Standing Up For Free Speech: Thanks For Responding To The Popehat Signal!

Print This Post

You may also like...

16 Responses

  1. Scott Jacobs says:

    Props to Beth, and should I have need of legal council in that area, I shall be sure to contact her (assuming I can pay – if not, I'll bug Aaron).

    Also, I just want to share the following phrase, which should be made famous: "double-secret exoneration".

    Best of luck to Aaron, may his words carry the day.

    note: I am good friends with Aaron, so my opinion MAY be prejudiced, but the enemy in this fight is one of the worst people living on the planet.

  2. > By the way, Aaron is to the right of me…

    That is because good Americans believe in certain baseline values, among them is a basic belief in democracy and freedom of speech.

    We recognize that there is a right way and a wrong way to fight our political battles–by persuasion and not thuggery. So maybe we don't agree on the exact budget for a given year or something more substantive, but we have that vital baseline of shared values. And for that, I greatly appreciate Ken's help, and Beth's.

  3. Ken says:

    By the way, I'll offer one substantive comment:

    By the way, as someone who has practiced federal criminal law for 16 years, the entire concept of a secret exoneration is utterly laughable. I could write several paragraphs why, but . . . just no.

  4. BP says:

    Phenomenal brief, Aaron. I'll check back eventually for the update, but I'd worry more about this if I thought there was even the slightest chance you don't prevail. Next project, promulgating procedural rules for an anonymous party to make a claim for, and collect, attorneys' fees.

  5. SPQR says:

    Of course, I spotted immediately that you were talking about Aaron, having been a regular among places he's blogged and knew about the Kimberlin fiasco. There is no doubt that Kimberlin is evil.

  6. scott, Ken

    Well, i figured i would use an animal house reference to highlight how stupid the secret exoneration theory was.

  7. Scott Jacobs says:

    No Ken, please do write a couple of paragraphs…

    I'm sure they would be funny as hell. :)

  8. Patrick says:

    For context, this is the man who is suing Worthing, claiming that his reputation has been damaged by what Worthing writes.

    Think of it as though Worthing were being sued by Bill Ayers or Eric Robert Rudolph, to name two more famous members of the species.

  9. Scott Jacobs says:

    Ayers at least has the benefit of not having been convicted for blowing people and places up.

  10. David says:

    Wow. When you said the plaintiff was evil I thought you meant he had filed a blatant and damaging SLAPP suit, not attempted to murder people.

  11. Ken says:

    I understand that I may be the subject of a RICO suit because of this.

    I'll try to let y'all know how that turns out.

  12. Harry Lime says:

    Wow, I had never heard of this guy before. What a disturbed individual. I find it surprising that there is not a Wikipedia article for Mr. Kimberlin. Well, kudos to you and Ms. Kingsley for doing the right thing here.

  13. Scott Jacobs says:

    Harry, there WAS a wiki on him, but it was deleted at the same time as the damages hearing for the lawsuit he filed against Seth Allen.

  14. Dustin says:

    Late to the party, but I really appreciate Beth stepping up for freedom of speech, and to Ken for doing this not because he actually agrees with the speech itself, but because he believes in the freedom.

    It's really admirable.

  1. December 30, 2011

    […] Aaron's Wrap-Up ….."Update: Now it can be told…  Ken at Popehat has more on this […]

  2. January 9, 2012

    […] of Popehat and his work defending bloggers from legal threats [Scott Greenfield; earlier; Ken's defense in Maryland of blogger Aaron Worthing; new case of science blogger in […]