-14 votes

Can anyone shed light on this?

I came across this earlier and was wondering if anyone knows what the backstory behind this is? It seems weird for Ron Paul to do something like this. Click the link.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/15211018059/sorry-...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Pretty sure it was Huntsman's girls.

They were too clever by half in fabricating that fake Ron Paul supporter video. I'm led to wonder if Huntsman withdrew from the race after his third-place finish in New Hampshire in part because he realized how asinine his daughters had been and how much it would damage his campaign if it were proved.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Please READ and understand details before reverting to attack mo

Okay folks. I'm the author of the original story, and since I'm being unfairly maligned in the comments, I'd like to shed some light.

1. I recognize that Ron Paul is treated terribly by the mainstream media and that it's natural to assume the worst any time anyone writes a story questioning Dr. Paul. I, however, am anything but the mainstream media.

2. I am a member of no political party, but I am most certainly most closely aligned with libertarian philosophy, and anyone who reads my writing knows that. As such I also think that Dr. Paul is the only mainstream candidate who is even remotely interesting (I also liked Gary Johnson when he was barely in the race). Accusing me of attacking Dr. Paul and of being just out to get them is ridiculous.

3. Lots of people insist that Paul should uncover the names of people because this was defamation. If you read the details of what I have written, I have no problem with anonymous commenters being uncovered *if* defamation is proved and it makes sense to identify them. This is the nature of the Dendrite rules that I talked about. What the Dendrite rules DO NOT allow is for someone -- especially a public official -- to uncover an anonymous speaker WITHOUT first making the case that the law has been broken. That's all. But Dr. Paul sought to do exactly that.

4. The particulars of the ruling I talked about had NOTHING to do with defamation. You can shout about how this was defamation until the cows come home and it doesn't matter, because he wasn't using defamation claims to uncover the uploaders. He was (ab)using trademark law -- which was the key concern here (separately, he was using federal trademark law in the federal courts, rather than related state laws -- an odd choice for someone who talks about limiting federal government and playing up state's rights... but that's a separate issue).

5. Even if you are focused on defamation, just because someone says does something obnoxious that makes you look bad, that doesn't mean it's defamation. Defamation -- especially of public figures -- has very clear and well-known rules. If you want to argue that this is defamation, then you should understand those rules. Once you do, you will realize that even if everything people are saying is absolutely true, this WAS NOT defamation under the law. Was it obnoxious, misleading and disgusting? Yes. But obnoxious and disgusting and making someone else look bad is not automatically defamation (and it's certainly not trademark infringement.)

6. That's the entire key point to all of this. Just because someone did something you don't like, it doesn't mean you get to abuse any and all laws to uncover who they are. The Supreme Court has regularly interpreted the First Amendment to protect free speech -- and liberty loving people should agree with that standpoint. I'll quote the Supreme Court in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

I think most people around here would agree that this is a principle of liberty loving folks.

7. The chilling effects of having a public figure seek to "out" you, even if you did something despicable, if they HAVE NOT proven you broke the law, is very damaging for free speech, and will scare away others from speaking out. That's why this goes against Paul's Constitutional principles and his belief in liberty.

8. Think about how this precedent, if he had won, would have been used AGAINST freedom loving people. Using the wrong law (trademark) to out people who are trying to make a candidate look bad anonymously even without showing they broke the law? I would think that you (and Ron Paul) would be rightfully aghast at how that could and would be abused by an awful lot of politicians.

That's the point I was making and I stand by it. I'm certainly not out to get Dr. Paul. I wish we lived in a society where his views on personal liberty were mainstream. I wish the public would take him more seriously.

But as such, when he FAILS to live up to his ideals, I think it's only correct for supporters to call him on it -- and that we shouldn't then attack those who do so.

I understand the quick trigger finger many people have on any criticism of Dr. Paul. But we shouldn't let that cloud the facts.

Cyril's picture

Linkie, for your convenience

http://www.youtu.be/iMymSB4IOjg

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Thank you for this return

... And elaboration of your point.

However.

I still really fail to see the soundness of your reasoning.

I'm sorry, but aren't you victim of your own fallacy, there?

Let me explain.

Have I ever defended freedom of speech here or there, concretely, by my legal acts alone? Probably never. Have I spoken out in its defense? Uncountably many times, like many others.

What have you done? What is your voting record as a people's representative on those? Now, compare with Ron Paul and decide if that would be consistent with YOUR claim of what YOU interpret what was his actual intent.

Second. You write about you not being mainstream, but your own self of a voice. Fair enough, then I guess nobody has to fear your influence. That's what you imply, right?

But then you continue with... this quote on the rationale of the bill of rights, about dissenters to protect when they express their critical minorities views... Absolutely!

Question, though : where did you see a "critical minority view to protect", there? So, Ron Paul was already omnipotent power most likely to oppress it, too?

Funny, I didn't notice Ron Paul had already been enjoying a cozy tyran seat for years anywhere... On the contrary, I have rather the impression he HAD CONSISTENTLY been the minority, that the establishment has taken great care of shutting off, of hiding his voice from the people.

I would maybe be willing to debate on the modality of Ron Paul's own DEFENSE, though I am no lawyer.. We wouldn't go far I suppose.

But the conclusion you draw from a so called underlying intent of Ron Paul to deny someone's right of free speech is just downright ... EXTRAVAGANT.

If you want to do some complementary research, I suggest you Google this Youtube video where a CNN anchor openly questions Ron Paul's right to choose and endorse his OWN campaign ads...

... Just because, some (guess who) do not like them.

Don't you know that in a civilized society it is not so much about the freedom that the law or a judge HAVE to protect, by duty, as it is about the Freedom ALREADY taken for granted AND accepted by all, with no need for the force of law?

So, that woman's unbelievable question ... How's that for intolerance? She just assumed normal to ask Ron Paul to just stop doing the communication he wants about his opponents. Precious video for you to see on the topic, I suppose.

How would you react if I'd say to you: well, though you don't break any rule, you have to stop posting here because I don't like it?

The moderators wouldn't move a finger. They'd just comply with me. Pretending they didn't see anything.

Don't you think I'd be more likely to be the one in power, there?

Don't you find THAT more worrying? Because if everybody else would think like me, well, we don't even NEED the law to shut you up : it's not your right denied, its the very existence or relevance of the right itself!

I seriously doubt Ron Paul decided lightly to invoke the best law he could find in context to defend his image.

You studied the court case, fine.

Don't forget it has a context.

Ron Paul has better to do with his time than "attack" complete stranger for no valid reason... When he could handle FOR YEARS the "RP is unelectable" baloney.

Thoughts?

Sincerely,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The author of this article, Mike Masnick, writes:

"...some conspiracy-minded folks insisted that they were really working for Huntsman and staging an elaborate ruse to put up a video that looked bad about Huntsman to have that backfire on Ron Paul. For a variety of reasons that's either improbable or just downright stupid."

Uh, no Mike. It was obvious since Day 1..
Huntsman Complicit in "False Flag"-Style Dirty Trick Against Paul (Jan 6)

And then confirmed in much more detail a few weeks later...
Twitter Trail Confirms "China Jon" Video as “False Flag”, Points To Huntsman Campaign (Jan 27)
The "China Jon" Fraud Deconstructed (Jan 27)

Cyril's picture

Hey, thanks humanic

Now I know better...

Wait, so let me get this straight...

Phase 1. Someone from huntsman's camp tries to frame Ron Paul with a psyop attack that got eventually debunked and reported as such (but we don't know, yet, in phase 1. Duh)

Phase 2. Ron Paul's camp and campaign become aware of it, and decides to go to the bottom of it, by trying to find who's hiding and would have the best interests in the slander that starts to damage his campaign (mostly because of the noise and negative confusion created)

Phase 3. Enters a lawyer of Ron Paul not to attack freedom of speech, but just to defend Ron Paul's reputation before too much slander harm is done

Phase 4. A judge decides that, ok, but no, there is nothing to be concerned enough on the plaintif's side (RP)

Phase 5. Eventually, though, the truth surfaces re: the psyop and using the same medium (www) that was used to carry it in the first place

Phase 6. The truth once surfaced is corroborated by different sources, past the first one

Phase 7. Disregarding altogether points 1, 5, 6 above, people like Mr Masnik decide that, sorry, but no, Ron Paul's camp in 2, 3, 4, had no legitimacy in their defensive action and just wanted to destroy people's free speech.

Yeah, right.

Sure.

Try harder next time.

For some reason, I don't see anything sensical there.

That is : in Mr Masnik's article's conspiracy theory.

Well, yes, since he is so ardent to insist on labeling.

I think that does fit him perfectly. Looks very neat on you, Mr Masnik.

ACTUALLY.

Nice to wear, isn't it?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Deleted

.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

"Sorry, campaign has asked me not to speak to reporters."

This is from the end of The "China Jon" Fraud Deconstructed:

With regard to the lawsuit that has now been filed by the Paul campaign over this video, some people seem to be trying to argue that the person(s) behind the "China Jon" video were not trying to portray the video as being connected to the Paul campaign. Not so. Besides everything that’s already been mentioned, here is what the Huffington Post wrote on January 6th, just as the story was beginning to explode in the press, and within hours of Huntsman’s "magic moment" in Concord:

When The Huffington Post contacted the poster of the video through YouTube to ask why they created the video and whether they had any formal association with the Paul campaign, NHLiberty4Paul replied: "Sorry, campaign has asked me not to speak to reporters."

Got that? This was a malicious attempt to frame the Paul campaign, and constitutes fraudulent and almost certainly criminal electioneering of the worst kind.

Don't even bother

Giving this article hits.

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Cyril's picture

By the way...

I have alluded to Ron Paul's record, on the defense of individual's liberty and freedom, which is really easy to look up... a seven year old who can spell correctly in a search engine could pull up hundreds of thousands of positive links to official materials of his stand there, as the congressman he is.

Could we please have a look at what Mr Masnik ACTUALLY DID, too, and not just write about, on the topics thereof?

Thank You in advance!

Cordially,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Shed light on this? Hey, sure! I am glad to help!

In all honesty I have no clue on the actual intent of Mr Masnik claiming things about Ron Paul supposedly disregarding the people's right to free speech, etc.

Which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Indeed, such claims, put in parallel with Ron Paul's DECADES-long, PUBLIC, and VOTING record of defending individuals liberties, precisely, are totally inconsistent... I don't know much about the court case Mr Masnik is "enlighting" us with, but I am (very) afraid some things might be, say, slightly biaised...

HOWEVER !

We sure can find easily what Mr Masnik is REALLY interested in, since he does it as a CEO :

Selling, and prop'ing up a cutting edge platform for big business lobbying made easy, if you ask me:

http://www.floor64.com/team.php

My advice:

Always have a look at the nature of what people make for a living, it is very informative re: the context of the light to shed...

'hope it helps!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Add to this...

...that this site "culls" disagreeable comments...or those that negate it's OP's premise with facts and information, and you have bullshit at a click...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Bulls balls! Horse hockey!

You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Why is it legal to dress up as a supporter of Dr Paul and yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. (A metaphor)

Thanx,

Jason

You can't get clean in a dirty bathtub.

Shed light?

Apparently you live in the dark? You have no critical thinking skills? You need your hand held? You are a big boned-swimsuit challenged person? You swallow spin with a spoon of sugar? You have dirt on your glasses? Shed a little light for me...clear things up.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

why so angry?

The people on this site are so hostile geez. I am a Ron Paul supporter just like all of you.

Zoggie, I think there is a

Zoggie, I think there is a lot of angry people because of the things that have been going on with media. Everybody spins things around to make the truth be hidden behind an opinion. I am not trying to excuse anyone and we should tone it down when questions come along, but I want you Zoggie to understand the resentment that comes with these articles.

Freedom for All!!!

Knowledge is the currency of the Universe.-
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos

Sure...

....sure you are. Where've ya been, "Huge Ron Paul Supporter"?

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Are you just contemplating voting for Paul or

are you here to infiltrate, or are you anti-Paul and want to throw in your passive aggressive two cents worth? In the two days you have been a member, you sure are posting some negative sounding stuff. Your last and only other post was, "If Ron Paul wins, could he actually get anything he wants to do passed?" It seems to me by the posts you put up, you aren't sure you want to support him.

Reply to ralph hornsby

I'm not purposely being negative. I would only vote for Dr. Paul and I am a huge supporter of his. I am simply posting thoughts that I have to see if people who are more Paul "experts" can respond and clear things up for me. No need to make assumptions.

Allow Me

Aside from an ignorant electorate who haven't a clue about the debt based monetary system of modern feudalism we've all been born into, a culture steeped in endless wars all about making money for corporations and banks, AND a horribly complicit propaganda machine known as main stream media, the last guy who faced up to the federal reserve got his head blown off in Dallas.

Ron Paul is hero of almost unimaginable courage who has awakened so many that we now actually have a chance to live in a free country, which is something none of us have ever had. So we are passionate, committed, sometimes a little overbaord, and utterly loyal.

The deck is stacked against us, and all we have to sustain us in faith and belief. Fortunately, that's all we need. But it also means if you ask silly questions that deter us in any way from the course we have set before us, you're gonna get landed on by large group of really well informed, energized people.

We have to get through to the brain dead, tv entranced electorate in order to pull this off. We don't have time for deviation from straight ahead to Tampa and the nomination.

Mr. Masnick

Is another agent of the status quo desperately trying to smear Dr. Paul. No one has any "right" to lie about, slander or libel anyone else. Protected speech cannot be fundamentally unlawful speech. This video did damage to Dr. Paul personally and to his campaign in New Hampshire.

The End Run did a fairly complete deconstruction of the Huntsman campaign's complicity in this dirty trick which Huntsman exploited to gain favourable media coverage that had been carefully orchestrated for that purpose while throwing mud on Ron Paul's supporters and Dr. Paul himself. http://www.theendrun.com/

Now Mr. Masnick seeks to further use this despicable behaviour to somehow suggest that Ron Paul is betraying his libertarian principles by seeking to expose the guilty party(ies). Masnick is clearly no libertarian. He is labouring under the same misapprehension as other collectivists that libertarian means libertine, a lawless creed. The fact is a libertarian is far more likely to be a morally principled individual than any collectivist.

The latter are blindly complicit in the defrauding of their fellow man while pretending that they are more compassionate. He is deceiving no one more than himself. He demonstrates all the sly maliciousness of the breed.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

The article is right on

The article is right on principle...

But in the real world it's different. The campaign had to respond to this. Someone was slandering Paul, and the video could've easily be attributed to Paul and/or his supporters. Making an official statement like 'we had nothing to do with this' is not strong enough, so you do the next best thing: the frivolous or symbolic lawsuit!

It's just the best way to disavow yourself. If you're willing to sue over it, you sort of prove that immediately. It's purely a PR-move.

I Wouldn't let it cause you too much c o n c e r n

It's hard for Ron Paul to have any kind of con t r o l l over what people around him are doing. He's been too busy lately to be initiating anything too profound. His involvement in this is likely passive at best. His trusted legal people are more than likely doing all the footwork and he gets periodic updates. I wouldn't worry too much about it : )

It doesn't seem weird to me.

The author of the techdirt article is rather ambiguous in portraying his "issue" with Ron Paul's litigation. Paul is using proper legal channels to uncover someone with possibly nefarious intent. Had Paul claimed it was hate speech or used back channels like the DHS to shut the account down I might be a bit weirded out.

It has nothing to do with the particular medium either; it would have been the same had it been in a newspaper, magazine or flyer.

It's not really much to do about First Amendment rights either. Sure, I have the right to post a video calling you a child molester. Might you have the right to sue me for defamation? Say you were running for Mayor when I posted the video. Say I ended the video with the slogan, "Child Molesters for Zoggie!" Perhaps you would then be compelled to use proper legal channels to identify me, to bring me into the light where I can more openly and publicly make my claims.

Now let's say you are running for Mayor of my town. Say for some reason I oppose your candidacy. Say I slipped an anonymous letter in the door of every person in town claiming that you're a child molester. Now say I slipped the letter in the doors but signed it and gave my phone number...

Do you see where I'm going with this?
http://spiderjohn.com/music/van/takefind.wma

Defamation of character. Dr. Paul was correct.

The ad IMPLIED that it had been paid for and approved by Ron Paul.

To get to the bottom of it is perfectly fine.

Ron Paul believes in the LAW.

You can't hide behind some facade and get away with breaking the law.

If I put a mask on and rob a bank, is it wrong for those being robbed to try to lift off the mask to see who is breaking the law?

SO - IF INDEED Dr. Paul was illegally slandered or defrauded then he had every right to unmask the perpetrator.

Apparently that judge didn't see it that way though.

The law is only as valid as the power behind it.

That judge is probably owned by big-government money so why would he ever defend a correct limited-government thinker like Ron Paul?

And don't forget that Huntsman is a Morman first and probably would support any anti-Paul actions if it helped his brother Romney.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Response

I didn't mean the video, I meant the lawsuit. It seems weird for Ron Paul to do that.

.oops

.double post

He was being slandered, and

He was being slandered, and with malicious intent to defraud.

The real culprits, the creators of the video were caught talking about it, as well as plans to release a new one the next Monday. One of the posters taking credit was a Huntsman daughter.
They tried to get the thread pulled or made private when they were found out, but it remained and may still remain public.

I think rather than go after the probable perpetrators directly, it may have been better to 'search' for the creators.
But, most important is that the campaign made it clear that no one connected to the Ron Paul campaign or his supporters was responsible.
After all, Huntsman did use the video created by his daughters to damage Ron Paul in New Hampshire, as well as the carry over damage into South Carolina.

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home
http://www.texasuncensored.blogspot.com