It is no secret that Bob Dunning’s column has been a frequent subject of this blog and in a very critical manner. However, we have always done our best to merely make factual corrections of Dunning’s assertions rather than attempt to deride his character. Nevertheless, a man who has made his living for the last 30 years by sarcastically deriding public figures, has little tolerance when the shoe is on the other foot.
Last night Dunning wrote:
“given that various bloggers in town continue to pump out actionable libel and defamation nearly every day of the week, perhaps under the mistaken impression that “anonymous” blogs are no-holds barred free-for-alls where the usual rules of law are suspended . . . they aren’t, which is a lesson some of them will no doubt learn in the near future . . .”
As a public figure, there is a great deal higher burden to prove libel and defamation than a private citizen would have. A private citizen, would only have to prove negligence–that a reasonable person would not have published a given defamatory statement.
However, a public figure would have to demonstrate “actual malice”–that something was published that was knowingly false or in reckless disregard for the truth.
Dunning falls at the very least into the category of a “limited-purpose public figure” one who “has access to the media to get his or her own view across” and also one who “voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy.” Dunning fits both of those definitions.
What might Dunning be referring to?
The only public charge he has made was this one from January 12, 2007:
“Twice on this blog I’ve seen truly ugly references to Catholicism as it pertains to the Above-Pictured Columnist made by anonymous cowards … if this ugliness had involved any other faith, it would be condemned by this town’s alleged civil rights activists as “hate speech,” but it’s apparently open season on Catholics … yes indeed, real life hate-mongers right here in the Most Relevant City in America …”
Following the January 12, 2007 column I did a search on the blog to see if I even mentioned the word “Catholic” or “Catholics” and in fact I did not.
Upon further scrutiny a person who made comments did in fact reference Dunning and Catholic although I would hardly categorize it in the light that Dunning did.
The California Supreme Court on November 20, 2006 wrote:
“Subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech… Until Congress chooses to revise the settled law in this area” people who contend they were defamed on the Internet can seek recovery only from the original source of the statement, not from those who re-post it.”
In other words, I am not responsible for the content posted by others on this blog.
At this point it seems that Dunning merely dislikes being the focus of scrutiny by this blog in much the same way as the rest of the community is the focus of scrutiny and ridicule by Dunning. However, as far as I can tell, none of this rises even remotely to the level of libel and every statement made by this blog that is not immediately provable through the public record, I can back up with multiple witnesses testifying to the accuracy of my statements. Therefore, Dunning’s charge of libel and defamation is patently false and ultimately unprovable.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
i read the column right around the same time i saw a flyer for this site. i put two and two together when the near-illegible scrawl underneath read “mean-spirited and hateful” and thought “unless this is the KKK, this might actually be useful.”
it’s great that bob dunning has chosen the same path that so many imbalanced and drama-magnet internet users follow by threatening legal ction for talking about him. in this case he’s just clueless about what a “personal blog” entails and i fully look forward to dunning’s future and potentially escalating frustration at his inability to adequately deal with the hostility this crusty bully had coming.
nevertheless, internet court will soon be held on this matter. with internet lawyers and private internet detectives, and all of this will be resolved a mass group AIM chat, the Honorable Judge Lolington presiding.
i read the column right around the same time i saw a flyer for this site. i put two and two together when the near-illegible scrawl underneath read “mean-spirited and hateful” and thought “unless this is the KKK, this might actually be useful.”
it’s great that bob dunning has chosen the same path that so many imbalanced and drama-magnet internet users follow by threatening legal ction for talking about him. in this case he’s just clueless about what a “personal blog” entails and i fully look forward to dunning’s future and potentially escalating frustration at his inability to adequately deal with the hostility this crusty bully had coming.
nevertheless, internet court will soon be held on this matter. with internet lawyers and private internet detectives, and all of this will be resolved a mass group AIM chat, the Honorable Judge Lolington presiding.
i read the column right around the same time i saw a flyer for this site. i put two and two together when the near-illegible scrawl underneath read “mean-spirited and hateful” and thought “unless this is the KKK, this might actually be useful.”
it’s great that bob dunning has chosen the same path that so many imbalanced and drama-magnet internet users follow by threatening legal ction for talking about him. in this case he’s just clueless about what a “personal blog” entails and i fully look forward to dunning’s future and potentially escalating frustration at his inability to adequately deal with the hostility this crusty bully had coming.
nevertheless, internet court will soon be held on this matter. with internet lawyers and private internet detectives, and all of this will be resolved a mass group AIM chat, the Honorable Judge Lolington presiding.
i read the column right around the same time i saw a flyer for this site. i put two and two together when the near-illegible scrawl underneath read “mean-spirited and hateful” and thought “unless this is the KKK, this might actually be useful.”
it’s great that bob dunning has chosen the same path that so many imbalanced and drama-magnet internet users follow by threatening legal ction for talking about him. in this case he’s just clueless about what a “personal blog” entails and i fully look forward to dunning’s future and potentially escalating frustration at his inability to adequately deal with the hostility this crusty bully had coming.
nevertheless, internet court will soon be held on this matter. with internet lawyers and private internet detectives, and all of this will be resolved a mass group AIM chat, the Honorable Judge Lolington presiding.
Bob has enjoyed a near monopoly on public sniping for decades, cranking out 5 columns a week with gentle and not-so-gentle needling of those people and groups he identifies as hypocrites. If anyone wanted to respond, the only choice was a letter to the editor: usually appearing a week or two later, capped at about 1/3 the length of Bob’s column, and de facto limited to 3 or 4 letters per year total. In other words, respondents were completely outgunned.
With the emerging blogosphere, however, anyone unhappy with the Davis status quo can comment on this blog, or start her own! It’s not yet a level playing field, but it’s a lot less tilted than it has been.
If “our fair city’s” traditional media outlet starts to notice that blogs (and their many voices) are growing more popular because of their diversity of opinion, maybe we’ll see some changes for the better. Twice a month is about all I can take of Rifkin, Harris, and Dorf (and their respective axes to grind). I’d like to see more points of view more often.
If old media doesn’t catch on, then they’ll be left behind, where they belong.
Bob has enjoyed a near monopoly on public sniping for decades, cranking out 5 columns a week with gentle and not-so-gentle needling of those people and groups he identifies as hypocrites. If anyone wanted to respond, the only choice was a letter to the editor: usually appearing a week or two later, capped at about 1/3 the length of Bob’s column, and de facto limited to 3 or 4 letters per year total. In other words, respondents were completely outgunned.
With the emerging blogosphere, however, anyone unhappy with the Davis status quo can comment on this blog, or start her own! It’s not yet a level playing field, but it’s a lot less tilted than it has been.
If “our fair city’s” traditional media outlet starts to notice that blogs (and their many voices) are growing more popular because of their diversity of opinion, maybe we’ll see some changes for the better. Twice a month is about all I can take of Rifkin, Harris, and Dorf (and their respective axes to grind). I’d like to see more points of view more often.
If old media doesn’t catch on, then they’ll be left behind, where they belong.
Bob has enjoyed a near monopoly on public sniping for decades, cranking out 5 columns a week with gentle and not-so-gentle needling of those people and groups he identifies as hypocrites. If anyone wanted to respond, the only choice was a letter to the editor: usually appearing a week or two later, capped at about 1/3 the length of Bob’s column, and de facto limited to 3 or 4 letters per year total. In other words, respondents were completely outgunned.
With the emerging blogosphere, however, anyone unhappy with the Davis status quo can comment on this blog, or start her own! It’s not yet a level playing field, but it’s a lot less tilted than it has been.
If “our fair city’s” traditional media outlet starts to notice that blogs (and their many voices) are growing more popular because of their diversity of opinion, maybe we’ll see some changes for the better. Twice a month is about all I can take of Rifkin, Harris, and Dorf (and their respective axes to grind). I’d like to see more points of view more often.
If old media doesn’t catch on, then they’ll be left behind, where they belong.
Bob has enjoyed a near monopoly on public sniping for decades, cranking out 5 columns a week with gentle and not-so-gentle needling of those people and groups he identifies as hypocrites. If anyone wanted to respond, the only choice was a letter to the editor: usually appearing a week or two later, capped at about 1/3 the length of Bob’s column, and de facto limited to 3 or 4 letters per year total. In other words, respondents were completely outgunned.
With the emerging blogosphere, however, anyone unhappy with the Davis status quo can comment on this blog, or start her own! It’s not yet a level playing field, but it’s a lot less tilted than it has been.
If “our fair city’s” traditional media outlet starts to notice that blogs (and their many voices) are growing more popular because of their diversity of opinion, maybe we’ll see some changes for the better. Twice a month is about all I can take of Rifkin, Harris, and Dorf (and their respective axes to grind). I’d like to see more points of view more often.
If old media doesn’t catch on, then they’ll be left behind, where they belong.
Dunning has always been precisely what he purports to condemn in his columns, a hypocrite, a man who is engaging and friendly when you encounter him at the Farmers Market or the grocery store, but who has relied upon falsehood and innuendo, with the approval of Debbie Davis and the owners of the Enterprise, to subject the people he dislikes to ridicule.
The Lamar Heysteck situation was classic Dunning: print a falsehood about someone, get called on it, refuse to acknowledge the error (or, more accurately, the falsehood, as it appears like a deliberate pattern), or do so in a cursory, off the cuff manner, and then turn the fact that someone has complained about it into an opportunity to subject the target, in this instance, Hayteck, to more ridicule.
Dunning has done this for years, as noted by the anonymous comment, and now, he is being challenged, he is being exposed, and he doesn’t like it. So, the real Dunning comes out, he implies that there is the prospect of legal action against people who criticize him, again, no doubt, with the approval of Debbie Davis, and the owners of the Davis Enterprise.
Before they consider going down this road, I’d suggest that they consult an attorney about SLAPP suits, and the ability of people to bring action against individuals or entities that bring frivilous lawsuits against people exercising their speech rights.
Preferably someone other Dunning, after all, his own legal skills seem less than reliable, given his inability to accurately read the criminal code related to the arrest and detention of juveniles.
As I’ve said before, I’m usually not a fan of newspaper takeovers, but, it might be desirable for some chain to make a bid for the McNaughton papers and clean house.
–Richard Estes
Dunning has always been precisely what he purports to condemn in his columns, a hypocrite, a man who is engaging and friendly when you encounter him at the Farmers Market or the grocery store, but who has relied upon falsehood and innuendo, with the approval of Debbie Davis and the owners of the Enterprise, to subject the people he dislikes to ridicule.
The Lamar Heysteck situation was classic Dunning: print a falsehood about someone, get called on it, refuse to acknowledge the error (or, more accurately, the falsehood, as it appears like a deliberate pattern), or do so in a cursory, off the cuff manner, and then turn the fact that someone has complained about it into an opportunity to subject the target, in this instance, Hayteck, to more ridicule.
Dunning has done this for years, as noted by the anonymous comment, and now, he is being challenged, he is being exposed, and he doesn’t like it. So, the real Dunning comes out, he implies that there is the prospect of legal action against people who criticize him, again, no doubt, with the approval of Debbie Davis, and the owners of the Davis Enterprise.
Before they consider going down this road, I’d suggest that they consult an attorney about SLAPP suits, and the ability of people to bring action against individuals or entities that bring frivilous lawsuits against people exercising their speech rights.
Preferably someone other Dunning, after all, his own legal skills seem less than reliable, given his inability to accurately read the criminal code related to the arrest and detention of juveniles.
As I’ve said before, I’m usually not a fan of newspaper takeovers, but, it might be desirable for some chain to make a bid for the McNaughton papers and clean house.
–Richard Estes
Dunning has always been precisely what he purports to condemn in his columns, a hypocrite, a man who is engaging and friendly when you encounter him at the Farmers Market or the grocery store, but who has relied upon falsehood and innuendo, with the approval of Debbie Davis and the owners of the Enterprise, to subject the people he dislikes to ridicule.
The Lamar Heysteck situation was classic Dunning: print a falsehood about someone, get called on it, refuse to acknowledge the error (or, more accurately, the falsehood, as it appears like a deliberate pattern), or do so in a cursory, off the cuff manner, and then turn the fact that someone has complained about it into an opportunity to subject the target, in this instance, Hayteck, to more ridicule.
Dunning has done this for years, as noted by the anonymous comment, and now, he is being challenged, he is being exposed, and he doesn’t like it. So, the real Dunning comes out, he implies that there is the prospect of legal action against people who criticize him, again, no doubt, with the approval of Debbie Davis, and the owners of the Davis Enterprise.
Before they consider going down this road, I’d suggest that they consult an attorney about SLAPP suits, and the ability of people to bring action against individuals or entities that bring frivilous lawsuits against people exercising their speech rights.
Preferably someone other Dunning, after all, his own legal skills seem less than reliable, given his inability to accurately read the criminal code related to the arrest and detention of juveniles.
As I’ve said before, I’m usually not a fan of newspaper takeovers, but, it might be desirable for some chain to make a bid for the McNaughton papers and clean house.
–Richard Estes
Dunning has always been precisely what he purports to condemn in his columns, a hypocrite, a man who is engaging and friendly when you encounter him at the Farmers Market or the grocery store, but who has relied upon falsehood and innuendo, with the approval of Debbie Davis and the owners of the Enterprise, to subject the people he dislikes to ridicule.
The Lamar Heysteck situation was classic Dunning: print a falsehood about someone, get called on it, refuse to acknowledge the error (or, more accurately, the falsehood, as it appears like a deliberate pattern), or do so in a cursory, off the cuff manner, and then turn the fact that someone has complained about it into an opportunity to subject the target, in this instance, Hayteck, to more ridicule.
Dunning has done this for years, as noted by the anonymous comment, and now, he is being challenged, he is being exposed, and he doesn’t like it. So, the real Dunning comes out, he implies that there is the prospect of legal action against people who criticize him, again, no doubt, with the approval of Debbie Davis, and the owners of the Davis Enterprise.
Before they consider going down this road, I’d suggest that they consult an attorney about SLAPP suits, and the ability of people to bring action against individuals or entities that bring frivilous lawsuits against people exercising their speech rights.
Preferably someone other Dunning, after all, his own legal skills seem less than reliable, given his inability to accurately read the criminal code related to the arrest and detention of juveniles.
As I’ve said before, I’m usually not a fan of newspaper takeovers, but, it might be desirable for some chain to make a bid for the McNaughton papers and clean house.
–Richard Estes
It seems that everyone, once again, is taking themselves too seriously.
The bloggers: We are a fearless army of do-gooders!
Dunning: Boo-hoo!
For what it’s worth, everybody just do your respective jobs and stop talking about yourselves so much.
You’re probably not that important.
It seems that everyone, once again, is taking themselves too seriously.
The bloggers: We are a fearless army of do-gooders!
Dunning: Boo-hoo!
For what it’s worth, everybody just do your respective jobs and stop talking about yourselves so much.
You’re probably not that important.
It seems that everyone, once again, is taking themselves too seriously.
The bloggers: We are a fearless army of do-gooders!
Dunning: Boo-hoo!
For what it’s worth, everybody just do your respective jobs and stop talking about yourselves so much.
You’re probably not that important.
It seems that everyone, once again, is taking themselves too seriously.
The bloggers: We are a fearless army of do-gooders!
Dunning: Boo-hoo!
For what it’s worth, everybody just do your respective jobs and stop talking about yourselves so much.
You’re probably not that important.
Josh:
For me this is less about me being an army of do-gooders and more about Dunning trying to mau-mau people who disagree with him or dare to challenge him. But yes, it is time to get back to work.
Josh:
For me this is less about me being an army of do-gooders and more about Dunning trying to mau-mau people who disagree with him or dare to challenge him. But yes, it is time to get back to work.
Josh:
For me this is less about me being an army of do-gooders and more about Dunning trying to mau-mau people who disagree with him or dare to challenge him. But yes, it is time to get back to work.
Josh:
For me this is less about me being an army of do-gooders and more about Dunning trying to mau-mau people who disagree with him or dare to challenge him. But yes, it is time to get back to work.
I quote the words of David Greenwald:
“The purpose is not to stifle debate and it is not to censor comments. However, a few things that will not be tolerated: 1. Profanity; 2. Name calling. Those will result in a deleted.”
Now perhaps David has not yet seen Richard Estes’s post. But certainly that is name calling.
“Dunning has always been precisely what he purports to condemn in his columns, a hypocrite.”
Or is Estes’s ad hominem attack allowable because he chooses to defame someone who is regularly attacked on this blog?
I quote the words of David Greenwald:
“The purpose is not to stifle debate and it is not to censor comments. However, a few things that will not be tolerated: 1. Profanity; 2. Name calling. Those will result in a deleted.”
Now perhaps David has not yet seen Richard Estes’s post. But certainly that is name calling.
“Dunning has always been precisely what he purports to condemn in his columns, a hypocrite.”
Or is Estes’s ad hominem attack allowable because he chooses to defame someone who is regularly attacked on this blog?
I quote the words of David Greenwald:
“The purpose is not to stifle debate and it is not to censor comments. However, a few things that will not be tolerated: 1. Profanity; 2. Name calling. Those will result in a deleted.”
Now perhaps David has not yet seen Richard Estes’s post. But certainly that is name calling.
“Dunning has always been precisely what he purports to condemn in his columns, a hypocrite.”
Or is Estes’s ad hominem attack allowable because he chooses to defame someone who is regularly attacked on this blog?
I quote the words of David Greenwald:
“The purpose is not to stifle debate and it is not to censor comments. However, a few things that will not be tolerated: 1. Profanity; 2. Name calling. Those will result in a deleted.”
Now perhaps David has not yet seen Richard Estes’s post. But certainly that is name calling.
“Dunning has always been precisely what he purports to condemn in his columns, a hypocrite.”
Or is Estes’s ad hominem attack allowable because he chooses to defame someone who is regularly attacked on this blog?
I would venture to say that calling a public figure a hypocrite by a member of this forum that posts under their own name would be allowable. I’m not sure I would categorize hypocrite as name calling. Now if someone called you a hypocrite, I’d be more likely to do something because you are a user of the blog.
I would venture to say that calling a public figure a hypocrite by a member of this forum that posts under their own name would be allowable. I’m not sure I would categorize hypocrite as name calling. Now if someone called you a hypocrite, I’d be more likely to do something because you are a user of the blog.
I would venture to say that calling a public figure a hypocrite by a member of this forum that posts under their own name would be allowable. I’m not sure I would categorize hypocrite as name calling. Now if someone called you a hypocrite, I’d be more likely to do something because you are a user of the blog.
I would venture to say that calling a public figure a hypocrite by a member of this forum that posts under their own name would be allowable. I’m not sure I would categorize hypocrite as name calling. Now if someone called you a hypocrite, I’d be more likely to do something because you are a user of the blog.
I invite visitors to read my remarks in full, instead of relying upon Rich’s selective editing, and decide if it conforms to their personal experience.
Unfortunately for Dunning, Rifkin and the Enterprise, I suspect that a lot of people will decide that it does. As for Rich, it appears that he has pulled out an old, trusty Dunning implement out of the tool box: the change the subject Philips head screw driver No. 5, commonly used when the original subject of discussion isn’t going very well for you.
–Richard Estes
P. S. If they can’t deal with this level of public criticism, which is tame by today’s Internet standards, then one wonders if they are still relying upon typewriters and a hot type composing room to publish the newspaper.