So, Did Perez Hilton Steal My Work?
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:
“@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:
“@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.
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.
 |
South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem‘s bragging about dragging her 14-month old puppy into a gravel pit and shooting her to death because she “hated” the dog is likely the end of her political career, right-wing pundits are now saying.
On Friday when The Guardian broke the news in a preview of Noem’s upcoming book, outrage on the left was immediate, but outrage on the right trickled in, then increased. Even with Noem doubling down, declaring her killing of the puppy (and a goat that same day, same way) happened 20 years ago, people on the right are expressing anger.
A Democratic pollster says 81% of Americans oppose Noem killing her puppy, The Guardian later reported.
“After learning about Gov. Noem’s actions, only 14% consider her to be a good choice for vice president on the Republican ticket. By a 2:1 margin, even Republicans say the governor would not be a good choice (42% vs. 21%),” the pollster, New River Strategies, stated.
READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’
Noem’s book, “No Going Back,” to be released May 7, has a number one ranking at Amazon. Publisher Center Street, a Hachette Book Group imprint, also publishes other right-wing politicians including Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Endorsing the book are other right-wingers, including Donald Trump, Fox News’ Rachel Campos-Duffy, athlete and anti-trans activist Riley Gaines, and anti-LGBTQ extremist group creator Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok.
On Monday, as Mediaite reported, two Fox News pundits had had it.
Jason Chaffetz, a former GOP Congressman, said, “she just destroyed her political career. I don’t think there’s anybody on any side of the aisle, any human being that thinks it’s acceptable to go to a gravel pit and shoot a dog in the face and kill it when it’s 14 months old. That’s. I mean, that’s just hideous. So she’s done politically, and I’m a friend of hers. I served with her, but politically, there’s no recovering from this.”
Fox News media analyst Joe Concha said, “as a dog owner my whole life,” the story of Noem shooting her dog “absolutely makes my blood boil.”
RELATED: Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’
“How utterly heartless do you have to be to shoot a 14-month-old dog in the face? Because look, if it wasn’t doing its job on the farm, or is attacking chicken or people, okay, you’re a public figure, or at least you have a platform in some way, shape, or form. Even if you’re a private citizen, you very easily could have posted somewhere, ‘I’m putting my dog up for adoption because maybe it’s not working out here on the ranch,’ and I can guarantee you many people would have raised their hand to take that dog in,” Concha said, adding, “she just destroyed any chance she had of being Donald Trump’s vice president, if she had any chance at all. There’s no going back from this.”
Right wing talk show host Megyn Kelly said Trump is “too smart” to “pick somebody who’s managed to do the impossible and unite Democrats and Republicans alike in their anger for this woman who shot her puppy in the face.”
At the right wing National Review, Jeffrey Blehar writes: “Let’s Get a Warrant for Kristi Noem’s Backyard.”
“I guess I just don’t like people who boast about shooting puppies,” Blehar adds on social media. “And goats. And horses. And who knows what else, until cops have done an aerial scan of the property and gotten a backhoe out to excavate the suspicious piles of dirt.”
A far-right pro-Trump streaming media outlet has retracted what it now states was a “false” story alleging former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen and adult film star Stormy Daniels had a sexual relationship for years and engaged in an “extortion” conspiracy plot against the ex-president.
The statement and apology from One America News Network (OAN) comes just one day before the New York criminal trial of Donald Trump is set to begin its third week. Cohen is one of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s top witnesses in the case. Defense attorneys are expected to try to attack Cohen’s credibility.
“OAN today has retracted its March 27 article entitled ‘Whistleblower: Avenatti Alleged Cohen Daniels Affair Since 2006, Pre-2016 Trump Extortion Plan,’ and is taking it down from all sites and removing it from all social media. This retraction is part of a settlement reached with Michael Cohen. Mr. Avenatti has denied making the allegations. OAN apologizes to Mr. Cohen for any harm the publication may have caused him,” a statement on OAN’s website reads.
It then states in all-caps: “NO PERSON SHOULD RELY ON THE MARCH 27 ARTICLE OR THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.”
READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’
“The article, quoting a source, falsely claimed that Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels ‘were having an affair since 2006’ and that, according to a source, ‘the whole hush money scheme was cooked up by [Mr. Cohen] to extort the Trump Organization before the 2016 election.’ These statements were false. OAN regrets their publication.”
The New York Times reports there are “no monetary damages,” and adds one of Cohen’s attorneys, “Justin Nelson, had represented Dominion Voting Systems in a suit against Fox News that cost that network $787.5 million to settle. Mr. Nelson worked with Mr. Cohen’s longtime lawyer, Danya Perry, in what was a remarkably quick about-face by OAN.”
Danya Perry, also one of Cohen’s attorneys in this case, declared the settlement was “a total vindication for Mr. Cohen — and a warning: Mr. Cohen is telling the truth, and there will be legal consequences for those who lie about him.”
“Mr. Trump has repeatedly attacked Mr. Cohen,” The Times adds, “despite a gag order issued by the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan, barring him from attacking witnesses and others. Justice Merchan is currently weighing whether Mr. Trump is in contempt of the gag order as a result of that invective.”
READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death
“In particular, Mr. Trump has attacked Mr. Cohen’s credibility, which will also be how Mr. Trump’s lawyers approach his former fixer during trial. The story by OAN, which has been a consistent booster of Mr. Trump’s political agenda, bolstered that strategy.”
Cohen called it, “The first apology in a long line of lies about me by media outlets.”
Professor of law, MSNBC legal analyst, and former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann called the settlement a “big win” for the attorneys and Cohen.
Attorneys for Hunter Biden have notified Fox News he plans to sue the right-wing cable TV network and its digital entities, after lawyers for the President’s son spent more than a year investigating. Among other issues the letter reportedly mentions Fox News citing a now-indicted former FBI informant, and points to “revenge porn” laws.
The letter, NBC News reports, is dated last week and specifically points to alleged bribery allegations as well as “Fox’s airing of ‘intimate images’ belonging to Hunter Biden that his lawyers claim were ‘hacked, stolen, and/or manipulated’,” that they say violate “Biden’s civil rights as well as copyright law.”
CNN, focusing in the intimate images, reports that “Hunter Biden is demanding that Fox News remove from its platforms sexually explicit images that President Joe Biden’s son says are private, according to a letter obtained by CNN, as part of his strategy to publicly fight back against conservative media.”
“The media outlet aired a mock trial of Hunter Biden on the streaming platform Fox Nation in 2022,” CNN also reports, “focused on the unproven bribery allegations, and published ‘intimate images of Mr. Biden depicting him in the nude as well as engaged in sex acts,’ according to the letter, which demands that Fox immediately remove the series from all streaming platforms.”
READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death
“’FOX knows that these private and confidential images were hacked, stolen, and/or manipulated digital material,’ Hunter Biden’s attorneys wrote in the letter, which contained several of the explicit images, some of which were blurred,” CNN adds. “Publishing these images, the attorneys said, violated ‘the majority of states’ laws against the nonconsensual disclosure of sexually explicit images and videos, sometimes referred to as ‘revenge porn’ laws.’ ”
In a statement Hunter Biden’s attorney, Mark Geragos, expanded on the apparently pending lawsuit.
“For the last five years, Fox News has relentlessly attacked Hunter Biden and made him a caricature in order to boost ratings and for its financial gain,” Geragos stated. “The recent indictment of FBI informant Smirnov has exposed the conspiracy of disinformation that has been fueled by Fox, enabled by their paid agents and monetized by the Fox enterprise. We plan on holding them accountable.”
Media Matters last week reported, “Fox News has mentioned Hunter Biden at least 13,440 times since January 3, 2023, when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives after promising to use their power to investigate the business interests of President Joe Biden’s son, according to a Media Matters review.”
“Fox’s on-air coverage of Hunter Biden has … plummeted in recent months,” Media Matters added. “Mentions of the president’s son on the network peaked at 2,356 in July, when his federal plea deal on two misdemeanor counts of failing to pay taxes fell apart, and mentions exceeded 1,300 in four other months, most recently in December.”
READ MORE: Peter Navarro’s Latest Attempt to Get Out of Jail Smacked Down by SCOTUS
Mentions of Hunter Biden on Fox News, by month
December: 1,307
January: 786
February: 512
March: 347
April: 60 thus far. https://t.co/pC87CQdz8G pic.twitter.com/CUW0qn4gQx— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) April 25, 2024
Watch CNN’s report below or at this link.
First on CNN: Hunter Biden’s attorneys are telling Fox News to stop claiming Hunter Biden and his father took bribes from Alexander Smirnov. His attorneys also accuse Fox of violating revenge porn laws. @evanperez joined me on @InsidePolitics to discuss the new legal strategy. pic.twitter.com/sN0Qeb6QOs
— Dana Bash (@DanaBashCNN) April 29, 2024
Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death
Peter Navarro’s Latest Attempt to Get Out of Jail Smacked Down by SCOTUS
Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’
Far Right Media Outlet Retracts ‘False’ Story About Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels
‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
Far Right Media Outlet Retracts ‘False’ Story About Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels
Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’
Peter Navarro’s Latest Attempt to Get Out of Jail Smacked Down by SCOTUS
Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death
News10 hours agoNoem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death
News8 hours agoPeter Navarro’s Latest Attempt to Get Out of Jail Smacked Down by SCOTUS
News6 hours agoHunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’
News4 hours agoFar Right Media Outlet Retracts ‘False’ Story About Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels
News2 hours ago‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say