tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post2219851229223015733..comments2024-03-26T13:05:52.830-05:00Comments on For What It's Worth: Recent comments I've suppressed.... and whyJack Leyhanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-85576998315212835742017-07-01T03:10:10.671-05:002017-07-01T03:10:10.671-05:00I don't always agree with the comments Jack al...I don't always agree with the comments Jack allows, but that's part and parcel of the First Amendment and why it is so fascinating. Besides, this particular anonymous commenter believes that, by and large, he does a great job. That's why this blog has become and remains the go-to source in our community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-69329431193722238402017-06-29T11:03:59.872-05:002017-06-29T11:03:59.872-05:00Mr. Leyhane - Thanks for the follow-up to my comme...Mr. Leyhane - Thanks for the follow-up to my comment about ALL CAPS. We certainly did view the comment differently. You've indicated it was not from the real Anon. ALL CAPS. To me that makes the suggestion in the comment less childish, but more creepy and just adds to the "yuck" factor. If I do comment on your blog again perhaps I'll be the e.e. cummings of commenters and go totally "no caps." Either that or stop doing humor on the toneless internet. RegardsTom Davynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-30966819778046681382017-06-29T08:40:10.343-05:002017-06-29T08:40:10.343-05:00And in other suppressed comment news --
To the p...And in other suppressed comment news -- <br /><br />To the person who sent in a comment along the lines of 'Rep. X is a crook. Let's see if Jack puts <i>that</i> in.' (The would-be commenter, of course, proposed a solution for X.)<br /><br />No, I won't.<br /><br />"Under our common law, four categories of statements are considered actionable <i>per se</i> and give rise to a cause of action for defamation without a showing of special damages. They are: (1) words that impute the commission of a criminal offense; (2) words that impute infection with a loathsome communicable disease; (3) words that impute an inability to perform or want of integrity in the discharge of duties of office or employment; or (4) words that prejudice a party, or impute lack of ability, in his or her trade, profession or business. * * * These common law categories continue to exist except where changed by statute. The Slander and Libel Act (740 ILCS 145/1 <i>et seq.</i> (West 1992)) has enlarged the classifications enumerated above by providing that false accusations of fornication and adultery are actionable as a matter of law." <i>Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc.</i>, 174 Ill.2d 77, 88-89 (1996).<br /><br />Expressions of opinion are protected under the 1st Amendment, certainly, but <i>Bryson</i> says a statement that may reasonably be interpreted as an assertion of fact may fall outside the protection of the 1st Amendment. And you, dear reader, didn't even couch your statement in terms of it being your opinion or in a context that might show it was parody or hyperbole or....<br /><br />Anyway, you're welcome.<br /><br />Then there was the very confused commenter whose comment included this "news flash." S/he writes, in essence, addressing a candidate, there is another resident of Subcircuit X who actually does reside in Subcircuit Y "with family too" and "that person is coming for you."<br /><br />Huh?Jack Leyhanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-70547327478190918702017-06-29T07:47:41.187-05:002017-06-29T07:47:41.187-05:00Mr. Davy -- I didn't mean to give offense here...Mr. Davy -- I didn't mean to give offense here. But this provides a handy illustration of how the Internet fails at conveying tone or nuance. I read your initial comment as a criticism of the person who comments always in ALL CAPS, but I thought it a rather playful one -- humor often gets a point across better than a scolding.<br /><br />I read Anon 8:39 a.m.'s response as a light-hearted rejoinder (and almost certainly NOT from the real ALL CAPS). I'm not saying it was a particularly good one, mind you, nothing that would make the shades of the Algonquin Round Table fear they've been eclipsed, but nothing to be taken seriously. You read it differently than I did, imagining the tone in which the comment was offered far differently from the way I interpreted it. And, of course, either one of us may be right, and both of us may be wrong, too, since we can't tell tone on the Internet.<br /><br />So, again, my apologies for inadvertently giving offense. I guess this is why the kids use smiley-faces and winky-faces and other such devices in their texts.Jack Leyhanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-80466762274930801502017-06-28T19:52:36.939-05:002017-06-28T19:52:36.939-05:00Mr. Leyhane - Very disappointed you let that comme...Mr. Leyhane - Very disappointed you let that comment in from Anoymous at 08:39. That was really a totally inappropriate comment. Time to stop reading your blog if you are letting crap like that in. This is supposed to be a blog with intelligent comments, not some bullshit like that.Tom Davynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-23452573726146636832017-06-28T14:44:27.215-05:002017-06-28T14:44:27.215-05:00I understand your position but do not agree at all...I understand your position but do not agree at all. No need to moderate comments. Judicial candidates for the most part are very political and negative or nasty remarks go with the territory. No need to protect their feelings. If they want to be judges they will have to grow a pair and get ready for a bumpy ride. The most negative comments you seem to let in are regarding the process the Supreme Court uses when making appointments. And it seems those negative comments are all well founded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-77346768791976381182017-06-28T08:39:48.029-05:002017-06-28T08:39:48.029-05:00TOM DAVY IS A BAD BOY! HE NEEDS A SPANKING!TOM DAVY IS A BAD BOY! HE NEEDS A SPANKING!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-90524890525783889332017-06-27T20:49:24.686-05:002017-06-27T20:49:24.686-05:00I'm sure the job of moderating comments is not...I'm sure the job of moderating comments is not an easy one. Having said that, do you think you can do anything about ALL CAPS Anonymous? If that person has anything worthwhile to say I'll never know because I refuse to read people who scream at me on any site. THANKS. (Snark)Tom Davynoreply@blogger.com