Sniping (Part II)

Durham_Devil · Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:49:19 -0700

In the first part of this judge's opinion (which,
as we all know, has the legal weight of a punch in
the face), I discussed that the early indications
were that the shot across the bow from Ms. Hamlin was
out of line and used inference of statements
unrelated. Should that have been all, this brief undoubtedly
would not be necessary. But it continued.

Mr.
Weiner, speaking 1 hour after Mr. Murphy (long enough for
me to believe the statements were not typed
concurrently), stated thus:

"Could your disgust with my
condemnation of such things indicate sympathy with Falwell and
Robertson? You said that they don't represent your brand of
Christianity, yet you're taking up arms to defend their
statements when I condemn them. Perhaps I shouldn't have
taken such pains to separate your version of religion
from theirs."

Another non-sequitur. The
statements directed from Ms. Hamlin were not dealing with
the behavior of some right-wing kook holed up in
Lynchburg whose very name is enough to provoke a Saturday
Night Live sketch, but were instead dealing directly
with Mr. Weiner himself. Precedent should have been
enough for the defendant to see he was treading on thin
ice by making this statement:

In the 1950s,
Edward R. Murrow devoted an entire 60-minute show to the
debunking of the Red Scare as a publicity stunt by Sen. Joe
McCarthy, as well as to showing that the Communist Party
was nowhere near as inflitrated as was thought. The
next week, McCarthy appeared on the show and claimed
to have proof that Murrow was part of the Communist
Party himself and was acting on orders from Moscow to
cover up the problem. People saw this as a desparate
grab at maintaining power by McCarthy, and while
Murrow's career was never the same, McCarthy was
ruined.

Now, replace Mr. Murrow with Ms. Hamlin, Sen. McCarthy
with Mr. Weiner, "Red Scare" with atheism, and
"Communist Party" with Falwellian extremism, and the
statements aptly describe what is going on. (NOTE: My
example is NOT a parallel. I do NOT equate Mr. Weiner
with Sen. McCarthy, nor do I think atheism is as
gripping a perception problem as the Red
Scare.)

So, clearly Mr. Weiner is guilty of saying one thing
too many when the best thing to do would be to be
quiet. Joke all you want about how this particular judge
doesn't notice that when he's the defendant/plaintiff,
but it cannot be denied that this is the case
here.

It would be nice if this were all, but it still
isn't. The war continues, as does my brief, in Part III.