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.

Related Topics:
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

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

4 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

7 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

9 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.