Judge Orders Anti-Candidate Site Taken Down – UPDATED!
UPDATE: Vivian Paige has the breaking news… Judge Poston has reversed his decision. Long live the 1st Amendment!
Holy shit! A Norfolk Circuit Court judge has ordered removal of May4thCounts.com, a site targeting Norfolk City Council candidate Anthony Burfoot.
WTF?!?! As a creator of several anti-candidate websites myself, I poured through the Virginian-Pilot report looking for reasons why.
According to Burfoot, the originator of the lawsuit filing, it was “an attempt to try to destroy a person”. Destroy a person??? The whole idea behind an anti-candidate website is to cause defeat of that candidate. Does defeat constitute destruction? Where’s the line between free speech and slander? Now that the site has been order down, I guess we’ll never know. But I’m not feeling all that trustful that the reasons are legit.
Was the site not factual? “Many details on the site could not be independently verified by The Virginian-Pilot”, writes the VP. So what! Is the Pilot now the expert witness on legitimacy now? If information presented on a website can’t be verified by the Pilot is that cause for websites to be taken down? Damn, the worldwide web would be minus a helluva lot of sites if that were true.
Councilwoman Daun Hester pipes in saying “”I do have concerns about public funds being used on this matter.” Now there you go! There’s good reasons for taking down the website! Absolutely! It was hosted by GoDaddy with private registration. If the City of Norfolk paid that hosting bill, then kill the site. Or if the site was created and maintained by a City employee while on the clock sitting at a government computer, then again kill the site. This is all very easy to track down.
But that’s not the use of public funds Hester is referring to as Burfoot adds insult to injury. Representing Burfoot in court was none other than Norfolk’s own City Attorney Bernard Pishko, who alleges the website as “slander on the whole community.”
So now not only can you not put up an anti-candidate website, but you also can’t put up an anti-Norfolk site either! It’s dirty laundry is otherwise not allowed to be aired in the public square. Free speech advocates as well as teabaggers should be all over this! This stinks to high heaven!
I’d be very interested to get Vivian Paige’s take on this. Incidentally, a commenter on the Pilot story did a screen capture of one of the website’s pages. Here it is. It could be all garbage. Who knows? But I’d hardly call it “slander on the whole community.” Methinks these Norfolk officials doth protest too much. As it should be, voters are best left as the final judges to the reaction of sunshine hitting what is or isn’t bullshit. Unless there’s more to the story that isn’t being reported in the Pilot (and they did a really shitty job with the reporting), then shame on Norfolk and Burfoot! Good grief!
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:12 am
I agree with you, Eileen. Anyway, since slander is spoken and libel is written, Burfoot gets the “stupid” award for not knowing what he’s talking about.
Quashing of opinion is something we should all be concerned about.
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:20 am
Brian, would you agree that this is also really shitty reporting by the Pilot?
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:28 am
I wouldn’t use that term. I don’t have a high bar for the political reporting done by the Pilot as a rule. They don’t cover elections. They pick and choose what they write about, and then claim they aren’t biased.
Their editorial board wants candidates to “talk about issues” but their newspaper never covers that.
What this story is missing is a discussion of how political opinions aren’t protected speech. It gives the impression that being factual is the only protection from libel (not slander, you goof). Opinion is protected. Fair comment on matters of public interest is protected.
Louis Hansen should’ve contacted an expert attorney for an understanding of what happened here. Would the city of Norfolk taken down the Virginian-Pilot website if they didn’t like the content of a story or an editorial?
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:35 am
Sites like this — against any candidate — are a stain on the body politic.
Nevertheless, the First Amendment plainly protects them.
And presuming that the Norfolk City Attorney’s job is a full-time position, it is unconscionable that public funds would be used for this. If a Federal lawsuit isn’t filed, I’d be very surprised.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:39 am
Burfoot should reimburse the city for using a City Attorney for this. And whoever authorized in the city attorney’s office should be held accountable. That said, I think that the primary reason the site was shutdown was because the defendant didn’t show up to court. I haven’t been to many court cases, but I generally have the impression that if a defendant fails to show up in court, he often loses. I could be wrong, since I have limited knowledge in that area. Perhaps in a case of free speech a judge should default for free speech.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:46 am
I didn’t read the article, so I didn’t know that the defendant didn’t show up. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that most judges would order a website taken down under ANY circumstances, given the First Amendment issues. The burden always lies with the proponent of a temporary restraining order.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:52 am
Virginia News Source…watch out.
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:55 am
So much is wrong with this event. Comments I have read are generally in agreement that Burfoot, well, put his barefoot into it by using the city attorney, who should have known better himself. Is anyone keeping tabs on how much Pishko is costing Norfolk?
Perhaps Pishko should Marry Regina Williams then take a long honeymoon to China, where they will fit in quite well.
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I would think this decision is a direct violation of one’s civil rights for political expediency and should be submitted to state bar.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Quality post,Maybe I might sign up to your rss.