Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Fuck off, Paula...the law is on my side
Last night I attempted to see The Omen with KatieScarlett and Bienvenido-a-Miami. Apparently, we were not the only ones to fall for the "Heed the Omen-6/6/06" promotion for this movie, and it was sold out, so we ended up just going drinking with CorporateCard. I should have known that our failure to see The Omen was, in fact, a bad omen. When I got home last night, I discovered that Paula James, Single Mom Extraordinaire, was at it again.
First, she left a comment on my blog (well, I assume it's her, even though she left it anonymously) directing people to a fucking online petition to shut down RAZZY.org. Although I disagree with her assertions that I'm "antichristian and antisemitic" (I AM Christian and I don't see how a list of Hot Jews is degrading to God's Chosen people, but whatever), I signed the petition anyway, since I wholeheartedly agree with her statement that children shouldn't read my site. Then I checked my e-mail, and found another threatening missive from her there.
To: razzy@razzy.org
From: brianandjensmom@yahoo.com
To whom it may concern,
I hoped that this could be handled like adults but it seems you would rather riddicule me then see reason.I never gave permission to publish my letter or use my name and now I see that it is on your web site. I demand you take it down because you have no right to put my name or my email address on line and I won't be associated with your horrible web site. I hoped that you would write back so this could be settled off line and so that you would take your web site down not turn my concerns into more of your filthy garbage. I wish you understood that my only concern here is for my son and other kids damaged by your xxx rated web site. But since you admit to hating children I know I was right and you are a very bad person with no care in the world about the harm you do to others. I talked to a few other moms about this and we're ready to fight you truth and nail!!!!! We are considering hiring a lawyer to shut down your web site and to sue you for slandering me! I think that we will be able to do both, we are looking into restraning orders that will shut you down. You can say what ever you want unless it harms people which your web site definately does. I wanted to handle this like adults without taking this kind of action but you leave me no choice because you not only don't care about the children you harm but you like it too because you are sick. We are also setting up an on line petition to shut you down by grass roots activism. I think you will see that there are many concerned parents who will not put up with their kids seeing your filth and smut. In the future you should respond by replying to this message and not on your web site because it violates my privacy and it will put you in danger of a law suit for slander!!!
Paula James
PS, I also want you to know that what ever you might say about my son he is a good boy and he does use his computer for homework, I monitor him closely and we talk all the time and he does not want to find web sites full of trash talk and dirty stories.
Okay, bitch, bring it on. I went straight to the ACLU website which directed me to a Supreme Court decision, Miller v. California, that establishes a three-part test for whether or not something can be considered obscene:
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489
Well, I do have a lot of comments that seem to suggest that at least parts of my site appeal to the "prurient interest" (and I'm under the impression that's a point for Paula, even though the last time I brushed up on my GRE vocabulary words, "prurient" means sex-obsessed, and who isn't). In fact, in addition to the several "your hot wanna fuck? ;)p"-type comments that seem to suggest "prurient interest," HotLawyer even used those exact words in a comment he left (on an aside, dude, thanks for using the legalese...that's obviously going to come back to haunt me should this slut ever succeed in hauling me into court). So maybe the "community standards" will bite me in the ass, but that depends entirely on what community you're talking about. If the jury is made up of the community of RAZZY.org readers, their standards will say my site rules.
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
I looked up the relevant state law and found this: "The New York statute prohibits persons from knowingly promoting a sexual performance by a child under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such a performance. The statute defines "sexual performance" as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and "sexual conduct" is in turn defined as actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals."
Since I make it a rule to steer clear of putting kiddie porn on my site, I am in the clear as far as rule (b) is concerned. The only genitals being lewdly exhibited here are mine and Mr. Right Guard's, and given his receding hairline, I'm willing to bet he's older than 16.
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary.
Now here is where Paula's argument is really flawed, because if there's anything RAZZY.org has in droves it's literary (all my stories are Pulitzer material), artistic (all pictures by Kate and Camilla are ARTWORK because they are ARTISTS), political (I make fun of people, including world leaders and politicians), and scientific (none of you would know about northern blotting, phenol burns, or how to humanely sacrifice a mouse without me) value. Looks according to part (c) of the standard, I'm also in the "not obscene" category.
Apparently, the standards set in Miller were upheld in 2002 in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union regarding material on the internet, although this only applies to material "for commercial purposes" which is "harmful to minors" (ie: child pornography). Since apart from the pair of Journalist panties and D-Unit gear that LL Cool Jew bought from my online store, I haven't made a dime on this site, I don't think that the "commercial purposes" term applies. While the ACLU seems to be quibbling with the government about the "community standards" in the first part of the obscenity test, overall it seems to me that since there's no FUCKING PORN OF ANY KIND, KIDDIE OR OTHERWISE on my website, I surmise that in the words of T.I. and Young Jeezy, "I'm straight" with regard to being legally obscene.
I'm not, therefore, going to worry about this bitch thinking that she can get a "restraning order" to force me off the internet. Regarding her accusations of slander, I don't think that there is any expectation of privacy when you send a hostile, threatening e-mail to a stranger that has already posted other people's pictures and correspondences on her website. For fuck's sake, I put a picture of a dude's penis on my site and I haven't heard a peep out of him! He e-mailed it to me without permission to use it, but probably knows that when you send strangers pictures of your wang, you are essentially making it their picture to do with as they choose. If you want to keep something private, then keep it to your fucking self.
Just to make sure I was not going to get in trouble, though, I decided to do some more internet legal research to find out if she had grounds for a defamation lawsuit. I learned that slander is defined as "publishing a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation." Well, since I didn't edit out a goddamned thing (not even the many unnecessary spaces favored by Paula in her writing style) from her e-mails, I haven't made any false statements. If she can harangue me for her own negligence as a parent, I'm certainly entitled to respond to what SHE wrote. So good luck finding a lawyer who will take this case, Paula, because if your reputation is negatively affected, you only have yourself to blame. And if you don't want your e-mail published, then sign up for a new fucking free Yahoo account, and while you're at it, think up a better address than "brianandjensmom," you officious cunt.
I'm astounded that Paula has decided to pick on me, because compared with THOUSANDS of other sites on the internet, mine is relatively tame. Certainly there are other websites more worthy of her inane harping on variations of the "filth" and "garbage" theme. She'd be much more accurate accusing me of being a useless bullshit-mongerer. I would at least hope that she'd check out MySpace and see how useful that online shitshow is for homework. All she would have to do is search MySpace for sex, and she can see for herself what kind of degeneracy her "good boy" has access to while he's allegedly working on his fucking pre-algebra or whatever. I imagine, however, that her idea of parental involvement must be something like this:
Paula James: "Are you trying to find websites about impoverished drunken graduate students with nothing better to do than talk about their sex lives and write shitty horror movie reviews or are you doing homework?"
Paula James's stupid kid: "Homework."
Paula James: "Okay, then, go back to using the internet without any supervision. I'm going to sue that pornographer Razzy and fight her 'truth and nail'!"
If this is her idea of good parenting, then she's even more monumentally stupid than I initially thought. Who did she learn to raise kids from, Cronos? Actually, probably not, because even Zeus's baby-swallowing father took a more active role in his children's upbringing. Again, I will reiterate that Paula James's one-woman (well, three woman, if you check out her petition) crusade to bring my site down is a waste of her fucking time. She is still a dumb bitch, and a bad mother to boot. If I had a dick, I'd tell her to suck it.
First, she left a comment on my blog (well, I assume it's her, even though she left it anonymously) directing people to a fucking online petition to shut down RAZZY.org. Although I disagree with her assertions that I'm "antichristian and antisemitic" (I AM Christian and I don't see how a list of Hot Jews is degrading to God's Chosen people, but whatever), I signed the petition anyway, since I wholeheartedly agree with her statement that children shouldn't read my site. Then I checked my e-mail, and found another threatening missive from her there.
To: razzy@razzy.org
From: brianandjensmom@yahoo.com
To whom it may concern,
I hoped that this could be handled like adults but it seems you would rather riddicule me then see reason.I never gave permission to publish my letter or use my name and now I see that it is on your web site. I demand you take it down because you have no right to put my name or my email address on line and I won't be associated with your horrible web site. I hoped that you would write back so this could be settled off line and so that you would take your web site down not turn my concerns into more of your filthy garbage. I wish you understood that my only concern here is for my son and other kids damaged by your xxx rated web site. But since you admit to hating children I know I was right and you are a very bad person with no care in the world about the harm you do to others. I talked to a few other moms about this and we're ready to fight you truth and nail!!!!! We are considering hiring a lawyer to shut down your web site and to sue you for slandering me! I think that we will be able to do both, we are looking into restraning orders that will shut you down. You can say what ever you want unless it harms people which your web site definately does. I wanted to handle this like adults without taking this kind of action but you leave me no choice because you not only don't care about the children you harm but you like it too because you are sick. We are also setting up an on line petition to shut you down by grass roots activism. I think you will see that there are many concerned parents who will not put up with their kids seeing your filth and smut. In the future you should respond by replying to this message and not on your web site because it violates my privacy and it will put you in danger of a law suit for slander!!!
Paula James
PS, I also want you to know that what ever you might say about my son he is a good boy and he does use his computer for homework, I monitor him closely and we talk all the time and he does not want to find web sites full of trash talk and dirty stories.
Okay, bitch, bring it on. I went straight to the ACLU website which directed me to a Supreme Court decision, Miller v. California, that establishes a three-part test for whether or not something can be considered obscene:
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489
Well, I do have a lot of comments that seem to suggest that at least parts of my site appeal to the "prurient interest" (and I'm under the impression that's a point for Paula, even though the last time I brushed up on my GRE vocabulary words, "prurient" means sex-obsessed, and who isn't). In fact, in addition to the several "your hot wanna fuck? ;)p"-type comments that seem to suggest "prurient interest," HotLawyer even used those exact words in a comment he left (on an aside, dude, thanks for using the legalese...that's obviously going to come back to haunt me should this slut ever succeed in hauling me into court). So maybe the "community standards" will bite me in the ass, but that depends entirely on what community you're talking about. If the jury is made up of the community of RAZZY.org readers, their standards will say my site rules.
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
I looked up the relevant state law and found this: "The New York statute prohibits persons from knowingly promoting a sexual performance by a child under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such a performance. The statute defines "sexual performance" as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and "sexual conduct" is in turn defined as actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals."
Since I make it a rule to steer clear of putting kiddie porn on my site, I am in the clear as far as rule (b) is concerned. The only genitals being lewdly exhibited here are mine and Mr. Right Guard's, and given his receding hairline, I'm willing to bet he's older than 16.
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary.
Now here is where Paula's argument is really flawed, because if there's anything RAZZY.org has in droves it's literary (all my stories are Pulitzer material), artistic (all pictures by Kate and Camilla are ARTWORK because they are ARTISTS), political (I make fun of people, including world leaders and politicians), and scientific (none of you would know about northern blotting, phenol burns, or how to humanely sacrifice a mouse without me) value. Looks according to part (c) of the standard, I'm also in the "not obscene" category.
Apparently, the standards set in Miller were upheld in 2002 in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union regarding material on the internet, although this only applies to material "for commercial purposes" which is "harmful to minors" (ie: child pornography). Since apart from the pair of Journalist panties and D-Unit gear that LL Cool Jew bought from my online store, I haven't made a dime on this site, I don't think that the "commercial purposes" term applies. While the ACLU seems to be quibbling with the government about the "community standards" in the first part of the obscenity test, overall it seems to me that since there's no FUCKING PORN OF ANY KIND, KIDDIE OR OTHERWISE on my website, I surmise that in the words of T.I. and Young Jeezy, "I'm straight" with regard to being legally obscene.
I'm not, therefore, going to worry about this bitch thinking that she can get a "restraning order" to force me off the internet. Regarding her accusations of slander, I don't think that there is any expectation of privacy when you send a hostile, threatening e-mail to a stranger that has already posted other people's pictures and correspondences on her website. For fuck's sake, I put a picture of a dude's penis on my site and I haven't heard a peep out of him! He e-mailed it to me without permission to use it, but probably knows that when you send strangers pictures of your wang, you are essentially making it their picture to do with as they choose. If you want to keep something private, then keep it to your fucking self.
Just to make sure I was not going to get in trouble, though, I decided to do some more internet legal research to find out if she had grounds for a defamation lawsuit. I learned that slander is defined as "publishing a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation." Well, since I didn't edit out a goddamned thing (not even the many unnecessary spaces favored by Paula in her writing style) from her e-mails, I haven't made any false statements. If she can harangue me for her own negligence as a parent, I'm certainly entitled to respond to what SHE wrote. So good luck finding a lawyer who will take this case, Paula, because if your reputation is negatively affected, you only have yourself to blame. And if you don't want your e-mail published, then sign up for a new fucking free Yahoo account, and while you're at it, think up a better address than "brianandjensmom," you officious cunt.
I'm astounded that Paula has decided to pick on me, because compared with THOUSANDS of other sites on the internet, mine is relatively tame. Certainly there are other websites more worthy of her inane harping on variations of the "filth" and "garbage" theme. She'd be much more accurate accusing me of being a useless bullshit-mongerer. I would at least hope that she'd check out MySpace and see how useful that online shitshow is for homework. All she would have to do is search MySpace for sex, and she can see for herself what kind of degeneracy her "good boy" has access to while he's allegedly working on his fucking pre-algebra or whatever. I imagine, however, that her idea of parental involvement must be something like this:
Paula James: "Are you trying to find websites about impoverished drunken graduate students with nothing better to do than talk about their sex lives and write shitty horror movie reviews or are you doing homework?"
Paula James's stupid kid: "Homework."
Paula James: "Okay, then, go back to using the internet without any supervision. I'm going to sue that pornographer Razzy and fight her 'truth and nail'!"
If this is her idea of good parenting, then she's even more monumentally stupid than I initially thought. Who did she learn to raise kids from, Cronos? Actually, probably not, because even Zeus's baby-swallowing father took a more active role in his children's upbringing. Again, I will reiterate that Paula James's one-woman (well, three woman, if you check out her petition) crusade to bring my site down is a waste of her fucking time. She is still a dumb bitch, and a bad mother to boot. If I had a dick, I'd tell her to suck it.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Razzy,
This woman is full of piss and vinegar, and clearly hasn't a solitary clue regarding First Amendment jurisprudence. FOr the record, the Lemon test still applies in determining what is ans is not pornography; you highlighted well it's treatment in Miller. Believe me, NOTHING on your site even approximates the material prohibited by Lemon. Perhaps you could refer this lady to slaphappyblowjobs.com for further comparison/research. And as for a suit sounding in libel, PLEASE. Truth is always a defense to such claims, and the publication must being knowingly reckless in what is publishes. Nothing in her email connotes anything more than her deluded opinions which, if tested, would be TRUE for her. Seems to be just anohter dumbshit who has watched enough FOX News to be dangerous, but hasn't done enough reading to know basic legal concepts. So, Razzy, have no fear. The test for obtaining an injunction is two-pronged: the petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance standard that she is 1) likely to prevail in the forthcoming suit and 2) that she will suffer irreparable harm save for injunctive relief. She doesn't have a leg to stand on. Keep telling her to fuck off. Maybe if you treat her like a big dog at a picnic (ignoring the constant and offensive sniffing) she'll just wander off to someone else's pile of hot dogs and potato chips.
This woman is full of piss and vinegar, and clearly hasn't a solitary clue regarding First Amendment jurisprudence. FOr the record, the Lemon test still applies in determining what is ans is not pornography; you highlighted well it's treatment in Miller. Believe me, NOTHING on your site even approximates the material prohibited by Lemon. Perhaps you could refer this lady to slaphappyblowjobs.com for further comparison/research. And as for a suit sounding in libel, PLEASE. Truth is always a defense to such claims, and the publication must being knowingly reckless in what is publishes. Nothing in her email connotes anything more than her deluded opinions which, if tested, would be TRUE for her. Seems to be just anohter dumbshit who has watched enough FOX News to be dangerous, but hasn't done enough reading to know basic legal concepts. So, Razzy, have no fear. The test for obtaining an injunction is two-pronged: the petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance standard that she is 1) likely to prevail in the forthcoming suit and 2) that she will suffer irreparable harm save for injunctive relief. She doesn't have a leg to stand on. Keep telling her to fuck off. Maybe if you treat her like a big dog at a picnic (ignoring the constant and offensive sniffing) she'll just wander off to someone else's pile of hot dogs and potato chips.
# posted by 
: 6/07/2006 12:14 PM
: 6/07/2006 12:14 PM
woah that last comment says it all; don't worry about this paula moron, razzy. there is no way this insane woman can do anything to you legally or otherwise. a petition? a lot of good that will do. who is going to read that besides her and the two other fat chicks at her kids soccer games that will talk to her. and if she tries anything, we got your back, gf! keep saying what you like, because its usually funny as hell.
# posted by : 6/08/2006 4:00 PM
: 6/08/2006 4:00 PM
Razzy,
Let's start a petition stating that Paula is an unfit fat ho who needs to take responsibility for her son's actions as opposed to pissing on other people when she cannot control what her TEEN is looking at... she is lucky he is not looking at the right guard man! Anyway the petition is to free Brian Anjens from his MOM!
Let's start a petition stating that Paula is an unfit fat ho who needs to take responsibility for her son's actions as opposed to pissing on other people when she cannot control what her TEEN is looking at... she is lucky he is not looking at the right guard man! Anyway the petition is to free Brian Anjens from his MOM!
# posted by : 6/11/2006 9:41 AM
: 6/11/2006 9:41 AM
Razzy, I'd be careful if I were you. Have you had a look at some of the recent signatories of that petition? I'd say you've drawn the ire of some very powerful people. I hear the Taggart woman is a real cunt, and they say that Danneskjöld fellow is a ruthless maurader of the high seas. Tread lightly.
# posted by : 6/12/2006 12:47 AM
: 6/12/2006 12:47 AM
Oh crap! Ellis Wyatt just signed the petition, too! That guy is just plain crazzy! They say he controls Colorodo and smashes wine glasses at the drop of a hat! For God's sake Razzy, stop this duel of wits before someone gets hurt!
Post a Comment
# posted by : 6/12/2006 1:26 AM
: 6/12/2006 1:26 AM Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
