American Spectator Magazine Deletes All Mentions Of Brett Kimberlin Following Apparent Settlement

from the why? dept

We recently wrote about the Brett Kimberlin saga -- which is long and involved, and which we'd avoided jumping into for a long time, given how complex and nutty it was. If you're not familiar with it, go back and read that post to catch up on it, but the super short version is that Kimberlin has been suing a lot of people, in large part because he doesn't like the way they're characterizing his past. And he's more or less indicated that he intends to tie people up in court for as long as possible, leading some to put out calls to have him declared a vexatious litigant. Most of the folks he's sued are fighting back, and so far are winning (easily), but apparently the publication The American Spectator not only caved in and likely settled, but it appears to have also deleted all stories from its site about Kimberlin. That seems exceptionally questionable. Pretty much everyone who's looked at these cases has said that Kimberlin has little legal leg to stand on. Many of his legal claims could be summed up as "those people said stuff about me that makes me look bad, and I don't like it."

It was pretty clear that the American Spectator settled when Kimberlin filed to dismiss the charges against the publication with prejudice, which usually suggests the parties worked out a settlement. But to then completely remove all stories that mention Kimberlin entirely raises questions about what sort of standard the American Spectator has concerning its own journalistic integrity. I will admit that I know little about the publication, and don't recall ever having read anything there, but given Kimberlin's lack of success in court to date, it's difficult to see why a publication like that would agree to settle in this manner.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: brett kimerblin
Companies: american spectator


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 19 Sep 2014 @ 7:00pm

    No questions

    But to then completely remove all stories that mention Kimberlin entirely raises questions about what sort of standard the American Spectator has concerning its own journalistic integrity.

    That would be 'none', they have no journalistic integrity, or at least, not any more.

    Not writing any more stories on the lawsuit happy moron is one thing, but to go back and remove any stories about him? He clearly got a complete and total victory here, and meanwhile, they have just stated loud and clear that if anyone doesn't like what the magazine says about them, just threaten them with a lawsuit and they'll fold like wet paper.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2014 @ 8:17pm

    The basic reasoning that I've seen put forward is that AS apparently functions of a shoestring budget, and cannot really afford the legal representation needed to pay for winning even a slam dunk case. Not being able to afford to fight, they've chosen instead to cave and walk away.

    This general idea is part of the whole strategy behind Kimberlain's lawfare. Even if he has little or no chance of winning, as a pro-se litigant it's costing him little to press the lawsuits, and inflicts legal fees on others to defend themselves.

    The strategy isn't working out so well against some of the defendants, as some are defending themselves pro-se, and doing a good bit better at it than Kimberlain himself. Others have gotten good pro-bono representation.

    But in the case of AS, at least, Kimberlain's strategy appears to have worked out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 19 Sep 2014 @ 9:09pm

      Re:

      Yet another example of why a strong, federal anti-SLAPP law needs to be put into place.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2014 @ 9:26am

        Re: Re:

        +1. When he loses once ... OK, maybe he didn't know any better. When he loses twice ... well, he should pay court and lawyer fees. When he keeps losing repeatedly then the fines should go up from there.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2014 @ 8:27pm

    Who's Barrette Kimberly or whatever? Somebody named their kid after the mom's hair accessory, or is it one of those Garbage Patch Kid dolls or something?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2014 @ 10:55pm

    There is a lot of lawfare going on these days with completely baseless suits against Governors in WI (where the prosecutors are on the verge of losing their official immunity for their actions) and TX, with suits against bloggers and publishers, with suits against climate skeptics etc...

    What all of these have in common is that they are intended to sideline or shut up those who are the targets of the suits. Having lost the battle of ideas in an open marketplace these people resort to trying to achieve through force, in the form of court rulings, what they could not gain by legitimate means such as persuasion or reason.

    They don't even have to win since the process is the punishment and you can ruin your opponent if you have deeper pockets or are pro se and willing to devote your time to it as is the case with Kimberlin who is quoted as saying something to the effect that he will never stop suing those he just lost his case against. And it was a directed verdict by they way where the judge ruled he had not presented any evidence at all to put before the jury. Think about that. A year of wrangling and legal expense where there was no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.

    People forget that Obamacare passed because one Senator was removed by a completely bogus set of charges that were alleged against him. But exoneration took years and the damage was done. This is a very effective tactic.

    It has gotten so bad that we now live in a country where a man who made a politically inconvenient video was hunted down and jailed just so the current regime would have a scapegoat for one of its failures. So it is not exaggerating things at all to say that the First Amendment is under attack on many fronts.

    Given this climate of fear and intimidation it is incumbent on everyone to stand up when challenged. The American Spectator failed to do this and its actions will only embolden those who have caused this problem. Thus they are dead to me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2014 @ 9:29am

      Re:

      "People forget that Obamacare passed because one Senator was removed by a completely bogus set of charges that were alleged against him."

      While I may not agree with Obamacare (not that I disagree), IIRC, I'm pretty sure it passed by more than just one vote.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        conor, 21 Sep 2014 @ 4:33am

        Re: Re:

        No, it was one vote in the Senate, and that was using a questionable parliamentary procedure. But it passed nonetheless. The real question is, why would anyone support this mess, no matter what side of the debate you're on? I presume you mean you support Wwhat people promis d it would be, not what it actually is.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Rocco Maglio (profile), 21 Sep 2014 @ 4:22pm

        Re: Re: ACA Obamacare passed filibuster by one vote

        ACA (Obamacare) passed the Senate filibuster (60) by one vote in the Senate on a party line vote. This is why when Scott Brown won they had to use the once a year budgetary exception on the bill in conference. The Senator he is referring to is Ted Stevens, apparently there was issue with the prosecution coaching one witness and hiding another witness. The judge at the time said it was some of the most egregious behavior he had ever seen by a prosecutor.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PopeRatzo (profile), 20 Sep 2014 @ 5:06am

    No surprise

    I don't see why anyone would expect anything less than cowardice from American Spectator. They're one of the slimiest outfits in all of media. And bullies often back down to other bullies.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    allengarvin (profile), 20 Sep 2014 @ 9:08am

    American Spectator has journalistic integrity?

    The magazine that introduced America to theories that Vince Foster was murdered by Clinton to suppress stories about him ordering state troopers to kidnap women and carry them to his boudoir?

    Ok, they don't seem as crazy as they did 20 years ago, but does anyone pay attention to them?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    tracyanne (profile), 20 Sep 2014 @ 8:03pm

    Perhaps

    The solution, being tried here, to being sued by these jerks who don't like people saying nasty things about them is to expunge those people from the Internet. Maybe others should get on board, and do the same.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kevin Horner, 22 Sep 2014 @ 9:10am

    ACA

    I'm not sure where the ACA-hate comes from. It's one of the best things that's ever happened to my family.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 22 Sep 2014 @ 9:18am

      Re: ACA

      In my experience, there are two main threads of dislike for the ACA. In one, the dislike is related to the general hatred of taxation. In the other, the dislike is because it effectively cements the insurance companies into the system.

      I'm in the latter camp, personally. I think the ACA makes actual meaningful reform much, much more difficult to pull off. However, given that the way health care has operated in the US is, without question, totally broken and that the ACA does, in fact, mitigate some (but by no means all) of the problems -- in addition to the fact that people are suffering and dying right now because of the awfulness of our health care system, this is a fight I'm largely on the sidelines of. In effect, we're sacrificing tomorrow to try to take care of today. Sometimes, that's the only thing that can be done.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.