It Couldn’t Happen to a Nicer Guy: Glenn Beck Sued for Defamation


Last April, during the running of the Boston Marathon, a tragic event occurred when two bombs exploded killing three people and injuring more than 260 others. Two brothers—Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev—quickly became the FBI’s primary suspects for the bombings. Early in the investigation, another man was also named as a person of interest—a 20-year-old Saudi Arabian student named Abdulrahman Alharbi. Boston Magazine reported that Alharbi “became the focus of public speculation for a brief time during the search for those responsible for setting off two pressure cooker bombs on Boylston Street.” Alharbi—who was injured in the bombing—had won a full scholarship to study English in Boston. He was questioned by police and ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing in the matter.

That wasn’t enough for Glenn Beck though. The well-known conspiracy theorist and former Fox News personality still had suspicions about the Saudi national. Last April, the radio host “urged the U.S. government to release information on Alharbi.” Beck said if the government didn’t, he would “expose” the young man. “Let me send this message very clear,” said Beck. “We know who this Saudi national is…. We know who this man is and, listen to me carefully, we know he is a very bad, bad, bad man.

Days later, Beck was still pushing his theory about Alharbi being involved in the monstrous act. Beck said, “While the media continues to look at what the causes were [behind] these two guys, there are, at this hour, three people involved.”  He alleged that the U.S. government had “tagged” Alharbi as a “proven terrorist.” According to The Washington Post, Beck later claimed that Alharbi was an al-Qaeda “control agent” and the “money man” behind the attacks. “You know who the Saudi is?” Beck asked. “He’s the money man. He’s the guy who paid for it.”

Alharbi has now filed a defamation lawsuit against the radio host. “Alharbi claims that political commentator Glenn Beck and the company that carries his show, The Blaze, smeared his name in the media even after Alharbi was no longer the subject of the investigation.” (Boston Magazine)

The lawsuit says that Alharbi—like many others—was questioned by federal authorities who were investigating the events of the day of the 2013 Boston Marathon…and that “authorities quickly concluded that Mr. Alharbi, other than being injured in the attacks, had no involvement.” The lawsuit also says that “Beck repeatedly and falsely identified Mr. Alharbi as an active participant, repeatedly questioned the motives of federal officials in failing to pursue or detain Alharbi and repeatedly and falsely accused Mr. Alharbi of being a criminal who had funded the attacks.”

According to Alharbi’s complaint, Glenn Beck’s allegations “have haunted the Saudi student. Alharbi has received numerous messages, internet postings and other communications based on Beck’s false statements accusing him of being a murderer, child killer and terrorist.”

Glenn Beck Sued Over Boston Marathon Bombing Conspiracy Theory


Boston Marathon victim sues Glenn Beck (USA Today)

Glenn Beck sued for defamation after calling victim of Boston Marathon bombings the ‘money man’ behind attack (Washington Post)

Glenn Beck sued for Boston Marathon bombing claim (Politico)

Saudi Man Investigated After Marathon Bombings Sues Glenn Beck for Defamation, Slander: In a court filing, Abdulrahman Alharbi claims the political commentator smeared his name. (Boston Magazine)

Boston Marathon Bombing Victim Sues Glenn Beck for Defamation (NBC News)

Blasts at Boston Marathon Kill 3 and Injure 100 (New York Times)

‘I Don’t Bluff, I Make Promises’: Beck Gives Gov’t Until Monday to Come Clean About Boston Bombing Cover-Up (Right Wing Watch)

Saudi man investigated after Boston Marathon speaks out (Washington Post)

This entry was posted in Conspiracy, FBI, Law Enforcement, Media, Propaganda, Saudi Arabia, United States and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to It Couldn’t Happen to a Nicer Guy: Glenn Beck Sued for Defamation

  1. gbk says:

    Seems like the, “very bad, bad, bad man,” accusation should go the other way. Sort of like this:

  2. Elaine M. says:


    Thanks for the laugh!

  3. Christian Dem in NC has a diary up on this case. He is a good writer and does his homework. Shades of Richard Jewell!!!!

  4. Mike Spindell says:

    It was said of Joe McCarthy that he couldn’t understand all the hostility directed at him, because his actions were all political, not personal. The Senator couldn’t understand that ruining peoples lives made it personal. I’m sure too that Beck can’t understand what all the fuss is about, since after all he’s only a TV entertainer.

  5. Mike Spindell says:


    And here it is so many years later and we still remember who Richard Jewell was. This, however, wasn’t a man who chose the notoriety forced on him, but who was wrongly vilified in a frenzy. He remains a prime example of “trial by media” a phenomenon whereby law enforcement cares more for quick convictions tan uncovering the truth. The parallels with Beck’s defamation of Mr. Alharbi are direct and disgusting.

  6. Tony C. says:

    SMom: It is amazing to me Beck thinks the people in the Rose Garden were paid; I am certain there would be at least several million willing to volunteer to fill a seat and clap. It isn’t like Obama has no fans (or the Rose Garden has no fans).

  7. rafflaw says:

    Glen Beck is a maniac with a microphone. Hopefully, Mr. Alharbi will clean out Beck for a tidy sum.

  8. And in other news, When Dog Doody Duty found out their company ads were being run in Rush Limbaugh’s time slot, the owner of the company sent this message:

    “I just called Clear Channel and had them remove my ads from his show starting tomorrow…..I specifically asked them not to run my ad during his show.”

    What is Dog Doody Duty, you ask? It is a company which specializes in removing dog turds from your property. When you are too toxic for dog shit specialists, that is about as low as you can go.

  9. Elaine M. says:


    “When you are too toxic for dog shit specialists, that is about as low as you can go.”

    I dunno. I think Rushbo has been able to sink below the level of dog duty–which often oozes from his mouth as he raises his head from the muck and mire to spout his vile rhetoric.

  10. Anonymously Yours says:


    This is off topic but I posted it on turley directed to Jonathan ….. After he’s decided to start deleting posts….

    “on 1, April 5, 2014 at 5:30 pmAnonymously Yours
    I think you are missing the greatest offender of breaching the civility rules…. You may have deleted mine as well as Pete’s and AP…. But you don’t stick close enough to realize the damage that is being done by one unnamed…. It’s unfortunate…. This used to be a premiere site that one could express opinions, ideals, beliefs, life etc without fear of reprise… Today not so much….
    There are digs put out there and as soon as they are called in it they go mea culpa…. And the change the subject…. No sooner do you go away …. They start right back up….
    Have you noticed the quality and quantity of the posts going down in here in the last few months…. This should be an indication something else is going on….. And it’s not just you not being here…..
    I have been getting attacked for spelling errors…. You should take exception to that…. You need to look deep and hard to really see what’s amiss here….”

    I hope you don’t mind the intrusion….. If you wish to delete it…. Ok….

  11. Elaine M. says:


    I think many folks are disgusted by what’s going on over at RIL. It’s too bad that a once fine forum for intellectual discussions has been turned into a venue for nastiness, personal attacks, the Breitbarters of this country…and inanity. BTW, we guest bloggers don’t delete comments.

  12. Anonymously Yours says:

    Thank you …. I’m frustrated…. Didn’t say anything really…. But was the center of aggression….

  13. Annie says:

    Glad to hear someone is going up against Beck. Wishing him luck.

  14. pdm says:

    “waldo” at the other place has been blocked. Spinelli, between episodes of documenting his love of every man and woman who served, is missing waldo.

    Anybody up for notifying Spinelli that his “victory” is more of a fixed fight?

  15. I had to check out the thread in question. Might I say . . . “wtf?” It was so out of control I had to leave a comment:

    1, April 5, 2014 at 11:42 pm Gene Howington

    What? Rules without enforcement are just suggestions? Now where have I heard that before?

    This is a really excellent thread. Did I mention that the word of the day on my “Word-A-Day” calendar is “schadenfreude”? Yep.

    And the notion that JT’s going to delete individual comments instead of banning repeat offenders? Good luck with that considering he can’t even figure out who is what in the comments. Oh well. At least it has the entertainment appeal of a slow motion train wreck. So he’s got that going for him. Which is nice.

  16. Mike Spindell says:

    Just got back to this thread a day late. WTF is going on over at Turley’s? t seems like Jonathan’s flailing about. One can be very, very intelligent and still not get the point of what is going on around him. We tried to tell him, but he just didn’t think we were credible. Sometimes hubris creeps up on the famous and bites them in the ass.

  17. gbk says:

    It’s much stranger than fiction.

    I went to RIL just this last Thursday — because I like to watch slow-motion demolitions — and saw a comment posted to an almost five year old thread.

    Crazy stuff, here’s the link:

  18. Oky1 says:

    **Mike Spindell says:
    April 5, 2014 at 10:28 pm

    Just got back to this thread a day late. WTF is going on over at Turley’s? t seems like Jonathan’s flailing about. One can be very, very intelligent and still not get the point of what is going on around him. We tried to tell him, but he just didn’t think we were credible. Sometimes hubris creeps up on the famous and bites them in the ass.


    Being friends isn’t easy or comfortable at times. I’ve not been following all of JT blog, but let’s please attempt to support JT in a positive manner as I do this blog.

    Today’s battle flied is a mess & we need dependable allies. 1st we Breath & then we answer the Phk’in phone & see what blew up next! 🙂

    I hate phones! LOL especially at 3:30 in the morning.

  19. gbk says:

    It feels like this, there, now:

  20. Oky1 says:

    **Gene Howington says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:52 pm **


    Hold my beer while I slap some sense into you.

    It’s unbecoming of you.

    Come on, I know you know better!!!

  21. Support, Oky? Sometimes love is tough love. There is a difference between “critical” and “unsupportive”. Do not mistake one for the other. I have both computer skills and a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of propaganda. If I wanted to make this unfriendly? There would be a lot more disruption there than he’s currently enjoying. But if you want to talk about unsupportive behavior? I think that in all the events leading to the schism, the GBs got (and continue to get) a raw deal there. For example, he’s demanded exclusivity of GB generated content there since the schism: something of value he demanded as if it were due and without offer of value. Free speech is a two-edged sword. That he didn’t understand that and clings to a mistaken notion that “polite” is the same thing as “civil”? Is his failing. His laissez-faire approach to a free speech in a public forum was doomed to failure from the start. Once the audience reached a certain critical size threshold, the self-moderating model was bound to break down. I may have even told him so if memory serves. Way more than once. I had been asking for the rules to be clearly posted for more than a year before certain people even started posting there. Why? Because rules without enforcement are suggestions. Civility cannot be maintained without rules. But why should he listen to anybody else? He’s famous. Everyone knows famous people are always right. JT was warned about the corrosive nature of certain posters many many times in ways ranging from subtle to baseball bat. He not only ignored those warnings, how shall I put this, he didn’t exactly throw us under the bus but he made it clear he expected us to jump voluntarily and in the process sacrificing not just the rules as they were explained to all of us when we started GBing but some of our rights as well – including the right to our own free speech and self-defense in the face of endless attack. I’m nobody’s doormat, Oky, but if you think I haven’t been supportive of RIL? Then you simply don’t know what was (and is) going on.

    JT made his choices. He chose poorly. I have the right to say so and I have the right to be critical. And sarcastic. If he doesn’t like it? He can always ban me from his playground. I turned away voluntarily when it was demanded that I give up something of value – my own rights – simply because he said so. And while I do feel badly for what has happened to that forum? He got what he wanted . . . and exactly what was predicted. That it hasn’t been working out how he thought it would?

    Schadenfreude is not only a natural response, it is a just response.

    People will never be banned from FFS for simple disagreement. That is the essence of what the Founders were protecting with free speech – the right to dissent. But there are rules. Just like almost all rights, free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in conjunction with other rights. That is why the rules are clearly set forth and enforced here the way they are: to protect dissent and allow for a mechanism for ejecting those who would stifle it not by having a better argument but rather by true incivility – dishonesty in argument, character assassination and other base propaganda techniques. This is a free speech salon with bouncers. Why? Because you see how well the laissez-faire approach is working out over there. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

    Rules without enforcement (or with capricious enforcement) are just suggestions.

    Feel free to disagree all you like.

  22. Anonymously Yours says:

    I had maintained almost silence …. But responded to pete… And then boom…. But since I dont use Briebart as a monolog…. I’m kinda out of my realm….

  23. Some selected comments from RIL reposted here for posterity . . .

    1, April 6, 2014 at 8:27 am AP

    “What? Rules without enforcement are just suggestions?” -Gene H.

    And then there’s the troubling issue of selective enforcement.

    on 1, April 6, 2014 at 9:12 am Gene Howington

    I think that has been pointed out by multiple parties on multiple occasions as well, AP. Non-enforcement was a huge factor in deciding to no longer contribute as a GB or indeed participate much. I haven’t been actively participating, but I have been watching as time allows (a fuller plate than usual). Usually when someone sends me an email to check something out or posts something elsewhere about it. In many ways, this forum has taken on all the charm of a slow motion train wreck. Pretty much everything I predicted in private has come to pass. True, there is a certain amount of schadenfreude in that, but it is tempered with sadness as well. I wonder if the mythological Cassandra felt this way.

    [. . .]

    on 1, April 6, 2014 at 12:00 pm Nick Spinelli

    I didn’t like football as much as baseball but played it because I was an athlete. It wasn’t until I got out into the real world and worked for a living that some of the important lessons made sense to me. Lombardi’s players say this also. One of the most fundamental lessons all football coaches teach is “No one is indispensable.” You learn that lesson on a team and it carries over into life. Unfortunately, some never learn that and they lead unhappy lives, thinking they are indispensable. Denial is self destructive.

    on 1, April 6, 2014 at 12:41 pm Gene Howington

    “Unfortunately, some never learn that and they lead unhappy lives, thinking they are indispensable. Denial is self destructive.”

    So is projection and passive-aggressiveness.

    Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    But let’s do a fact check, nick.

    1) Indispensable? I left voluntarily. It was and is not my general absence that is impairing this place. It is rather the unmitigated presence of . . . well, we all know the answer to that.

    2) My “indispensable nature” was never at issue but rather the (still seemingly unchecked) bad behavior of some was a catalyst for an argument about fundamentals concerning rule construction and deployment that would have been terminal to my participation here as a GB regardless. The laissez-faire approach and treating free speech as a right that exists in isolation from all other rights is clearly not working. That is not just my opinion but seems to be shared by quite a few other participants in this forum as well judging by a number of recent comments I’ve read.

    3) I do not require your approval to comment on the general health of this community and I am free to comment as I see fit. That free speech, she is a two-edged blade.

    4) Rules without enforcement (or uneven/unequal enforcement) are suggestions. This can and apparently has led to some consequences. Or as Tony C. noted the other day, it creates “an example petite of why ‘government’ is needed in the first place; one person can pollute a commons to the point it is unusable by others, and thereby create harm to others for their selfish benefit, even if that benefit is just egoism. A blog is very much that sort of commons; a virtual park that must be somewhat policed lest it become the de facto private grounds of a gang or bully or wannabe ‘big man.’ In other words, hijacked.” Now that JT is seemingly taking a more active role in policing policy, he’ll start to understand the scope of and nature of the problem.

    Any other questions?

    For those of you hard of understanding, that was a rhetorical question, but thanks for illustrating my point about the decline of the forum.”

  24. Annie says:

    I believe in Karma.

  25. Oky1 says:

    **Gene Howington says:
    April 6, 2014 at 5:09 am **


    Your’s was a very appropriate response & I agree with it.

    After I posted my comments & while I was sleeping I was thinking maybe I shouldn’t have posted or that I should have further qualified my remarks with something about leadership dealing with these controversies in private.

    I was wrong I see now.

    I didn’t wish to get involved in these type messes yet stepped in it. I recall now you guys did deal with these issues in private with JT many times.

    I hate it that I wasted you time, but maybe your 5:09 comments needed said in public again.

    Hopefully Professor Turley see them & take your advise.

  26. Actually, he took exception and deleted the comment, Oky:

    on 1, April 6, 2014 at 1:50 pm jonathanturley

    Deletion notice: It appears that there remain a couple of posters who, despite repeated requests not to, continue to raise the past conflicts on this blog. I understand that some people feel I should have banned a couple of posters. On a site committed to free speech principles, we have tried to work with all of our posters to ask them to comply with our policy not to engage in personal attacks and tit-for-tat exchanges. When that has not worked, I have deleted comments. I just deleted two more such comments.

    I have no problem with people criticizing me or my disinclination to ban people. However, the rather transparent effort to again start a fight over prior conflicts is bizarre — as is repeating posting on a site that some say that no longer support. I understand that our site is not right for some people. Some want more people banned. Others want to engage in personal attacks. There are a lot of sites that fit those desires. This just does not happen to be one of them. For some of us, this site remains an island of relative civility and mature discourse. We are having a banner year. Since last year, this site has experienced considerable growth in traffic and we are now more popular than ever in terms of traffic and links. We are about to top 21 million views (a record growth rate from our recent 20 million mark) and remain in the top ten most visited legal sites in the world. We have an increasing number of secondary hits on both television and print media citing the blog. I hope that that reflects a preference for our type of discourse and the array of different views that we have on the blog. It is certainly not because people want to see adults badgering each other over past history or making juvenile or snide comments.

    Now, please, just let it go or go down the virtual road. If you still have anger issues or unrequited personal animus, there are other sites without those individuals and probably more to your liking in terms of administration. We have moved on at this site. I have banned a few people and deleted dozens of comments. I do not like to do it. We value each and every voice on this site. I just ask you not to bore readers with personal attacks or revisionist posts. We get it. You don’t like each other or the policies of the blog. Time to move on.

    on 1, April 6, 2014 at 2:02 pm Gene Howington

    That’s okay, JT. They were saved elsewhere. Interesting take on free speech you’ve got there though. Still think it exists outside the context of other rights? I’ve seen how well that’s been working out for you. I’ll just say some have noticed that quantity is not quality. Thanks for confirming what some of us already suspected though: that your recent handling of events was motivated by brand and not really principled based reasoning related to preserving free speech in a commons-like forum.

    Congratulations on your successful brand expansion though.

    Looks good on you.

    And I say that in the nicest way possible.

    C’est la vie. :mrgreen:

  27. Annie says:

    Just takes patience….

  28. That’s what many people don’t realize about me, Annie.

    I have the patience of stone.

    It is a hard earned skill and it serves me well.

  29. Mike Spindell says:

    My last 2 posts on Turley, sadly I couldn’t help myself:

    “I have no problem with people criticizing me or my disinclination to ban people. However, the rather transparent effort to again start a fight over prior conflicts is bizarre — as is repeating posting on a site that some say that no longer support.”

    In congratulation for your 21 million visitors and your Fox celebrity. Sometimes winning is in how we, not others define it. :)”

    ““We have moved on at this site. I have banned a few people and deleted dozens of comments. I do not like to do it. We value each and every voice on this site. I just ask you not to bore readers with personal attacks or revisionist posts. We get it. You don’t like each other or the policies of the blog.”

    Sometimes “getting it” is merely the consequence of hubris. Farewell JT, you coulda done me better….but I don’t mind. Obscurity has its rewards, just as fame has its curses.”

  30. Mike Spindell says:


    You and I like some of the same music.

  31. Mike,

    “I have no problem with people criticizing me or my disinclination to ban people. However, the rather transparent effort to again start a fight over prior conflicts is bizarre — as is repeating posting on a site that some say that no longer support.”

    That struck me as well, Mike.

    1) “[N]o problem with people criticizing me or my disinclination to ban people”? Sure didn’t seem that way and you know what they say about actions and words.

    2) The last part is even more interesting: “However, the rather transparent effort to again start a fight over prior conflicts is bizarre — as is repeating posting on a site that some say that no longer support.” The instigator – once again free from public punishment – was nick. Yet Turley still tried to paint it to be about my response and not nick’s provocation. Makes you wonder if someone has pictures of JT doing something untoward or if his apparent animus has become personal. How adorable.

    Apparently Jonathan labors under the delusion I have to follow his constraints on my free speech even though I’m no longer a guest blogger. I was perfectly polite in my response as can be seen above in its deleted entirety. And on a technical note, I never said I didn’t support RIL. Every action taken was taken in furtherance of the forum under the rules as they were explained out of camera. What I said was that I was no longer going to be an active participant. And for the most part, I’m not. I commented more there today than I have in four months. But hey, I do love a good train wreck. What can I say.

    A most curious, angry and telling response from him overall.

    Oh well.

    Fame makes a man take things over.
    Fame lets him loose, hard to swallow.
    Fame puts you there where things are hollow. Fame.
    Fame, it’s not your brain, it’s just the flame
    That burns your change to keep you insane. Fame.

    Fame, what you like is in the limo.
    Fame, what you get is no tomorrow.
    Fame, what you need you have to borrow. Fame.
    Fame, it’s mine, it’s mine, it’s just his line
    To bind your time, it drives you to crime. Fame.

    Is it any wonder I reject you first?
    Fame, fame, fame, fame.
    Is it any wonder you are too cool to fool? Fame.
    Fame, bully for you, chilly for me,
    Got to get a rain check on pain. Fame.

    Fame, fame,
    Fame, fame,
    Fame, fame, fame,
    Fame, fame, fame, fame,
    Fame, fame, fame, fame,
    Fame, fame, fame,
    Fame, what’s your name?

    It’s almost as if Bowie knew what weirdness being put in the public eye could drive one to.

    Imagine that. :mrgreen:

  32. Anonymouly Yours says:

    Well…. In searching for something on the net this popped up and I think its appropriate…… St Concalo….. The Patron Saint of Assholes….. Actually hemorrhoids…. I think serendipity hits occasionally……

  33. Oky1 says:


    They told me for decades about these “Golden Years”.

    Yes, it’s fraught with problems, but on the up side is I’ve forgotten so much stuff over time that when I’m listening to things like your play list it’s just as enjoyable as if it was the first time I heard them. LOL 🙂

    Roger Daltrey, Excellent!

  34. pete says:

    a lot of my comments are what I consider “drive-by comments”. Just observations or b/s I throw out there for the hell of it and as a rule don’t go back to see if anything came of it. I don’t know how many times I’ve had comments deleted but I do know I’ve had them deleted before. I don’t stress it, but in my own defense I do try very hard to keep my comments relevant to the subject and on topic, even if they my seem somewhat irreverent.

    besides, you should see some of the shit i decide is too hardcore and don’t post.

  35. Elaine M. says:


    Some people’s drive-by comments are funny. Some people’s drive-by comments are snide and meant to insult and/or bait others. Yours fall in the former category.

  36. Oky1 says:

    **pete says:
    April 6, 2014 at 9:25 pm **

    My past comments on cars/trucks fuel efficiencies are very relevant & if you payed attention guys like you can help yourselves & customers profit by the conversions & the savings in fuel consumption.

  37. Oky1 says:


    We’re planning a birthday party for ole dude, ( I think we’re pullin out all the stops, I know I am.)

    I’m pretty sure the steel guitar player is his brother-in-law.
    I’ll know soon.

  38. The Green Springs Inn is near Medford, Oregon. The owner of Green Springs Inn was rather upset when he learned his ad was inserted into Rush Limbaugh’s time slot on KMED radio. The owner of the inn speculated that the Limbaugh show was so devoid of sponsors, they were grabbing ads meant for other placements and inserting them into his time slot to lessen the appearance of losing advertisers. The owner of the inn, who had placed a small ad on the station’s website, said:

    Rush is a scumbag. I’m mortified to be associated with him. I didn’t buy air time from this station, although I did sign up for an inexpensive internet spot before Christmas. It appears that they are taking spots off the shelf and running them for free to create the impression that Rush is selling airtime. I will get us off that station…….I’d rather advertise on the John Wayne Gacy show.

  39. Oky1 says:

    **Charlton S. Stanley, PhD, ABPP says:
    April 6, 2014 at 11:12 pm **


    I used to train German Shepherds for fun/hobby.

    I don’t think there’s any training necessary I could give for them to raise a hind leg & piss on a picture of that Limbaugh creep.

    What an obvious fake & even with a stolen name, “Rush”, of the Band.

  40. Oky1 says:


    I want you to get on board cleaning up this vaccine issue.

    Others & I have been at it for decades.

    I’ve been to long & now too many kids/people have be needlessly injured.

    Come on, we can put an end to the BS & actually fix a problem that demands being fixed.

    Back Channels, put your shoulder to the grind stone.. Please. We can fix this.

    Thank You!!

  41. pete,

    It’s not the deletion that bothers me. That bothers me not one bit. Truthfully, none of it bothers me at all. In fact, I find it an odd mixture of amusing and sad. I knew my response to dipstick’s provocation wasn’t going to sit well with JT. I gave it a 70% of being deleted before I hit the submit button. That’s why I put a record of the exchange here as well.

    And what Elaine said.

    I am extraordinarily unlikely to delete something for simply being offensive humor. Offense is a subjective reaction. I can really only think of one reason off the top of my head I’d even consider such a thing and that is excessive cruelty (especially to another poster). Even then, it would have to be way way out of bounds. Despite what JT (or others) might like to think, the rules/editorial policy’s of this blog are geared toward a two-fold end: 1) maximizing free speech whilst minimizing trollery and 2) encouraging the substantive exchange of ideas. As such agent provocateurs (like the aforementioned dipstick) and agenda driven propagandists (like those who would persistently and consistently hijack threads to their own ends) are not welcome here. Dissent and disagreement will never be the basis of exclusion. Bad behavior though will be. Those kind can go to JT’s or HuffPo or straight up for all I care, but the reality is that a truly civilized marketplace of ideas runs on rules that are known and enforced. Just like a strip club. If the sign says “don’t touch the dancers”, then don’t touch the dancers unless you just want a bouncer to introduce your ass to the pavement out in the parking lot. Our rules here are simple. They are published. They will be enforced. I have, in fact, specifically instructed all the editor/authors here that they have the power to enforce the rules at their discretion with the caveat that if I have a problem with what they did or how, I’ll let them know and possibly override the decision. But I really don’t expect to have to ever use the caveat. Why? Because unlike some, I trust them with the power they have been given with their assumed responsibilities. I’m not a Tom Sawyer looking for whitewashers to paint for me. Even though I retain ultimate editorial discretion, I think of every editor/author here as a equals in this endeavour. I wouldn’t have offered them that access if I didn’t trust their judgement as well as their commitment to free speech and the maintenance of a marketplace of ideas.

    But funny? Funny is always welcome.

  42. Pingback: UPDATE: Judge Allows Libel Suit Against Glenn Beck to Proceed | Flowers For Socrates

Comments are closed.