We swear: Every bloody time we think everything is alright with this world, some looney tunes on our side of the fence decides to cross over the line and force us to come to the defense of people we normally…

I did chime in two days ago here.

You just now called Butterworth a “net cop”. Is it that unreasonable for me to assume you meant net cop? Am I reading too much into that by saying you are portraying this as a net dispute and not what it actually is?

It certain is from his end. I use the term “net cop” because that is the way he is operating, just like Bend Over Barney did a couple years back. That he’s using the net to go after someone else off the net is a minor detail, that certainly doesn’t make his behavior any more benign. If anything, less so, as it suggests that not only isn’t free speech safe on the net, it’s not safe anywhere else, either. So if there’s a problem with calling him a net cop, it’s only that I’m being too generous. What he really is is a net cop who can’t even stay within his jurisdiction as a net cop.

You make a clear statement, in absolutist terms, of your position on free speech. Although I think there should be exceptions, I admire a clear stand. But then I note your previous remark that “Third, hanging a black or Jew in effigy probably would not be protected political speech.” (And I agree it should not be protected.) Of course, you are not saying that you agree that this is fair to the ‘protesters’ but you certainly don’t protest it or indicate your disapproval. I think it is not unreasonable for me to wonder what your clear stand is.

You’re right, that is confusing in this context, through no fault of yours or mine. Up until your 11:31 a.m. comment, we both used the phrase “protected speech” to refer to do different things. You were thinking First Amendment, I was thinking Labor Code. The First Amendment clearly protects hate speech, even to the point of allowing Nazis to march in Skokie, but it does not apply to private employers. What does apply is the Labor Code which, in California at least, prohibits employers from firing or not hiring employees on account of their political views, but which AFAIK does not apply similar protections to hate speech. [Then again, I suspect that most public hate speech is political speech, so it may well qualify for protection on that basis.]

Now that we are clear on the terminology, allow me to rephrase the prior comment:

“Third, while the government can’t punish you for hanging a black or Jew in effigy, your employer probably can.”

Of course, you are not saying that you agree that this is fair to the ‘protesters’ but you certainly don’t protest it or indicate your disapproval. I think it is not unreasonable for me to wonder what your clear stand is.

Morally, I think it’s wrong to go after someone’s job over any lawful speech or conduct done off the job, off the job premises, etc. I don’t think it’s as bad to harass haters as it is to harass dissidents, but I do think both are wrong, nevertheless. Legally, (under the Labor Code, that is) it’s a bit murkier, as the political speech protections may not apply, but there is still some protection for any legal activities outside of work hours and off the company premises. Plus, as odd as it may sound, situations have occured where a third party was held to tortiously induced an employer to breach an employment contract by termination an employee, even though the underlying contract between the employer and the employee was at-will. So any campaign like Butterworth’s potentially runs the risk of lawsuits, not just angry blog entries like mine.

Forgive me but…Is Butterworth allowed to support the dead soldiers’ dignity, or is he supposed to support it only for his own kind?

Of course he is allowed to support their dignity. Everyone should. That was never the issue. The issue is how, and issuing workplace-fatwahs ain’t it.

You just now called Butterworth a “net cop”. Is it that unreasonable for me to assume you meant net cop? Am I reading too much into that by saying you are portraying this as a net dispute and not what it actually is?

“One minute you’re falsely accusing me of defending [lawyer's] territory, the next you’re bashing me for not treating the issue as territorial enough.”

I have no idea what the second part means. Honestly, I’m not being cute. I just don’t understand what you are referring too.

You make a clear statement, in absolutist terms, of your position on free speech. Although I think there should be exceptions, I admire a clear stand. But then I note your previous remark that “Third, hanging a black or Jew in effigy probably would not be protected political speech.” (And I agree it should not be protected.) Of course, you are not saying that you agree that this is fair to the ‘protesters’ but you certainly don’t protest it or indicate your disapproval. I think it is not unreasonable for me to wonder what your clear stand is.

“Sure. A black or a Jew as a target of an effigy burning is one such situation. Some random guy in Sacramento with nothing better to do than issuing fatwahs against people he doesn’t even know, is not.”

Oh well. …random guy in Sacramento (I doubt if you actually know Butterworth either [I don't], let alone what connection he or family members might have to the military) …issuing fatwahs (no need to comment)… people he doesn’t even know (HUH?).

“Am I allowed to support everyone’s free speech, or am I supposed to support it only for my own kind?”

Good one. Forgive me but…Is Butterworth allowed to support the dead soldiers’ dignity, or is he supposed to support it only for his own kind? (Assuming you are right and he does not have some military connection)

I never claimed this was a blogger vs. blogger dispute, and frankly, I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up. Do you really think it’s better to use one’s blog to harass a non-blogger than it is to use it to harass another blogger? Or casually assume that Bullyworth’s next target (or that of anyone, liberal, conservative or otherwise who may copy his tactics in the future) won’t be a blogger? I certainly don’t, and neither does Bullyworth himself.

Your “this isn’t a blogger vs. blogger” argument is probably the most bizarre part of this thread. One minute you’re falsely accusing me of defending territory, the next you’re bashing me for not treating the issue as territorial enough. Make up your mind already. Am I allowed to support everyone’s free speech, or am I supposed to support it only for my own kind?

“Yes, but. “I wouldn’t blame them” is not the same thing as saying “it was the right thing to do.”

When I commented about this earlier, on my life, I thought you might come back and say this if I called you on it. That’s enough for me trying to pin your high principles down. We could do this for days and I will never get you to take a clear stand. Again, you infer that Butterworth does not deserve the same consideration because he is not actually armed forces. Again, I wonder if you have the same standard for non-Blacks or non-Jews who speak up for those groups.

Also, in your comment above (“…bully tactics from a self-styled net cop.) and in earlier posts and comments, you have tried to paint this as a blogger versus blogger dispute. I have seen this used to place Butterworth’s position in an incorrect context so many times I have become convinced that it is a deliberate tactic. It doesn’t help your side to be seen as misrepresenting the picture to garner support. Butterworth blogged about a well publicized campaign to insult the military dead under cover of a Bush protest, not another bloggers comment or internet activity.

As to the name calling, I am not going to chase around to a dozen websites for comments left by the two of you, but from looking at just two or three, my impression is that it started from you, but I could be wrong.

You don’t need to “chase” anything. You’ve already commented on the same entry where I first commented, so you know full well that I didn’t call him any names then. He responded to that comment with a highly abusive email. By the time I read it (and, probably by the time he sent it) this blog entry was up, but none of the updates were, the first being in response to his abusive email.

So enough with the bit about me starting the name calling. That simply did not happen.

I assume that ‘I would not blame them’ is a no answer to my question…

Yes, but. “I wouldn’t blame them” is not the same thing as saying “it was the right thing to do.” Note that in your example, you asked if I would call a Jew or black guy a prick for pulling a Butterworth on a guy who hung members of his respective race in effigy. I said no. It would be the wrong thing to do, but it would be an understandable response from an aggrieved party, which is different from bully tactics from a self-styled net cop.

Veterans put up with vicious hateful speech, protests and discrimination during and long after Vietnam. So why does the military still not qualify as deserving of Butterworths type of support, when other groups do?

Perhaps you should re-read my previous comment before continuing this discussion further. Pay special attention to this part:

If Butterworth were military himself, and acted out of a mistaken perception that the Pearcys were advocating his murder (or, for that matter, out of an accurate perception that they were cynically using him in a sleazy way to get at their real enemy, the Republicans), I’d more be inclined to cut him some slack, too.

Last and least, if caring more about maintaining the free exchange of ideas than helping Klansman stay anonymous makes me a hypocrite in your book, so be it. FWIW, California law agrees with me on this point, providing some protection to all lawful employee conduct off the job, but more to political activities in particular.