Staffers For Rep. Mike Rogers Apparently Claim They Could Sue Me For Defamation
from the probably-not-a-good-idea dept
I had a fun phone call with a reporter in Michigan earlier today who is apparently working on a story about Rep. Mike Rogers. In doing some research for the article, he spoke with staffers in Rogers' office about some of the things I've written about Rogers and his position on internet surveillance and cybersecurity. The reporter told me that the staffers said they're "well aware of" me, but that they felt I was "an extreme liberal" and that I was using "liberal" talking points to attack him. Also, according to this reporter, they said that they could sue me for defamation concerning things I'd said about Rogers. Yes, it's come to this.We stand by the things we've written about Rep. Rogers and find it rather unbecoming of an elected official to try to chill the free speech of those who criticize his statements and actions with implied threats of lawsuits to silence their public participation.
Furthermore, it's telling that Rogers' office apparently jumps to the false conclusion that my criticisms of his statements and actions come via some sort of "partisan" prism. As I have stated repeatedly, I don't easily self-identify into the standard "left/right" political spectrum, because I don't judge things based on any sort of partisan framework. I have been equally critical of politicians who are considered "liberal" as I have been of those who are considered "conservative." My opinions are not rendered via a partisan filter, but what I consider to be what is best for this country.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, free speech, mike rogers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Suggested response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Striesand_effect
-With all due respect, Mike Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suggested response:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suggested response:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suggested response:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suggested response:
So that isn't a tip off, it is a joke at Mike Rogers expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suggested response:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The church has always done that ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The church has always done that ...
See - this is true as well. Your statement does not really make any point as it is too general. Do all these organizations sometimes or always do this, or only sometimes. And is this part of human nature or is it exclusive? Hmmm... oh yes... - it is general to human nature and only occasionally true of some organizations. Specifics please. I am quite happy to support specific examples, but this is too broad. And if you were thinking of quoting the Galileo case, then you have a lot of reading to do - http://tofspot.blogspot.hk/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's right, not choosing to pick a side means it's unlikely that you're supporting them, and by NOT ACTIVELY supporting them, you're passively supporting the other side, like a bystander observing a crime and not even calling the police.
The fact that they take it so personally puts me off of having anything to do with any of them, whichever end of the spectrum they're on.
Have you noticed that when one side lurches to a further extreme, they immediately assume that the opposition has also become more extreme?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did they give you any information that they said was incorrect to be corrected (ie: why they want to sue for defamation)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You on list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You on list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Rogers had any balls whatsoever...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If Rogers had any balls whatsoever...
Generally, when people make claims about wanting to sue, it has nothing to do with what case there could be, but everything to do with how the persons feel...
People arguing from 100 % feelings, religion or politics (basically 3 words for the same thing!) are never gonna make a reasonable debate.
When that is said, I can see why people could get angry at Mr. Masnick since he has a habit of taking citations out of a context and rant/rave from that. It is fine when you are analyzing "facts" since their context is the contentious part, but for statements, it can easily be misinterpretation of context or wool in mouth talk. The only real way to take people up on their comments is in a debate, interview or another confrontation where the person has an opportunity to defend themself.
Heck, It is etiquette to avoid political subjects when opposing views are not efficiently represented even though I guess politicians have murdered that cow centuries ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If Rogers had any balls whatsoever...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If Rogers had any balls whatsoever...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
~Mike Rogers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, seriously, I've seen such terms thrown around so much that they've lost all meaning by now. In this context, "liberal" seems to mean "poopyhead" more than anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Conservative means, "I like society the way it is and I tend to think that change costs a lot of money and often ends up worse than before, so I would rather just stay with what I have now and save the money."
Liberal means, "I should have the freedom to do what I want without government interference. Since society is currently restricting freedom X, we should change it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are things we don't want to change and there are things that we want to change.
What you call conservatives and liberals in politics is the number of people who agree with what should change or not.
So I have to say that your definition is wrong.
Liberals don't want forests to change, they don't want to have to deal with pollution caused by mining or other things, conservatives don't want mining closing and don't care about pollution until they are affected by it.
I saw a questionnaire once that was supposed to tell you what your leaning was, most of the conservative ones where things about economic growth and companies, so if you were labeled a conservative you had a pretty good change of being a sociopath and if you were a liberal you would be a hippie flower throwing person. This is how the government sees the subject, so it is under those colors that you should look at it.
Also one should take into account the rate of social change.
This crap is complex, and it is by design, by allowing to be a lot of things and have so many ambiguities it becomes like the Bibble, Torah or Koran, you can look up just about anything and justify it and put a label on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reactionary for the Tea Publicans..Re: Re: Re: Re:
FWIW I think it is time to dust off an old word to beter describe the Tea Party types- Reactionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reactionary for the Tea Publicans..Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) I like society the way it is
-- No they don't
2) I tend to think that change costs a lot of money and often ends up worse than before
-- But they actively seek change at great cost to others
3) I would rather just stay with what I have now and save the money
-- That is complete bollocks.
Liberal means,
1) I should have the freedom to do what I want
-- Ya, within reason
2) without government interference
-- Not to be confused with regulation
3) Since society is currently restricting freedom X, we should change it.
-- It is a democracy, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I told you not to use mercury to try to extract gold from electronics because you could die if you get it wrong would I be a liberal? but if I supported the government enforcing a ban on any experiment with mercury would it make me a conservative?
http://www.switched.com/2008/04/03/man-dies-trying-to-extract-gold-from-computer-pa rts/
Statistically, you can predict how someone will decide with a pretty good chance of being right if you know how he tends to view the world, for politics, the more egoistical you are the more republican(a.k.a. right wing, conservative) you are the more egalitarian your responses tend to be the more democrat(a.k.a. left wing, liberal) you will be classified.
Is not about change or not, is about how you believe it should change or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism#Right_and_left
If you doubt you should take the test.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
If you side strongly with economic interests over human interests you will be a right(a.k.a. republican, conservative) if you put people's interest strongly in the front you will be a left(a.k.a. democrat, liberal).
This is how it is framed around the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The political spectrum is different from country to country and in many european countries the communists are extreme left, socialists left, liberals are center, while conservatives are right and anti-immigration, anti-eu parties are extreme right along with whigs.
When those things are said, you are correct about how american definitions work, but it is definitely not a global definition!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously I wasn't trying to say conservatives are cautious and fearful, thats not true thats why I was saying the terms are unfair because the words used for labels are not properly representive and not really well balanced. Politically speaking, they have both become labels without meaning in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fiscal liberals and conservatives. Conservatives (AKA libertarians) place their faith in the individual, and distrust collectives and governments. Liberals place their faith in the collective to do what the individual cannot, and consequently drive proliferation of organizations and governments.
Social liberals and conservatives. Liberals value personal freedom and choice, with only the most basic of limits on either. Conservatives have a strong moral system that places limits on the choices and actions people should be allowed to make.
Progressive liberals and conservatives. Liberals (AKA progressives) view change as potential reward, and as such seek change if the present is seen as unsatisfactory, even if there is the possibility that change could make things worse. Conservatives view change - particularly into the realm of the unknown - as potential risk, and would rather stay with a tolerable present than venturing into the unknown and risking making things worse.
Individuals vary greatly between the three scales, though in terms of official planks the Democratic party tends to be significantly more liberal in all three than the Republican party.
Personally, I'm pretty centrist fiscally and socially, trusting neither the individual nor the organization/government, and having some but not strong moral beliefs I believe should determine the laws. I do however carry the (perhaps unfounded) hope that change will be for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In terms of the basal meanings of the words, "conservative" is quite simply having to do with conservation - protecting, accumulating (i.e. not consuming), maintaining, being reserved.
As to what they've come to mean in the political context, see my post further down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
left vs right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standard code
They're speaking in code. Correctly decoded, both terms just mean "bastard".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hiring a lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In an office in Washington another Mike grins maliciously.
ps: No I don't wish any ill will towards Mike, I love him, but other may not be so loving and he could be victim of SWATing by some.
Chillin I know but this world is not without its dangers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
be kind enough to tell them.
i bet a good lawyer could easily turn this into an intimidation case. maybe you should mention that to his staffers mike.
and its good to see that they have as much integrity as rogers himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: be kind enough to tell them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I almost wonder if this isn't so much a threat toward Mike/Techdirt as it is a warning toward the reporter for the upcoming article. Basically a "don't use that site" mixed threat/warning.
Just isn't enough context to know the whole thing. I'm sure that there probably is more to this story than just them claiming defamation as it's likely Mike (et al) have taken some of Rogers' actions and said they mean one thing when he may have had another thing in mind.
STILL, there is a better way to handle things than threaten with lawsuits. Offering an interview maybe that's on a specific topic? Submitting a letter to refute/discuss some of the topics. The list goes on.
But alas, here we are. So before this gets too much fun Mike, let me go nuke some popcorn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our politics have become so divided over ideology nothing seems to be able to be accomplished. The tone taken to defend the various actions sound very similar to what I'm hearing in this article coming through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical hypocrite
We can already logically conclude that Rogers is ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest, and is thoroughly unfit for his position based on that alone. I firmly believe he's willing to break his own oath of office, decimate the Constitution, and ignore the wishes and well-being of his constituents for the sake of making his friends and family more employable. If that sounds like me calling him out as a corrupt politician...well, that's what he gets for behaving like a corrupt politician. I'd love to see him try to sue me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't even get the political label right
In terms of the political compass placement, Masnick seems more centrist merged with "Internet libertarian", if anything.
If Rogers does try and sue for defamation (which is rather hard to prove in America, from my understanding of the laws), I suggest someone contact the folks at Popehat and see what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't even get the political label right
And it's even harder if you're a public figure such as, say, a congressman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't even get the political label right
* Morally liberal
* Fiscally conservative
* Internet libertarian
How did I do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't even get the political label right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't even get the political label right
"I have been equally critical of politicians who are considered 'liberal' as I have been of those who are considered 'conservative.' My opinions are not rendered via a partisan filter, but what I consider to be what is best for this country." - Mike Masnick
One can surmise that what government considers an extremist view is anyone who dares to think for themselves and doesn't tow party lines. Mike is guilty of thought crimes.
One would think that attacking someone's First Amendment rights constitutes an extremist, anti-American view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't even get the political label right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't even get the political label right
Sounds about right. I believe the correct term is "reasonable."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extreme Liberal eh?
And I fully agree with Masnick when it comes to Rogers' position.
Hopefully Rogers gets his ass voted out next election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extreme Liberal eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Political Position
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This alleged suit is simply alleged by an alleged reporter?
Sheesh. This has got to be THE most unsubstantiable sympathy ploy I've yet seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree. I'm guessing it was an intimidation tactic. They expected such claims would get back to me, and this is a way to try to scare me off. Similarly, as someone else noted, part of it was probably to try to scare off that reporter from writing his story...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's spelled 'libertarian'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
times v sullivan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Mike Rogers a pedophile?
I'm concerned that Rep Rogers is acting like he has something to hide. Unless he's got some very dark, very young skeletons in his closet, I don't see why he's so worried about what a journalist is writing about him. What could he be hiding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rep. Rogers maybe needs to learn to work the Googles and stop hiding behind his shallow understanding of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fun with lists
Crap, a black SUV just pulled up outside, gotta run.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Hug*
Does that cheer you up little fella?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point is, name calling is a age old trick used by bullies from the 1st grade onward, to see a politician use it is not surprising since 99% of them of never grown up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could sue for defamation?
But I'm won't, and never will. And he won't, and never will. Because in both cases, we're just talking out our asses about stuff that we wish we could do, but can't and won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The equation...
1. You make your argument = 100
2. They immediately resort to name-calling while making their counter-argument = 100, - 25 for using name-calling in place of a rational argument
3. You respond with valid points supporting your case = +25
4. They respond by "going off the deep end" with baseless counter-arguments and more name calling = -75
5. You 125 Them 0 = Argument over
This is how a good percentage of political arguments transpire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm so smart I posted this on the wrong discussion the first time...
Based on my years of study I am confident what appears at first to be an organized campaign of borderline defamatory rumor mongering is, in fact, a completely unintentional misunderstanding. This is much more common than you might suspect due to the difficulty in translating from that species' significantly more nuanced and sophisticated communication into the crude and limited vocabulary used by us ordinary folk.
It is impossible for me to definitively identify the subtleties of Mike Rogers' staffers, not having witnessed the exchange personally. I can, however, provide some insight about how the benign behavior of these elegant creatures is often misunderstood by ordinary people. In the spirit of furthering relations between our two species I will endeavor to do so. I will also attempt to replicate the delicate nuance of their language in the hope increased exposure to it will increase your understanding.
Let's start with the alleged comments by Representative Rogers' staffers to a Michigan reporter insinuating, but likely falling just short of actually accusing, Mike Masnick of defamation. There are many ways to characterize his staffers' actions. In some places it would be called innuendo, half truth, or perhaps even lying. A blogger with a legal background and significant experience in First Amendment defense, Ken White at Popehat for example, might refer to it as censorious thuggery. Such a person might even go so far to call it douchebaggery. On this very thread it has been described as corruption.
On Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday.
If you go back to the original Techdirt pieces which led to this reaction you will notice a similar communications gap. On July 26 Mike characterized Mike Rogers' selective and out of context quotes about Supreme Court precedents misleading.
On Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday.
A day earlier Mike called out Representative Rogers for conflating different NSA programs to paint a rosy picture which is entirely and categorically false.
Once again, on Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday. I could go on but in every case the comparison would ultimately be the same.
You might agree with me that Mike Rogers, purely for personal gain, blindly supports government programs which are clearly and blatantly unconstitutional. Like me you might suggest Mike Rogers is a typical crony capitalist, irreversibly corrupted by the lure of power, prestige, and a likely future of wealth and comfort lobbying for the equally corrupt corporations he has thrown his support behind. In fact you may believe, as I do, that his public statements alone easily meet the Constitutional criteria for impeachment and his protestations to the contrary amount to nothing more than a claim of first degree butthurt.
Try to remember, though, that he truly does not understand any of that. In Mister Rogers' Neighborhood it's just Tuesday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm so smart I posted this on the wrong discussion the first time...
Rep. Mike Rogers is corrupt. There's no doubt about it in my mind. But, he's not unique in that. He's just one in a LONG LINE of folks in Washington who are also corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is having his staffers say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't you sue them for defamation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reporter ID
Mike Rogers is my former congressman; I left his district in 2003. I was less than pleased with my current rep's vote on NSA (MI07, Walberg), and can only hope that Justin Amash decides to run for the DC Senate. Gary Peters is a putz.
I'll keep a sharp eye out for any report. On the bright side, Thomas Cooley Law students (Lansing, MI) got slapped down by the court today. They sued Cooley, wanting a refund for their legal degrees that haven't resulted in jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all too easy
All one has to do to get these people to shut up is to ask the Congressional Records Office for particular logs of particular statements that the Representative made on the House floor during any debate on any subject, and that's the end of that lawsuit:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt.cong.rec.html
Yeah, it's a stupid, idle threat. Won't hold up in any court, because it's a public record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prism!
Well done sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cite the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.....
"[T]he nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Mike Rogers got elected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]