Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee: How Irony Escaped Aaron Walker

But for one post, I've stayed away from the strange and stupid saga of Aaron Walker (aka Worthing) because not only was it a dumb battle without any "good guys" in it, it also got powerfully tedious. Any self-respecting person can only listen to so many people engage in so much self-pity and retarded bravado before you throw up your hands and hope that everyone involved gets stomach cancer. I reached that point about 15 minutes after the whole dumb spectacle went viral.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted to support Walker, but I developed a powerful allergy to anyone who wants to take their blog pissing matches to the courts years ago. I don't care if they're on the left or the right. It's a giant waste of time and resources that can be better spent on other, more pressing matters.

For those of you who blessedly missed the story, here's a brief recap.

Once upon a time there was an adjudicated bomber who ran a couple of non-profit political groups* named Brett Kimberlin. A guy named Seth Allen wrote a bunch of posts that nobody read regarding Kimberlin's activities, so Kimberlin sued him for libel.

Mr. Walker, a self-described Virginia lawyer, acting under an alias and despite not being a member of the Maryland bar, started offering Allen legal advice. Walker maintains that he wasn't Allen's lawyer, although the former's e-mails to the latter reference "privilege" at least once, and maybe more often.

Anyhow, Kimberlin grew mighty interested in who this "Aaron Worthing" was. When he learned Walker's identity, he also connected it to the Everybody Draw Muhammad blog (which has since been scrubbed and made private.) That blog is key here, as you will see shortly.

On Everybody Draw Muhammad, Walker repeatedly asserted that certain segments of the Muslim population are violent psychopaths, which even most Muslims would agree with. Walker went further than that. From what he thought was the safety of an assumed name, he invited that violence to visit him personally and implored others to do the same under their real names. Of course, he didn't bother telling his readers and contributors that he was using a pseudonym because, to hear him tell it, he's more afraid of wife than he is of violently psychotic Muslims.

When Kimberlin found out who Walker was, Walker went to his employers and explained everything, including Everybody Draw Muhammad. Unsurprisingly, Professional Healthcare Resources, Inc. took a dim view of Worthing's online activities and shitcanned him, although they officially told him that he was being booted for (literally) sloppy lawyering.

But it would take almost a year for anyone to find that out. In the interim, Walker launched a legal and public relations jihad, insisting that Kimberlin cost him his job, although no evidence of that exists. In their e-mail terminating his employment (and, unfortunately, that of his wife) PHRI doesn't mention Kimberlin contacting them. They do, however, go on at some length about the security issues created by Everybody Draw Muhammad and his invitation to violence therein.

Walker's suits against Kimberlin (and Neal Rauhauser, Ron Byneart and at least one John Doe) have been thrown out by two courts of competent jurisdiction in the last five weeks.

The (almost certainly illegal or unethical) discovery leak that revealed the true reasons behind Aaron Walker's dismissal should have been enough for any honest conservative to withdraw their support from him. He was deliberately misleading in his public presentation of the facts and he continues to raise money from same. You can assume whatever you will about the motives of those who continue to stand behind him.

But it is that clear from the very first days of Everybody Draw Muhammad that he has a history of actively lying to his readers and not admitting it until he has no other choice. If you want to be a willing dupe for that, feel free. If you want to finance it, you're probably better off without the money, anyways.

Even before his lawsuits were dismissed as political nonsense and vindictive bullshit from someone that could only be charitably be described as a half-wit with honesty issues, Walker had the temerity to accuse PHRI's attorney of lying about his dismissal, which I'm sure will come back to haunt him, both civilly and before the Virginia Bar. If any one thing in the last year has made Aaron Walker unemployable in the legal profession, it's that. Lawyers blatantly calling other lawyers liars in public simply isn't done. That tweet was the final nail in his professional coffin.

All things being equal, I wouldn't care all that much if it ended there. Blowhards destroy themselves on the Internet with some regularity, and the people who ally themselves with Breitbart.com tend to do it more regularly than most. This is a story where everyone involved is someone that I wouldn't be proud to know.  It's one of those rare stories, like Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, where everyone's a Bad Guy.

I would have been thrilled to forget that I ever wasted seven months of my time following such a stupid story. Really, I would have.

But then Walker had to post this just as quickly as he could.

That's right. A guy who just wasted a year of everybody's time, energy and money fighting for his right not to be fired for his online activities ..... is calling for someone to be fired for his online activities.

Firstly, Walker proves that he's either an idiot or a dishonest hack by saying of Professor Loomis' "head on a stick" comment;

By the way, we are told that this bit about “head on a stick” could not possibly be an actionable threat, because it is a metaphor. Right, because you can never threaten a person in figurative language. If a Mafioso says “pay your protection money or you will sleep with the fishes,” these legal geniuses assure us, that is not a threat.

Which is my sarcastic way of pointing out that you can indeed threaten a person with a metaphor.

No, the when the Mafia said "Tonight, you sleep with the fishes," they meant exactly that. It's also where the phrase "concrete shoes" comes from. They would actually encase your feet in concrete and dump you in the water, thereby ensuring that you slept with the fishes. If you know anything at all about Mafia history or pop culture, which Walker apparently doesn't, you know it isn't a metaphor.

So far as I know, no one in western civilization has had their head  put on their stick as political statement since the nineteenth century. While it's a common figure of speech, it decidedly doesn't happen very often in modern America.

Of course, I'm being charitable in assuming that Aaron doesn't know that. I could just as easily say that he's a dishonest hack.

The real and clear reason, by the way, that this is not an actionable threat is because it was not plainly communicated to Mr. LaPierre nor was it plainly directed at being communicated to him. What this is, then, at worst, is ruminating about murdering a person, which can be rightfully a concern for law enforcement but it is not a threat.

(Ken at Popehat is also correct to say that it is not a threat if it is not meant seriously, but how does he know that he isn’t serious? I am sure he doesn’t literally want to put LaPierre’s head on a stick, but I don’t and I won’t speculate about whether Loomis actually wants to kill him.)

Wow. It does seem unreasonable to me to think that Walker's first remedy to questionable speech is to refer it the police, if not the speaker's employers, rather than the speaker himself. That kind of puts his silly fucking lawsuit in a new light, doesn't it?

And it gets better. Oh, it gets so much better.

Since Loomis said these things, there are some people who have argued that he should be fired from his university job and there are good people such as Ken in the piece I have cited, Adler over at Volokh, and eight professors posting collectively at Crooked Timber.

Now certainly if Loomis had merely said, “I hate the NRA.” Or even “the NRA’s policies are dangerous and contributed to Friday’s massacre,” I would agree with my distinguished colleagues and say he should face no retaliation at his job. I mean, I of all people don’t believe that as a rule people should be fired from their jobs for what they say on their off time. But they are missing (or in Ken’s case failing to grasp the importance of) the real problem in Loomis’ commentary:

Yes, respected lawyers who weren't fired from their jobs because of their dishonest and sloppy blogs tend not to support the firing of Erik Loomis. Whatever could these professionally respected and employed lawyers and scholars be missing that Aaron isn't?

The Problem is Fascism.

Oh. Who knew?

You see the real reason why Loomis should be fired—or at the very least investigated for what he said—is that his comments are fascist. Bear in mind, I define fascism as nothing more than a lack of belief in democracy itself.*

Walker published a footnote giving his preferred definition of fascism, which is hilarious**. I'm not going to reprint it, but if you're amused by the abuse of the English language to advance political bullshit, I couldn't encourage you to read it enough.

People like Aaron (and many others on the modern right) use the word fascism interchangeably with communism and socialism. They're either wrong or lying. Fascism was primarily an economic system that married government with private business, ensuring the success of both. Fascism was actually quite popular with the American right in the 1930s precisely because it was seen as an antidote to communism.

It takes a special kind of dickhead to equate fascism  "as nothing more than a lack of belief in democracy itself." There are all kinds of non-fascist systems of government that do that.

Consider for instance this comment by Loomis:

You are goddamn right we should politicize this tragedy. F__k the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison. [Cursing censored by me.]

So he believes that LaPierre should be imprisoned for what exactly? To the best of my knowledge, LaPierre has broken no laws. All he has done is advocate for a policy—reduced restrictions on gun ownership—that Loomis disagrees with. Advocacy of the criminalization of opinions you don’t agree with is the very essence of fascism. He repeats that thought several times:

Wayne LaPierre is a criminal and should be in prison for complicity with murder. 27 counts.—

Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don't want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life. #nraterrorism

Further he advocates that the NRA and its leaders be treated as terrorists, again for expressing an opinion he doesn’t agree with.

Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?

Larry Pratt and the group Gun Owners of America are terrorists and should be dealt with as such.

The right-wing intimidation campaign against me for saying the NRA was a terrorist organization continues. Will not succeed.

I bet terrorist NRA head Wayne LaPierre will sleep well tonight.— [on the night of the Newtown massacre.]

 

Um, yikes! There are any number of things that the modern right wants harsh criminal penalties for that didn't used to be crimes. Material support for terrorism is just one of them. Republican congressman Peter King remains a proud supporter of what the Irish Republican Army used to do, and there's no shortage of Republican assholes who successfully lobbied to de-list the MEK as terrorists because they happen to be  terrorists they see them as our terrorists, so we call them "freedom fighters" instead.

Now this is not to say that this is incitement within the meaning of the Brandenburg standard (of which I am safely considered an expert) and thus can be criminalized or otherwise prohibited. But as a history professor wrote, “such language can embolden the crazy[.]” And who wrote that? Erik Loomis, when arguing that somehow targets on a map caused the Giffords shooting. What Loomis has been doing is a tad worse than that. So, add the charge of hypocrisy to the bill of particulars against this professor.

And even then, ordinarily, this doesn’t justify a person being fired from their job. Whether a person is a fascist or not, a brownshirt in waiting, is of no rightful concern to his employer if he was a bagger at a grocery store, a garbage man, a lawyer, a businessman, etc.

But he is a professor in a University. Further, it is a state university. And that is a problem.

That's top to bottom nonsense. Walker successfully argued Brandenburg against a peace order (which doesn't require a lawyer) and he did so after losing at his initial hearing. That does not an "expert" make, any more than having a speeding ticket overturned makes you an expert in traffic law.

What Walker is suggesting is that some people have greater free speech rights in their private lives based solely on who their employer is. If you teach at a state school, according to Walker, you had better watch what you say!

Academic Freedom Applies to Students, too.

His students have as much of a right to express differing views, to enjoy freedom of inquiry, and so on, as he does. I mean a professor can say to a student, “I am teaching right now, so kindly shut up.” That is okay. Time, place and manner restrictions on student expression are fully justified or else teachers wouldn’t be able to teach.

But, a student should not face discrimination because his views—when expressed at appropriate times—differ from his professor. This is the ideal in the setting of a private university, but it is mandatory in a public one. After all, this professor’s actions are the actions of the state and thus academic freedom is not merely some ideal, but a constitutional command under the First Amendment (as incorporated by the Fourteenth).

And bear in mind I am not saying that Loomis is not entitled to believe what he believes, even passionately so. If he merely came on twitter and said he thought assault weapons should be banned, I wouldn’t be talking about either firing or seriously investigating him due to his words.

But he has gone further than that. He has advocated prison for those he disagreed with. He advocated designating political opponents as terrorists, which could bring consequences ranging from the freezing of funds to being killed summarily. And he has stirred up private violence against those who disagrees with him.

Do you think he can treat his students who disagree with him fairly?

Simply put, that's retarded, and I'm sure that Walker would agree if that standard were applied to him.

As a member of the Virginia Bar and an Officer of the Court,  it could be suggested that Aaron Walker's public positions should disqualify him from any number of legal issues. And I'm not arguing that, he is.

Bar associations have a monopoly granted under state power. If Erik Loomis is to be judged by a special standard because he teaches for the state, shouldn't Aaron Walker, as well? Given his publicly stated positions on any number issues, would it be reasonable to question Walker's ability to represent clients using Walker's own test?

Again, this is a guy, Professor Loomis, who said gun supporters should be imprisoned, treated as terrorists (which might be interpreted as endorsing their summary execution) and has whipped up violence against those who are pro-gun-choice. Even if you call that hyperbole, it doesn’t bode well for the possibility of an open and respectful discussion of gun rights in his class. If a student expresses a pro-gun-choice view on an exam will that student’s grade be affected by this professor’s unhinged hatred of this position?

Actually, that's not true. Loomis didn't say that "gun supporters should be imprisoned." He said that Wayne LaPierre should be. I disagree with that, but I'm not going to dishonestly manipulate what Loomis actually said, or cost him his job. And it was Walker himself who endorsed summary execution of terrorists and then imparted that motive on Loomis in regards to gun rights supporters, which goes further to Walker's record of honesty.

Walker also provides no proof that Loomis would treat anti-gun students unfairly. He cites no complaints or university censures. He just assumes that Loomis will be unfair, given his public record.

Who can say that Walker, as a lawyer, won't do exactly the same thing, absent any evidence that he won't? And I don't think that it's a huge stretch to suggest that the function of an attorney is as important, or more so, than that of a university professor. A lawyer's clients are at least as pliable, if not more so, than college kids.

I don't endorse applying that test, he does. And it takes a special kind of stupid for someone who lost his job due entirely to his online activities to do that.

Not three weeks after Aaron Walker's "free speech crusade" was throw out of court, he's parading around online demanding that other people suffer the same fate that he did. Hopefully, they have better repesentation than he did at trial.

If you want to continue financially supporting Aaron Walker, feel free. There have been things said about fools and their money, after all.

But please don't pretend that you're supporting free speech. You'll just look ridiculous.


As I said in my last post on this subject, if Mr. Walker wants to respond to anything that I've written here, I will give him all the space that he desires to do so, unedited and without unnecessary commentary on my part. Any counter-commentary (other than I deem necessary to protect my own legal interests) will be limited to the comments.

Should Mr. Walker feel that I have in way breached that commitment, he will of course be free to call me out for it on his presumably more widely-read blog.

If I have made errors of fact that are not supported by the available evidence, I will be more than happy to correct them. Having said that, "Because I said so" does not meet my standard of available evidence, particularly given the joint court dismissals.

Would Mr. Walker extend that courtesy to anyone else? There's no evidence that he would. But I am. If I'm going to make an error in this case, it'll be by being overly air to everyone. Except in the most egregious circumstances, I don't edit or delete comments. I think I've done it five times in almost ten years.

He can contact me at skippystalinATgmail.COM. 




*As I've said in my previous post, I don't think that anyone convicted of a crime should be allowed under the tax code to run a non-profit. If felons can lose their voting and gun rights, surely they can be stopped from playing politics at the taxpayers expense, too.

By the same token, that standard shouldn't apply to Kimberlin if it doesn't apply to Ali Akbar, whose crimes involve the theft of actual money. You can't deny a violent  psychopath his rights while granting them to an convicted thief without looking like a goddamned shill.

** Walker cites as a source Jonah Goldberg, who sees fascism completely as a creation of the left, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. The left already had their their totalitarian movement in communism. Fascism was a reaction on the right to that. As shocking as it may seem to those who buy into "left-wing fascist" blogosphere propaganda, the original fascist powers; Spain, Italy and Germany were vehemently anti-communist.

The United States itself allied itself with arguably fascist regimes in Central and South America, and Southeast Asia during the Cold War in the name of anti-Communism. They were just careful about not calling them that. Historical context is sort of important when throwing about phrases like "fascist."

Liberals can be extraordinarily totalitarian when they put their minds to it, but they aren't fascist by definition. When you hear conservatives describe then that way, that should be a giant red flag that they're dishonest, stupid, or working for Breitbart.com.