Posted by pancho from ? (64.79.4.3) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 9:37AM :
If I write that Atour Golani is the right size and consistency for a human supository...am I slandering him? Is it satire? If I say that Jackie Bejan's mind is somewhere between her gentitals and her bank account do I have to specify where that puts it exactly? Is that an allegory or a lizard or something? Larry Flynt wrote that Jerry Falwell had sex with his own mother in an outhouse and eventually won the case when it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. That bastion of conservative bastards(can I say that?) agreed that the article was satire...that any "normal" person would realize that as a religious leader Jerry Falwell would not actually do such a thing, that the article was a goof on his high moral whatever...though given the fuckers in the church, why WOULDN'T one of these pricks diddle his mother if a five year old altar boy wasn't handy?
Am I a journalist...are these articles part of a journalistic enterprise...yeah sure...if Zinda Lite is a magazine, then this is a fucking JOURNAL. How do you become a legitimate journalist? I didn't go to sculpture school...I went out and practised my craft till I got good enough to sell my work. Can I do the same as a writer of news? I've been "published" in Zinda, in Nineveh, in the Assyrian Star...in Nakosha magazine. These are the "news sources" in our community. Can I help it if they can't pay for my articles? Is that what makes a professional journalist? What about all the articles in all the little newsletters.
As "journalists" go in our community, I'm as much of one as any other we got. Will the courts not recognize our right to be a poor community that still requires articles written about things that concern us? Is THAT freedom of speech?
It is my fond desire to have Jackie's gentials be the part of a brief...part of an appeals process...part of a news item in a regular newspaper. I mean it IS an intriguing case...the artist and the scorned patron...it's not like it doesn't happen...another first for us...because this time it's a woman who hit on a man, and the man who hit back at a woman used to getting away with whatever her Benz could drive over.
If I say that Jackie, our Armenian Queen, screws family members in an outhouse...is that also protected satire, or could it be true and therefore NOT protected because I don't have photos of her? Jackie Doodles is the president of her club, chairwoman of the convention committee, leeder of her peepil who seeks the limelight every chance she gets. Can she stifle the sorts of lambasting other public figures routinely get just because her feelings get hurt, or her political ambitions are fucked?
Can the Turkish government sue any Assyrian or Armenian group that cause "pain" to Turks by reminding them them of a few murders back when? Didn't the Turkish government arrest Father Akbulut because he "maligned" the reputation of the Turkish State? Is Jackie a fucking Turk as well? Just how far will the Constitution go in protecting her right not be offended? I know for certain sure that I can't say anything to deliberately hurt her business...that would cause havoc...although tobacco companies did try to silence critics by claiming that their "unsubstantiated" allegations about the supposed harmful effects of tobacco was hurting their feelings...well their business too, but CEO's have feelings too...how would you like your kids to hear that you are a murderer...who poisons people deliberately?
I don't think Jackie has a leg to stand on or a prick to sit on. As odd as it is for us Boat People to realize it...free speech is protected EVEN when it is rude and offensive...hell, it HAS to be, or else the rest of it is meaningless...we would be constantly at the mercy of whoever ruled the roost for a year or two and the new and improved standards of "good and polite" speech they would allow...like any third world Goon government or totalitarian regime.
You have to rely on people to be decent and honorable...in our case, we have to teach our leaders what we will and will not tolerate. If they cross the line, feel free to indulge in all manner of secret offensive behavior...reaching out to hurt people they don't happen to like, for whatever reason...to hurt their families, their children, to ruin their reputations and take the bread from their tables...well we can't very well have them come crying for legal protection cause they got hoisted on their own shaft.
Jackie's lawyer is a hired gun...whatever he thinks of Jackie or me, or the truth or the right of it...he has to give her the best defense money can buy...like any decent whore has to give the best blow job money will buy...both are professional and I like Shawn as much as I'd like any competant, even brilliant professional. can he sue me for that sentence? Where do you draw the line?
If I say Jackie is a whore and it is obviously not true...is that satire and therefore protected? If I say she acts like a whore because she uses her charms to get what she wants...in her case not twenty bucks but power...is that protected free speech because it is my honest assessment of her character based on my experience with her?
All sorts of women accused Clinton of diddling them. They had no proof yet their stories were "news". You don't usually have witnesses to these kinds of things...does that mean a person can't speak and tell the truth of an incident they were party to. Is anyone going to deny that I spent an awful lot of time in Jackie's company alone and at all hours...how does anyone know she didn't ask me to go to Detroit with her...and why aren't I being accused of making up her story about Rom Michaels supposedly trying to get her up to his room?
If you could show that Clinton...or Bush, spent a lot of time alone with some Bimbo or other...would you not be allowed to hear that Bimbo's story about how he tried to screw her?
Seems to me the most cost effective course for me to follow is to let them go forward with their suit for slander...to see if a judge can order me to remove the writings and drawings and sculpture photos from this site. If that happens, then I'll contact the ACLU and let them mount an appeal. Seems to me it would be right up their alley.
As far as paying Jackie for her damages, the land swindle and loan and balls...let her collect. What's the good of being a broke artist otherwise? I don't have property...the house I have is in Mexico and it isn't even in my name...I have nothing here she can attach...no check she can garnishee. Joan Baez refused to pay taxes during the Vietnam War so the Feds showed up at her concerts and took what was owed from the cash box and gave her the rest. She didn't fight that, just said she wasn't going to be a party to murder, that's all.
They can seize whatever assests of mine they can find...like I could have seized that bitch goddesses assets if I ever wanted them.
-- pancho
-- signature .