I noticed this weekend that a number of comments on both Xavier’s and Peter’s blogs regarding the THR situation center on the perception of a bitter, clueless few that the THR situation we’ve been writing about is somehow about banning sour grapes. It isn’t.
It’s about theft – pure and simple. It’s about a betrayal of trust. And it’s about a criminal act. Somehow people are missing this.
Peter has an update that pretty much puts the irrelevant to rest. I encourage you to go over there and read it.
That central issue is this: the domain name and ownership of THR have been stolen. The rightful owner has now instituted civil legal action to retrieve his property. All of us should support that action, because if someone can steal another’s property with impunity, it affects all of us, as it makes a mockery of the rule of law.
There’s also a criminal law aspect to this, of course. Since the domain name was “hijacked” by a person in one state, while being transferred from the former owner in a second state to the new owner in a third state, it unquestionably becomes a matter of interstate commerce. This is reinforced by THR’s “For Sale” sub-forums, where much interstate buying and selling takes place. That makes this a matter for federal law. As one formerly employed in (and now medically retired from) a law enforcement position with the US Department of Justice, I’ve made a few phone calls to former colleagues, who’ve expressed considerable interest in what’s going on. I daresay we may see some action on that front in due course, over and above any civil litigation.
It’s critically important that the right be upheld in this situation. If that doesn’t happen, or if some form of “settlement” is reached whereby the guilty party receives any type of compensation for returning what has been stolen, it will make a mockery of justice and the rule of law. All of us should surely be in agreement that any such thing would be intolerable.
It’s amazing how so many gun rights advocates are willing to allow simple theft to slide merely because they happen to like to play with the item that was stolen or because they happen to like the thief! Stunning hypocrisy, people! Just stunning! Recognize this for what it is: a crime. The previous owner of the domain name is on record as having stated to whom he intended to transfer the domain name. So why is it so many Second Amendment advocates like to tout the rule of law, while arbitrarily ignoring that law when it doesn’t suit them?
The Intertubez are really a funny thing. I doubt that when The Goreon invented it, he envisioned the kind of impact it would have on society and on global communications. For all the lightning-fast information and the opening of numerous societies that the webz facilitates, there’s a downside too…
One big one that I see is the false bravado it enables in many cowards who inhabit the web. After all — it’s relatively anonymous, inexpensive and easy to manipulate. You can post attacks, gang up on individuals and ruin reputations and lives in one fell swoop without leaving your mother’s basement or taking that ho-ho out of your maw. You can ridicule, mock, needle and harass with impunity. After all, no one knows who you are, and you never have to face your victim in person…
I’ve seen this too many times. The anonymity the Internet provides breeds this kind of false courage – a willingness to attack an individual or a family, knowing that you don’t have to face your victim, see how much you’ve hurt them, or be pummeled into a fine powder in response to your assault. It also gives the attacker the attention they so desire and breeds a mob mentality that allows a number of such cowards to band together and make themselves feel superior to their victim.
Such are the people who create websites such as this. They’re sad, pathetic little classless weaklings, who are using the relative obscurity offered by the webz to launch senseless attacks in order to garner attention from those looking for some escapist entertainment or simply hurl insults like monkeys tossing excrement in impotent rage at a particular candidate.
Obviously this is an attempt to paint Bristol Palin as a trailer trash whore. Because obviously, she’s the only 17-year-old in the country to get knocked up. There aren’t millions of unwed, welfare-suckling, single baby mamas out there who popped out their first crotchfruit at 14, and who happen to support Obama. But since this is the daughter of a REPUBLICAN, who happens to support religious and conservative ideals, she’s fair game. Apparently bigotry is OK against the white oppressor and his family, but not OK against the oppressed minorities.
And after all, it’s not like they’ll ever have to confront the butt of their heinous little joke! That makes it a whole lot easier to be brave.
Stay classy, libtards!
ANOTHER THOUGHT: It’s incredible how these types of scum are the first ones to shriek “FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION!” should anyone DARE question their actions, but they’re also the first ones to attack others’ ability to speak out against their Chosen One by launching attacks, disabling websites and harassing those with whom they don’t agree by posting their personal information on the web in hopes that someone with bigger balls than theirs will harass their victims in person.
Such galling hypocrisy from such small, scared minds!
Some may be appalled that this Texas homeowner used deadly force when a bunch of teenagers broke into his home.
Yes, they were looking for drinks and snacks… supposedly. But consider this: when you’re an elderly homeowner and a bunch of individuals break into your home, is your first thought, “Oh! They must just be hungry!” or “Someone’s in my house, and I need to protect myself!”
Luckily, the jury in this case thought the latter was a logical rationale, so they acquitted Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, of murdering Francisco Anguiano, who was 13 when he and three friends
broke into Gonzalez’s trailer in July 2007.
However, Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker maintained during
his closing arguments that the case was not about homeowners’ right to
protect their property, but about when a person is justified in using
deadly force to do so.
“What really took place here was a case of
vigilantism,” he said after the verdict. “A 13-year-old boy was killed
because a man was enraged.”
No, a 13-year-old boy was killed because he invaded someone’s home. It’s called breaking and entering, and it’s a crime. Why is it that his age needs to absolve him of dealing with the consequences of his actions?