Connect with us

So, Did Perez Hilton Steal My Work?

Published

on

The Message vs. The Messenger

Let’s be clear. My goal is to get the message out. The message is about the importance of gay rights and gay marriage, the message is about the successes we achieve and the hurdles we have to jump every day. And I like to stick to facts, as much as possible. There’s too much noise, and too much hatred and prejudice surrounding the gay community.

That’s why I do my best to avoid writing about Perez Hilton: he attracts hatred, he attracts prejudice, he makes the gay community look bad, and he has little credibility. Hell, even Perez Hilton doesn’t believe what Perez Hilton writes.

I’ve written about him only a few times, and only when it would have been negligent to not.

I mentioned Hilton on June 10, only as background to the Carrie Prejean getting fired story. Two weeks later, I felt compelled to write, “Perez Hilton Is Not My National Leader,” as commentary on Hilton’s calling will.i.am a “f*ggot.” I needed to denounce Hilton’s actions – not only about his interaction with The Black Eyed Peas, but also to show that Hilton has, time and again, harmed the gay community:

“It’s time the gay community starts to call it like it is. Equality also means treating those within our community equally. And that means not supporting those who do not support us, regardless of who they are. Perez Hilton does not help us. Perez Hilton does not support us. He is a selfish, crude, media whore. It’s time we started listening to someone who speaks for us, to us, about us, in a responsible and respectful way. In a way that helps our cause. Not hurts our dignity.”

I had hoped that would be the last time I needed to write about Perez Hilton. I was wrong.

Just a few days later, Michael Jackson died. And Hilton, right before we learned of Jackson’s passing, posted a photograph of Michael Jackson with these words scrawled at the top: “Heart attack or cold feet?” Like so many Americans, I was outraged. Outraged not only because, even had Jackson not died, it would have been a horrible thing to do, but outraged that people were still paying attention to Hilton. In “Perez Hilton: Posterboy Of Bad Choices,” I wrote,

“Now, yes, Michael Jackson has probably made some bad choices too, but one thing, as a journalist (which Perez Hilton is not, but he fills the role of a news gatherer), as a blogger (which Perez Hilton is), and, hell, as a human being, one thing you just don’t do is speculate publicly about whether someone who is reportedly on the way to the hospital after having a heart attack, is faking.”

“If you like Perez Hilton, do him a favor and stop supporting his habit: stop paying attention to him, at least until he proves he’s changed.

If you don’t like Perez Hilton, make sure you don’t support his habit by devoting any time to reading his blog, or doing anything that will feed his habit.

I will do my best to do the same.”

Again, I had hoped that would be the last time I needed to write about Perez Hilton. I was wrong.

Friday afternoon, I happened upon a message on Twitter:

ph

“@PerezHilton I Love Your “Does The U.S. Constitution Already Make Gay Marriage Legal?” – I Wish People Would Wake Up and Let Love Happen!”

I was a little surprised, since the day before, I published, “Does The U.S. Constitution Already Make Gay Marriage Legal?” I checked his site, and sure enough, he published my work, in full (sadly, with my typos! Darn Massachusetts! ) and did not directly credit me. There was a misleading link back to my site, but it looked to me, had I not written the piece, that he could be the author. And in reading the comments on his site, it appeared his readers assumed he wrote it.

As you can imagine, after writing very pointed pieces about Perez Hilton’s poor behavior and unfortunate impact on the LGBTQ community, I was appalled and incensed. I put a great deal of time and effort into most everything you see here. To have it scooped up, wholesale, and reposted on Perez Hilton’s blog was an affront to what I have tried to do with my work: educate and inform in a credible setting.

Yes, I struggled with having my words read by (possibly) millions more than would ordinarily read them, vs. having control and fewer readers. But at the end of my decision-making process lay the fact that the words, and my subsequent future credibility, would be devalued. And that was too high a price to pay.

My understanding of “fair use” and copyright law is that you can quote some of a piece, even all, if it’s necessary to making a point in your work. But, as I said, to wholesale reprint someone else’s copyrighted work is, in my opinion, unfair, and, to not deliver proper credit is worse. Adding insult to injury is putting that work into an undeserving environment that diminishes its, and the author’s, credibility.

Shortly thereafter, I emailed Perez Hilton a “cease and desist” message, asking him to remove my work from his site, print on his site that I was the author of the piece, and also print on his site an apology. I asked him to do that by the end of the day Friday. He did not.

Sunday, I posted this Twitter message to Perez Hilton:

remove

“@PerezHilton I asked you to remove my work from your site. I’ll now do it publicly. You’ve no right to this: http://is.gd/1w6G8”

No response. A few friends “retweeted” my request, and within minutes there was a buzz on Twitter, with retweets flying and many derogatory remarks directed toward Hilton. At last count there were well over a hundred posts on Twitter about Perez Hilton “publishing” my work. I can’t thank enough the dozens and dozens of people who stood up to Perez Hilton and supported me during this. And thanks to all my friends from Twitter who, privately, advised me. I am extremely grateful, and lucky to know you.

And you know what? Within a few hours, my work had been removed from Hilton’s site! Ah, the power of THE PEOPLE on Twitter!

(Click here to see what my work looked like on Perez Hilton’s site. It’s important to note that the only indication that the work is NOT Hilton’s is that the TITLE links back to my blog. Not the, “CLICK HERE to read the article accompanying this headline.” Nice.)

So, did Perez Hilton steal my work? I’m not a lawyer. I can’t say, legally, if Perez Hilton stole my work. I do know that I make no money from this endeavor, and Perez Hilton used the fruits of my labor, my “intellectual property” to help make himself money. I can say that I felt that he stole my work. I can say that many people I talked with think he was wrong to do what he did. I can say many people I talked with encouraged me to sue him. I’m not planning to, although I would if I knew it would make him change. But nothing can make Perez Hilton change. Except you: YOU can stop reading him, following him, talking about him, fueling his ego and his appetite for attention.

Most importantly, I hope you take a moment to read, “Does The U.S. Constitution Already Make Gay Marriage Legal?” It is, in my humble opinion, an interesting take on our Constitution and an avenue that deserves some exploration. If you do, I will have done my job.

(image: Current News Stories)


I hope you’ll also take a moment to read, “Bring Me the Head of Perez Hilton on a Platter!” by David Mailloux, better known as dymsum. And while you’re there, read as much of his work as you have time for. And then a little more.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Stephen Miller’s Latest Rant Prompts Priest to Cite Goebbels Propaganda

Published

on

Stephen Miller’s latest anti-immigrant rant is drawing attention, including from a well-known Catholic Jesuit priest, who appeared to liken the White House Deputy Chief of Staff’s remarks to those made by Hitler’s notorious Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, in 1941.

Miller, one of the most powerful members of the Trump administration, is seen as the principal architect of the President’s anti-immigration and deportation policies.

“U.S. Marines on the streets of Los Angeles. Masked immigration officers at courthouses and popular restaurants. Bans on travelers from more than a dozen countries,” Reuters reported on Friday. “For senior White House aide Stephen Miller, the architect of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, things were going according to plan.”

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

Denouncing the city government of Los Angeles as “waging a campaign of insurrection against the federal government,” Miller on Friday painted a scenario without undocumented immigrants in remarks made to Fox News.

“Let’s be very clear,” he said. “What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?”

“Here’s what it would look like: You would be able to see a doctor in the emergency room right away, no wait time, no problem. Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with. Classrooms would be half the size. Students who had special needs would get all the attention that they needed.”

“There would be no violent transnational gangs. There would be no cartels. There would be no Mexican Mafia. There would be no Sureños. There would be no MS-13 There would be no TdA.”

“You would be living in a city that would be safe, that would be clean, there would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug dens,” he alleged. “That could be the future Los Angeles could have, but the leaders in Los Angeles have formed an alliance with the cartels and their criminal aliens.”

READ MORE: Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda

Some of Miller’s claims are incorrect. For example, public schools often receive state funding in part based on the number of students and their attendance rate. Fewer students in classrooms means fewer dollars. And federal funding is tied to the number of low-income students and students with disabilities.

Miller’s claims about fentanyl and “drug dens” also don’t hold up. Most fentanyl comes into the U.S. via U.S. citizens, according to the Cato Institute.

Father James Martin, editor-at-large for America Magazine, which is published by the Jesuits, responded to Miller’s remarks by posting a quote from Goebbels:

“The enemy is in our midst. What makes more sense than to at least make this plainly visible to our citizens?”

It’s not the first time Father Martin has responded to Miller’s anti-immigrant rants with a quote.

In April, he quoted the Bible:

“‘I was a stranger and you did not welcome me’ (Matthew 25).”

See Martin’s post and video of Miller’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda

Published

on

A record-high majority—nearly eight in ten Americans—now view immigration positively, with similarly strong support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants—particularly those brought to the U.S. as children. The Gallup poll also found that most Americans favor maintaining or increasing current immigration levels.

Meanwhile, large segments of the public oppose expanding the number of immigration enforcement agents—a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Overall, just 35% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies, while 65% disapprove.

Gallup’s report deals a major blow to the very core of President Donald Trump’s agenda, and his “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that dramatically increases spending on immigration enforcement, including detention camps, deportations, and removal, even to third-party countries.

RELATED: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’

“Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today,” Gallup reported on Friday. “At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.”

“These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups,” the top-rated pollster also reported.

Now, just 38% of Americans support deporting all undocumented immigrants, in vast contrast to the stated Trump agenda. That’s down from 47% last year.

In what could be seen as a warning to the GOP, Gallup notes that “the desire for less immigration has fallen among all party groups, but it is most pronounced among Republicans, down 40 percentage points over the past year to 48%.”

Just this week, several top Trump administration officials have continued to promote his anti-immigrant policies.

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins this week told reporters there will be “no amnesty” for undocumented farm workers while insisting adults on Medicaid could replace them.

“There will be no amnesty, the mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way, and we move the workforce towards automation and 100% American participation,” Secretary Rollins said.

Republican Senators have been promoting the Trump anti-immigrant agenda as well. On Thursday, U.S. Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL) called Democrats who oppose the often warrantless raids and tactics used by the DHS’s frequently masked ICE agents, “ignorant pawns of a subversive anarchist agenda.”

President Donald Trump’s and the Republican Party’s budget, which Trump signed into law last weekend, is tremendously unpopular, including his exponential expansion of immigration enforcement budgets, as well as aspects that gut vital social safety net programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

Critics praised Gallup’s findings.

“Nativism had its 6 months and now it’s clear that it’s not the answer,” wrote Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies David J. Bier.

NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur, pointing to the Gallup statistics, called it “backlash politics.”

“Turns out, mass kidnappings and deportations are deeply unpopular when put into practice,” observed New York State Democratic Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher.

See the social media post above or at this link.

READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s hand-picked border czar, Tom Homan, is facing backlash from legal and political experts after asserting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents do not need “probable cause” to detain individuals—and can do so based on factors like “personal appearance.”

“Look, people need to understand,” Homan told Fox News on Friday. ICE officers “don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain and question them.”

“They just need to tally the circumstances, right?” he claimed. “They just go through their observation, you know, get out typical facts based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”

“A uniformed border police officer walks up to them, for instance, at a Home Depot. And they got all these … facts, plus the person walks away or runs away,” Homan said, offering one scenario. “Agents are trained. What they need to detain somebody temporarily and question them.”

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

“It’s not probable cause,” he insisted. “It’s reasonable suspicion.”

“We’re trained on that. Every agent, every six months, gets Fourth Amendment training over and over again,” Homan said.

Legal experts blasted Homan’s remarks.

Professor of Law, former U.S. Attorney and MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst Joyce Vance summed up Homan’s remarks: “Racial profiling.”

“This is patently false,” declared U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), also an attorney, “DHS has authority to question and search people coming into the country at points of entry. But ICE may not detain and question anyone without reasonable suspicion — and certainly not based on their physical appearance alone. This lawlessness must stop.”

Attorney and California Democratic state Senator Scott Wiener charged, “This is literally the definition of a white nationalist police state.”

U.S. Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) warned, “Trump’s thugs will racially profile you, then go on national television to brag about getting away with it.”

READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief

Attorney and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold explained, “Walking up to people (without threatening) is legal. But ‘detaining’ people without ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal or quasi-criminal activity is illegal. Racial profiling is not cause for the required reasonable suspicion. ‘Let me see your papers’ is un-American.”

U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), who, in a highly-publicized incident was forcibly removed and handcuffed by federal agents at a DHS press conference, wrote: “And there you have it. Under the Trump Administration, ICE and Border Patrol are being empowered to stop and question you based solely on how you look. No probable cause. No real reason. Just your ‘physical appearance.’ That’s not justice—it’s profiling.”

“They’re saying the quiet part out loud now,” wrote New York Democratic State Senator Gustavo Rivera. “Don’t get it twisted: if we let them keep doing this, they’ll find a reason to come for ANY ONE OF US soon enough.”

“THEY ARE ADMITTING IT,” wrote David J. Bier, Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies and an expert on legal immigration, border security, and interior enforcement. “Homan is admitting to participating in a criminal conspiracy against the Constitution of the United States,” he alleged.

Max Flugrath, communications director for Fair Fight Action, wrote: “Trump’s Border Czar and Project 2025 contributor says ICE can detain anyone based on ‘suspicion’ and physical ‘appearance.’ That’s not immigration policy, it’s fascism.”

Watch the video below or at this link:

READ MORE: Trump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.