

      Typical MCSlim approach, wouldn't expect anything less from you. Your type is my favorite. Enjoy that soapbox buddy.

      "We distance ourselves from those speakers we invited."

      You can repeat the absurd spin all you want, but a shit-pile is a shit-pile is a shit-pile.

      Find better friends, or a more credulous forum in which try to convince people you're aligning yourself with anything but neo-Nazis. "I was just there to oppose liberal PC bullshit, maaan!" Sorry, but that stink still sticks to you.

      Fair enough....

      By on

      You definitely know better than everyone else, I already mentioned that.

      I wasn't at the rally nor was aligning myself with Nazis...I'm telling you that not everyone there was a Nazi (contrary to your arrogant/pretentious commentary).

      Get back up on the soapbox, all knowing one...I look forward to your forthcoming pretentious and douchebag commentary in future threads. :)

      Em, you're the one defending the Nazi rally organizers by

      repeating their lame-assed spin: "We distance ourselves from the neo-Nazis and fascists: never mind that we invited a bunch of neo-Nazis and other hateful bigots to speak at our rally."

      You may not be a Nazi, but you sure spend a lot of time defending Nazi rally organizers and the people that hang around Nazi rallies.

      Lie down with Nazi dogs long enough, and you're gonna start to smell like Nazi dogshit, too.

      You just did it again - the "Nazi" organizers...

      By on

      You're calling their statements lies - because you, the all righteous and all knowing one, deems it a "lame-ass spin".....

      Do you realize how much of an ass you sound like? Not to the other left-wing commenters here, because it's a big game of "this is my team, that's your team, left good, right bad" here.....but your point of view is kind of amazing. Shit like this from everyone on the left is partly why Trump won.

      I honestly don't give a shit about the rally as I didn't go, have never been to a rally of any kind, and don't have any interest in that stuff. It's kind of appalling that you tell people to go fuck themselves and call a whole gang of people Nazis when the crowd clearly had plenty of non-Nazis there...just regular people who are really tired of being called Nazis by left-wing lunatics for no reason whatsoever other than their own delusions.

      Nazis showed up, I mentioned, presumably to troll and get people all worked up...and then people like you paint the entire crowd as KKK members.....

      Seems so strange to me.....but you obviously love it...gotta keep fighting the good fight.

      Now I'm a snowflake...

      By on

      It just gets better and better..

      I actually don't know the answer to this but since you're one of the all-knowing people on here, maybe you can help... the organizers disavowed Nazis and their ilk, and yet they also self-identified as Nazis too?

      Did this happen or did your delusions lead you to this conclusion? Confusing times here.

      Addressing what I know about the speakers....

      By on

      A number of them dropped out or were asked not to attend after the Charlottesville we include them? I'm not well versed on everyone involved because believe it or not, I'm not a white supremacist, I don't study everything the right does and do not agree with them all of the time. I am more right than left (clearly) for a number of reasons, but I can't sit here and tell you everyone's full history. Of the people I know that either attended or were supposed to:

      Cassandra Fairbanks - she was a huge Bernie supporter who changed to Trump and is Puerto Rican. She dropped out after death threats from "the tolerant left" she a Nazi?

      Joe Biggs worked for InfoWars - as crazy as Alex Jones is on most issues, I have never known him to be a white supremacist but I don't know everything he's ever said (yes, he's said plenty of crazy shit like the pizza/sex ring thing, etc)...... Biggs also served in the Army and defended this country, and his wife is not white (no idea what nationality) he a Nazi?

      Ayyadurai is clearly not white or a Nazi, is that accurate?

      Kyle Chapman seems like a real asshole except for clobbering the even bigger Antifa assholes at Berkeley. I think he was eventually asked not to attend the Boston rally but not 100% - regardless, he's a shady character.

      I probably missed some - that's all I know of. My main point is the left says every right wing gathering is full of Nazis, which is just not true and it's not true of this event either despite you "knowing full well" that the Common was full of Nazis. Found an article which cracked me up called "The Great Nazi Scare of 2017" and helps explain what I meant by PC bullshit earlier in our discussion. It's a bit exaggerated, but that's the point. One of my favorite parts is below (and the link). Have a pleasant evening:

      "Apparently running out of Nazis to resist, Boston protesters threw rocks and urine-filled bottles at police. Any shortage of white supremacists can always be corrected by expanding the definition. Opponents of a $15 minimum wage are racist. Skeptics about a pending climate crisis are racist. Anyone questioning the utility of pulling down old statues is racist.

      The slippery slope of civil-rights erosion is manifest every time certain members of the vituperative left open their mouths."

      A lot of strawmen in there.

      I support a lot of those issues without accusing people that oppose them as racist. Citing the WSJ editorial page is a bit rich: I like its reporting, but its opinion page has long had a hard-right sensibility that has put it on the wrong side of history on a host of social issues that continues to this day.

      I'm glad you acknowledged Kyle Chapman. He's exactly the kind of fascist loon that the anti-PC crowd needs to run away from as fast as it can. The InfoWars guy that promoted that insane, hateful PizzaGate lie? He deserves a public forum like anyone else, but damn: do you think people like that are good for democracy? Does your loathing of political correctness extend to advancing odious conspiracy theories like "Sandy Hook was a false flag operation"? He's not a useful example of my point: he's probably isn't a neo-Nazi, but do you really want him as your teammate in defense of free speech?

      I don't think we're very far apart on the PC issue, but your baseline position -- that it's merely high-horse preaching to point out that neo-Nazism sucks and anti-PC people should do everything they can to disassociate themselves from it -- is a stale right-wing meme. You put yourself in the position of defending the Boston Free Speech organizers as wanting to distance themselves from violent neo-fascism when they had invited Chapman as a keynote speaker. See the problem?

      I don't believe you want to be conflated with such people, and I accept the notion that there were anti-PC folks at that rally who aren't neo-Nazis. The problem is that, like our President, that crowd is too mealy-mouthed to unequivocally condemn an extremist minority that dons free-speech garb as an excuse to advance a lethally un-American ideology. Whether they like it or not, that makes them fellow travelers, coddlers, collaborators.

      Trump is clearly doing it on purpose: he needs that bigoted base. I hope the earnest anti-PC crowd wakes up at some point and realizes that hanging out with those carbuncles on the ass of humanity is hurting their cause.

      Some more progress....

      By on

      I said that WSJ article cracked me up and although it was exaggerated, it did illustrate some of what I meant by PC bullshit. Wasn't trying to use the article as fact, thought that was clear but my bad.

      I mentioned this in the other comment that these organizers butchered their idea of "free speech" to include every person who felt free speech shouldn't be suppressed. I'll bet if they had it to do over again, they would have excluded Chapman from the get-go for sure. Did Biggs personally promote the pizza gate and Sandy Hook stuff or was that Jones? I don't know. Regardless, I agree that Jones is a kook 99% of the time but I don't know enough about Biggs. I get guilt by association, but he is an Army vet and doesn't appear to be a white supremacist so I can't say for sure whether he fully agrees with Jones' extreme views. I've had some nutty bosses in my day and enjoyed working for them, but there's no way in hell I'd want anyone to think I was in lockstep with all of their thoughts/beliefs. Maybe Biggs worked for Jones for the entertainment value and because it's definitely a unique platform with unique assignments, and not the normal corporate bullshit. If it's proven that Biggs is a conspiracy loon like Jones or a white supremacist then I don't want him on the team, no.

      I see the problem re: your issues with the free speech organizers and my position here. I really think it comes down to some strange idea they had about unity and bringing all walks of life together who disagree with free speech being suppressed and then screwing that message up in a big way, not really thinking it through enough.

      Another question, let's say I held a free speech rally for people who hate PC bullshit and are tired of being called "buzzwords" for having differing beliefs, and Nazis show up. How will I get rid of them? The organizers stated publicly on a number of occasions they are against hate, Nazis, and the like, yet Nazis show up and people think the organizers are full of shit and promoting white supremacy... people then also think the rally was really just a front to get approval for permits to hold a Klan rally on the Common.

      I don't know if Trump is doing this on purpose, I don't think he is truthfully. It's tough to have every word, action, non-comment, etc scrutinized to the nth degree all of the time... and he's not a particularly skilled public speaker to begin with, which doesn't help. Seems to me that the true bigots have latched onto Trump and he can't really get rid of them, and the fact that he doesn't immediately call them out all of the time is yet another thing that drives people crazy. He has made it clear numerous times that he is against this kind of shit, but maybe it's still not as clear or quick as some prefer.

      What is the FYI for exactly?

      By on

      I acknowledged twice that Biggs did, and that I wasn't sure if he directly promoted the pizzagate BS or if he just worked at the place without actively promoting it.

      Go back and re-read it, if you wish.

      What is the FYI for exactly?

      By on

      I acknowledged twice that Biggs did, and that I wasn't sure if he directly promoted the pizzagate BS or if he just worked at the place without actively promoting it.

      Go back and re-read it, if you wish.

      You weren't sure.

      Biggs was one of the most active "reporters" (read: insane fabulists) on the PizzaGate story at InfoWars, and was either fired by Alex Jones or quit when Jones started backpedaling on the story (and deleting all of Biggs's video stories) after that kid shot up the Comet pizza joint.

      The anti-PC cause doesn't need Biggs's perversion of free speech on its side. It's not helpful.

      The more you know....

      The more you know indeed

      By on

      I stated I wasn't well versed on everyone and all I knew about Biggs was he worked at InfoWars, was an Army vet, didn't seem like a white supremacist, and has a wife who is not white. I also said if he pushed this crazy shit that he wasn't welcome on the team - completely agree with you. Thanks for clarifying.

      ya know what's lower that a white supremacist?

      people like Biggs and Fairbanks that will say anything to promote themselves and make money. That's what this rally was about. Nobody interfered with their free speech, and no one can interfere with my right to call out their lies.

      I don't think that's what the rally was about....

      By on

      Fairbanks used to be a big-time Bernie supporter - I don't know much about her at all, but I'll bet you were fine with her then.

      I think the young organizers had some crazy idea in their heads that anyone who opposes free speech should be included and allowed to speak - they were too all inclusive and should have been more selective. I'll bet next time (if there is a next time) they'll be far more selective as to who they invite as speakers.


      By on

      What does Irma have to do with the fact that not everyone at the Free Speech rally was a Nazi?

      Did I miss something?

      So you're saying...

      They're not all nazis... some are just regular people who are not racist and

      So you're saying... some fine, fine people? To coin a phrase?

      sick of the liberal PC bullshit that has overtaken the universe.

      If the biggest problem you have in your life is that people call you out for being an asshole, that's the very definition of privilege.

      I am saying....

      By on

      To use your coined phrase, there were some fine, fine people there, yes....and there were some white supremacist assholes who were obviously trolling everyone, as I already pasted the organizers' statements in another comment.

      Your second comment is fantastic......I think you misunderstood the whole concept of PC bullshit overtaking the universe, because you and your brethren choose to bury your heads in the sand.

      No worries, righteous one. Keep fighting the good fight. MCSlim may have room up on his soapbox for you, who knows?

      I actually kind of sympathize with the "PC bullshit" crowd,

      like when earnest but misguided collegians get too zealous about language they find offensive, to the point of scaring away appearances by repulsive charlatans who have gotten rich selling hate like Ann Coulter. It's grossly hypocritical in an environment that is supposed to be about developing critical thinking skills amidst a big, crazy stew of ideas.

      The point you seem to be missing with the "fine fine people" crack is that most liberals don't want to suppress the opinions of neo-Nazi shit-stains: the kernel of the First Amendment is about ensuring the ability of hateful people to express hateful opinions free of government censorship, as what is hateful is subjective, and could be abused by the government.

      Scratchie was clearly alluding to our President's refusal to unequivocally reject the positions of anti-American Nazi and KKK fuckwads in Charlottesville, dishonestly asserting that the people that opposed them are just as bad, then walking it back with an unconvincing scripted response, then unwalking it back later when he could go off-script.

      The similar problem I had with the Boston Free Speech rally is how pretty much not a single non-Nazi there was overtly repudiating the opinions of the kind of people the organizers invited to speak, as those included obvious "alt-right" (read: neo-Nazis in normcore drag) assholes. You can't invite Kyle Chapman as one of your keynoters and then claim you want distance between yourself and ugly, violent neo-fascists.

      As I've said: yay, free speech, boo excessive PC bullshit, though I suspect we differ on where the line on the latter is. But the anti-PC crowd, as does our President, needs to be much clearer on how hateful that ideology is, minus the cowardly false equivalences between them and the people that oppose them, even though we all agree that scary extreme-right loons should be allowed to vent their hate in the form of public speech.

      I suspect the reason that neither you nor Trump is willing to do that is that you're too afraid to forswear their fellowship out of a sense that you're too small a minority without them. That's a horrific choice. You need to put as much space as you can between neo-Nazis and your anti-PC politics. Absent that, you take on an odor you can't wash out with lame non-arguments about how you hate preachy liberals preaching about how neo-Nazis suck. Maybe carry a sign that says, "I hate liberal PC bullshit, and also Nazis." Not that hard.

      It's pretty simple: don't stand with neo-Nazis ever, even though you and I share their belief in free speech. It's not a good look for anyone.

      Some decent points here...

      By on

      First, I've noticed that after our initial disagreements on ideology and some silly back and forth, we are able to agree on a few things here and there in our discussions. It's refreshing.

      Collegians are the worst ones as everything seems to cause outrage. History professors should be allowed to teach what actually happened: the good, bad, and ugly, without snowflakes complaining that the content hurt their feelings and history should be scrubbed from the record books. It's insane.

      I am not even speaking of the need for Nazis to have a platform to discuss their beliefs - we all know they are the scum of the earth and thinking like that is disgraceful. I'm speaking of people broadly assuming that any non-left organization holding a rally is automatically full of hate and white supremacy assholes, when the fact is most of them are regular people who are tired of being called Nazis with no actual pro-Nazi beliefs. The left loves to paint everyone with a broad brush (maybe the right does it too) but it's ok to be objective and not presume everyone is a Nazi just because some uninvited Nazis showed up. The mistake here is these organizers seem to have had an open door policy and were far too inclusive of everybody; I agree having Chapman as a speaker isn't a good look. I don't believe the organizers to be white supremacists, but their message was muddled for a bit there.

      We definitely disagree on the line between free speech/PC bullshit but maybe it's not as far as we thought. If this were an actual skinhead rally complete with the "salute" and swastikas everywhere, I'd be telling them to go fuck themselves too. This seemed to be an ill advised attempt to include anyone who believes free speech shouldn't be suppressed. In addition, actual Nazis and KKK members definitely went without being invited to troll people and cause outrage, can't blame the organizers for assholes who show up uninvited. I thought I read the organizers threw some people out of their area once they found out they were actual Nazis. If a peaceful left-wing rally were attended by Antifa assholes looking to cause destruction, I wouldn't accuse everyone there of being an Antifa lunatic.

      Trump didn't disavow the hateful people/Nazis in his initial Charlottesville speech, probably because he wanted to find out what actually happened. He did disavow them plenty of times afterwards, but now that's viewed as disingenuous by the left.

      I disagree with you that we feel we are the minority without support from extreme right loons. I think rushing to judgment and proclaiming Charlottesville 100% full of Nazis is also a dangerous thing to do, because then you get regular people who are not Nazis being lumped in with real Nazis (the bulk of Boston, plenty in Charlottesville). In addition, Antifa is not there looking to maintain peace either. They're comparable to Nazis in my mind.

      His commentary on the situation didn't ruffle my feathers as it did you and others on the left, but I'm more of the belief that you guys just despise everything he says and does, no matter how he says or does it. It's a no win situation every time Trump says or does anything. It's fine to dislike the guy, I'm not really a fan as I've stated in prior threads, but the left could at least appear to be slightly less biased sometimes.

      I don't stand with neo-Nazis, never have, never will. Antifa and in some cases, BLM, should not be praised either. It confuses me when the left sees "free speech rally" and a non-left organization and automatically thinks its all hateful terrible people who are pro-white and anti-everyone else. These organizers are young guys who butchered this thing by inviting a few questionable speakers who share their "free speech should never be suppressed" viewpoint, but no matter how you slice it, I don't see it as them trying to hold a Klan rally or have Nazis be the main purpose of the rally. Agree to disagree I guess.

      PC Bullshit

      I think you misunderstood the whole concept of PC bullshit overtaking the universe, because you and your brethren choose to bury your heads in the sand.

      You mean I don't understand how upset you are that you can't tell "nigger" jokes anymore? Cry me a river.

      So fucking stupid....

      By on

      Now I know for sure that you're fucked in the head. What kind of leap was that? Was going to give you the benefit of the doubt before, but this comment is ridiculous.

      Go talk to someone about your delusions....your first guess re: what someone means by PC bullshit includes racial slurs?

      Get the fuck out of here.

      So sorry

      So sorry that I didn't take your infantile whinging about "PC Bullshit" seriously. Here's a quarter. Go call someone who cares.

      No need for apologies....

      By on

      But you really, seriously need help. Go get it. Not sure who was whining about anything.....something is wrong with you.

      By the way, I have a cell phone, are there still payphones out there still? Weird.

      Where should I meet you to pick up this quarter that you so generously offered?

      Email invented?

      I thought email was invented by Bruce Bartlett at BB&N (Bolt, Beranek, and Newman) And yes, I am old.

      What are BB&N doing on UHub?!?!

      By on

      We've got a post by BB (from Dot), followed by one from Ron Newman.

      BBN, right here ladies and gentlemen.


      BB&N=Buckingham Browne & Nichols.
      BBN is a subsidiary of Raytheon, since 2009.

      I stand corrected: BBN. I don't know from prep

      schools. The first time I'd heard of one was freshman week at college. My response was, "What, is that like a Catholic high school?" I knew one kid that got expelled from my public high school and went to one, but when I heard the name, I assumed it was some kind of version of juvie.

      Raytheon bought BBN

      Ray Tomlinson worked at BBN (Bolt, Beranek, and Newman). The company sold itself to GTE, which became Verizon, and was later sold to Raytheon. I believe Tomlinson's employment there continued into the Raytheon years.