• I don’t particularly care for Mother Jones, and the plaintiff in this case does appear to have been targeted by regulators for his political activism, but that does not excuse a punitive lawsuit for legitimate reporting. It’s easy to say that it’s ok for libs to get a taste of their own medicine (I am sure Mother Jones, generally, supports tying up all sorts of things in litigation.) But using the courts to punish people for speech is deeply un-American.

    The problem, of course, is that libs are generally willing to do whatever it takes to impose its will on America.

  • SPO, spending our time being outraged when people we like are targeted and shouting “Schadenfreude” when people we don’t are targeted is mean. I don’t like a lot of what MOTHER JONES says, but certainly they believe it.

    I have a Canadian friend who used to argue that inconvenient conservative arguments should be silenced by the Liberal government. Then the Conservatives got into office and began to use the laws promoted by the Liberals to make things tough for the opposition. Now he understands my arguments and the American concept of a free press.

    I think MOTHER JONES are arguing for what they believe will be a better country. They are not our enemy; they are our misguided friends. Let us defend them now. If they publish something urging action to shut up annoying other voices by law, that will be soon enough to point out their hypocrisy.


    • I don’t think I was engaging in schadenfreude. I said that the actions were deeply un-American.

      It is fair to point out, though, that the antagonist was likely unfairly targeted by regulators AND that Mother Jones generally speaking has no problem with litigation as scorched earth tactic when it’s on their side.

  • Well, the next time they argue a scorched-earth legal strategy, feel free to shout their whining from the ramparts. For the moment, let us hope they have learned something.