As a select few of you are aware, my anti-Chapman blog got hit with a rather unusual anonymous comment yesterday. I’m not going to repeat it because I have no way of substantiating some of what was in it, but it was posted by someone who claimed to know Gene’s ex-wife, and it made some very specific accusations about Gene’s background which, if true, would not only destroy his political aspirations, but would render him a pariah forever.
Those comments were posted on other blogs as well. I deleted them from my blog (with explanation), simply because they cannot be substantiated and were highly inflammatory to the point that, if untrue, they could be actionable. At the same time, it was a hard decision because there was one item in there that someone probably wouldn’t know unless they actually knew Gene. That information is not available on the internet except in a lone audioblog from years ago, and even there it didn’t go into detail.
In my explanation regarding why I deleted the post, I suggested the anonymous poster put that information on Gene’s blog, if in fact the accusations were true and could be substantiated. I don’t know if they did that, but it’s possible.
Did Gene suddenly drop out of the presidential race due to these accusations? It’s an awfully big coincidence that he was just talking about how he was to participate in an LP conference call for presidential candidates today, and yesterday he dropped out of the race and deleted all of his blogs, with no warning whatsoever.
It’s possible those two things are related and, if so, I just feel bad that Gene didn’t listen to me back when he first started his campaign, even before I started my blog, when I warned him in no uncertain terms that anything he had ever done will come back to bite him in a presidential campaign. I don’t know if this is some of the stuff that he thought would never come to light, but I do find his sudden disapparance – in less than 24 hours after those comments were posted in multiple blogs – to be a very, very strange coincidence.
Also posted at Gene Chapman For President of the United States of America, Incorporated?
I also posted a final farewell to Gene …… the perfect campaign song for him, in video form.
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Todd Andrew Barnett
What could be more destructive of his political aspirations than his own platform?
ENM: Nothing is ever really deleted from the Internet, but that comment was really hard to find.
Those allegations, even if they were never prosecuted, would pretty much kill Gene’s chance of being nominated for anything, let alone President. The fact that he pulled everything down after they were made implies that there is a grain of truth in them, since he’s patiently dealt with all the other critiques of his background. A nerve has been touched.
unrepentant_archcapitalist: You know that old saw about “being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy”? Now think of something similar, but worse.
Come on, Mr. X! I need to know!
Someone needs to fucking email me with these allegations, because I need a good laugh.
I won’t publish them, but yeah. I want to hear this shit. The power of Stu compels you-!
How is publishing allegations actionable? Just say “allegedly” and “this is satire.”
Hmm… if ElfNino’s Mom is persuaded by that line of reasoning, I’ll allow her to post the allegations here… or I’ll do it myself if she agrees.
But I won’t break her confidence now that I know.
Don’t tell me he’s that guy that kills animals so he can molest them.
or denounce them as communists?
“Oh, you dirty dirty Commie… let Daddy liberate your virginity.”
Did you guys ever read about the CP dude who admitted to having sex with a mule, said that everyone who lives in the South does it, and that it’s natural?
Maybe he likes plus-sized ladies and strippers to fuck him with a dildo and whisper into his ear about “pimping him out.” Is Chapman a “secret fag”?
Mules are sterile hybrids. “Natural” birth control!
Cool idea: Why don’t we all send $1-$5 checks to the Chapman for President campaign and see if they get cashed??
Especially if you do the male mule anally.
Inquiring minds want to know.
We’re all grownups here, and we’re all responsible for our own actions.
I’m not going to post it, though, because I have no way of substantiating the accusations made in those comments.
Stu, it’s your blog, so it’s your call.
Hmm… having heard what you told me, I’m a tad reluctant to now, actually.
I might post some of the tamer stuff, y’know, the stuff that if he really did it is actually legal.
If there were a way to “substantiate” allegations, they would cease being allegations and would be facts.
You guys are tremendous pussies for thinking you could be sued for re-posting someone else’s allegations.
Plus he’s a presidential candidate. A public figure. There’s no possible way he would have cause.
Learn a little Law 101 for god’s sake.
Well …
… Chapman is, indeed, a “public figure,” which makes the libel/defamation bar a lot higher for him to get over.
… and unless you actually claim that he DID the things he’s accused of, you’re not defaming him anyway, just reporting that someone else has made allegations and describing those allegations.
BUT …
… what possible purpose would it serve? He was never going to win the nomination, and he’s publicly quit the race. The only thing continuing to hammer on him would accomplish would be to associate him, and the allegations against him, with the LP.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
What good would it serve? It would satisify my curiosity. That’s what good it would serve. Why should information be held and controlled by a tiny cabal of insiders. Make it public. You fucking elitist.
Unrepentant, your knowledge of Law 101 as it applies to this situation is completely unimpressive to me. I don’t know anything about you, but I’m guessing from your comments that I’ve probably forgotten more about law than you will ever know.
Substantiation, incidentally, means finding someone with actual knowledge who will attest to truthfulness of the allegation. That does not make the allegation a fact, as you have alleged; but it does give one reasonable cause to believe the allegation to be true. Substantiation in a situation like this is necessary prior to public disclosure of the accusations. After all, I don’t even know who posted it.
There is also more to this decision than potential liability. Far more, in fact, to the point that liability is a secondary concern to me.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not in the business of destroying others’ lives just because I can. Yes, the comments have the potential to destroy that man’s life, as I am sure the others who have seen them will agree, so I’m not about to post them just because I can, or just because you want me to do so. If that makes me a pussy or an elitist (or anything else you want to call me), so be it.
This will probably come as a surprise to you, but your personal opinion of me and my decision in this matter is the very least of my concerns, falling behind even such trivialities as whether my dog will scratch its ass with its left paw, or its right paw.
If I can ever substantiate the very serious accusations in those comments, given their nature I’ll be the first one to make them public. If a situation arises which I feel demands that they be publicly disclosed, I will disclose them even if I have not been able to substantiate them, and to hell with the consequences. Until then, I will not publish them, because they have the potential to do far more harm than good. Simple.
Ethics can be a pain in the ass, I know, but in the end it’s the only thing that separates us from …. well, from the Gene Chapmans of the world.
“I’m not in the business of destroying men’s lives” says the woman who devoted a website to mocking a mentally ill presidential candidate.
Chapman was a candidate for public office. He was a public figure. Someone else made the allegations.
You sound like a tax protestor yourself with your circular logic. “I took down the comments because leaving them up could be actionable.” When shown that it could not be, you retort with, “I know more about the law then you, but even if it isn’t actionable, I care about not ruining Chapman’s life.”
Whatever. You’re one of the cool kids. You have the inside dirt. You post a blog entry on your site saying “Oooh… I have a secret. But I can’t tell.”
Very immature.
I never said it wasn’t actionable. I said the actionable nature of the comment was a secondary concern for me. I’m sorry if you have a reading comprehension problem, but that’s hardly my concern.
Look, you apparently don’t understand anything about this except that you didn’t get your way (yet you call me immature), and I’m not going to waste any more of my time trying to reason with you. You don’t even understand why I have that blog.
If my purpose was simply to mock Gene, don’t you think I’d have literally jumped at the opportunity to release the contents of that comment? Stu posted most of it in another thread, so you have a pretty good idea what’s in it (and you’re dumb as a doorknob if you couldn’t figure out the rest). That’s some pretty salacious gossip for me to pass up if in fact all I wanted to do was make fun of the guy, don’t you think?
You’re clueless. Truly. You’re also an annoyingly self-important little piss ant, which is why you demand to continue this conversation although I have stated, more than once and in no uncertain terms, that I will not post that comment.
I’m still not going to post it, and nothing you can say will change my mind. So you may as well stop throwing this pathetic “Mom, the cool kids aren’t letting me play!” temper tantrum, since it will accomplish nothing.
Sheesh. I’ve had more intelligent conversations with six-year-olds.
Incidentally, now that I’ve looked this thread over again while trying to figure out why you feel you are somehow entitled to get a copy of the comment ….. you’ll notice that the above article was originally published on my blog, and simply reproduced here with small changes so it didn’t sound like the comment had been posted here. The “select few” to whom I am referring are therefore people who frequent my blog, not this one.
I provided the comment to Stu as a courtesy, since this is his blog and thus he had a right to know what I was referencing. I have not provided it to anyone else as a result of this thread on this blog, so I am not playing favorites with the “cool kids” as you seem to believe.
To my knowledge, no one on this blog, except Stu and myself (and apparently Mr X, who somehow found the deleted post on the internet) has seen the actual comment.
So now that this has been put into perspective, the question becomes, why should I provide it to you, when I haven’t provided it to the other people on this blog who have asked to see it?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
What if I ask nicely?
You posted a blog entry saying: Why did Champan quit the race? Could it be because of the secret that I know?
It didn’t warrant a blog entry unless you wanted to possess the information, dispensing it to your favored friends, and stroke it like a newborn bunny.
Hahah.. I’m clueless; an annoying self-important pissant.
Rack her!
Out.
As much as I disliked Gene, I wouldn’t post it on my blog. I am one of the people ENM got advice from regarding the situation and I believe she is doing the right thing.
Bottomline is…he dropped out…lets move on.
Again, we are confronted by your inability to comprehend what you read.
That is not what I posted, and you know it. And, I didn’t dispense it to my favored friends. People who read my blog saw it by virtue of the fact that it was there for over 12 hours before I even saw it.
Yes, you are still clueless, and you are still an annoying self-important little piss ant. Don’t like being called that? Then stop being a clueless annoying self-important little piss ant. Simple.
Look, I don’t know why you keep arguing with me, except perhaps that the sound of your fingers clicking on the keyboard keeps you company. Are you really that bored on a Friday night? I ask, not because I care, but because you’re boring the living hell out of me. Why don’t you go talk to the voices in your head for a while, and leave the normals alone?
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jason.
Hey, I guess this means you’re one of the “cool people”, since you saw it before it was deleted, and Unrepentant didn’t. LOL
I reek of coolness, its true.
You’re also one of the “tiny cabal of insiders” now, Jason.
C’mon, enough of this, we’ve got a media and a banking industry to run… tomorrow, because today is the Sabbath, LOL.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
04/19/2007. Presidential candidates Steve Adams (I-KY) and Bob W. Hargis (I-OK) announce strategic alliance to boost independent campaigns. Political opponents are not known to work together, but as Hargis and Adams describe on http://www.independentstogether.us, “their desire for serving America outweighs their desire to compete with each other.” Both candidates are self proclaimed long shots for the 2008 election, but are choosing to share campaign strategies and contacts to improve their chances.
We are inundated with news of Democrats and Republicans entering or exiting the presidential race. We see the power struggles within the respective parties now. Soon we will see the arguments move to Democrat vs. Republican. News of aspiring politicians cooperating is exceptional.
For more information, contact Mr. Adams or Mr. Hargis via http://www.independentstogether.us.