What’s a little phone harassment among enemies?

I missed this on Friday when the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Metro blog broke it, but both Plunderbund and blogger interrupted posted the wrong phone number when they tried to make people like John Quinn “think before they do these kinds of disruptions.” The phone number has since been removed from both posts. In case you don’t know, John Quinn was the credentialed photographer who disrupted a recent Obama Ohio campaign event with a demand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

The posted phone number actually belongs to Jonathan Quinn, not John Quinn. From Tom Benning’s Metro post:

The calls have started to subside, but Jonathan, an undecided voter, just wants the harassment to stop.

“I really don’t appreciate it,” he said. “I did nothing wrong.”

Jonathan said he isn’t related to the heckler Quinn and doesn’t know him.

The blogs have since removed Jonathan’s number. Tim Russo of the Web site Blogger Interrupted declined to comment.

Eric Vessels, whose blog is Plunderbund, apologized for the mistake, but defended posting what he thought was the photographer’s number.

“I want people to think before they do these kinds of disruptions,” he said. “I don’t intend people to call and harass. I don’t ever ask them to do that.”

Quite plainly, Eric’s being weaselly there. He doesn’t ever “ask” people to harass. I guess his position is that if his readers choose to do that on their own, it’s not his issue. But without any harassment, how would publishing home phone numbers cause people to think about disrupting events- which is his claimed motivation. Or is it the threat of harassment that’s supposed to accomplish that? I don’t see how he can reconcile the two points.

Here’s Tim Russo at blogger interrupted:

First things first. I got his phone number wrong, and I’m sorry. I tried my hardest to identify the right phone number, and screwed up. We got everything else right, his address, his voter registration, and his employer. So, my apologies to the other Jonathan Quinn.

However.

I am not going to apologize for attempting to publish the real John Quinn’s phone number.

In other words, sorry for the error, but there’s nothing wrong with the policy. I think that’s wrong. Is it a good thing that saying things in public that some disagree with means that you become the victim of a virtual flashmob of harassment? I’d say no. Buckeye State Blog had earlier published John Quinn’s apparent home address, which I posted about here. In the comments, Tim Russo seems to think that because John Quinn was engaging in a “smear”- that is, propagating an untruth about Barack Obama- that that makes the publishing of contact info more appropriate. But of course, on many issues there will be disagreement on what the facts are, so that rationale will just lead to a situation where everybody’s doing it. To the detriment of the free exchange of ideas, in my opinion.

Previously this publishing of personal info had been nearly universally frowned upon, but I think with the nature of partisan politics, and the particular fierceness of Democrats’ desire to win this year, the envelope’s being pushed in ways we might later regret.

See also takes on this from Political Outsider and Naugblog. (Unfortunately, Matt Naugle at Naugblog publishes Tim Russo’s phone number, which rather undermines the case.)

And as a final note, both Digg and Barack Obama’s official website have published comments which recite the wrong phone number. Once something’s on the web, it’s hard to scrub it, even if it’s totally wrong.

Trackback | Posted by Brian | Aug 10, 2008 2:52 pm | Permalink | Bookmark
Categories: Blogs, Media, Ohio, Politics, News

Posted by tim russo | Aug 10, 2008 5:58 pm

brian, your logic, again, is blinded by your partisanship.

“Is it a good thing that saying things in public that some disagree with means that you become the victim of a virtual flashmob of harassment? I’d say no.”

John Quinn wasn’t about free speech. John Quinn was about a man making himself an obvious security threat, and wanting to stay anonymous. the fact that he used an obvious smear, which has been proven false repeatedly, to do so, is only relevant to the extent that it reveals his motive.

“But of course, on many issues there will be disagreement on what the facts are, so that rationale will just lead to a situation where everybody’s doing it. To the detriment of the free exchange of ideas, in my opinion.”

there is no disagreement on facts regarding Barack Obama and the pledge of allegiance. there is only a fact, and a lie. and there was no “free exchange of ideas” going on when John Quinn made himself a security threat. there was only a threatening disruption, which he created by using this lie.

you may disagree with Eric’s and my policy of publishing as much personal info about smearers as we can, and that’s fine. but try not to tie yourself into disingenuous partisan pretzel shapes while doing so.

Posted by Eric | Aug 10, 2008 6:15 pm

i find the entire existence of your blog a bit “weaselly”. you are certainly not what you claim to be.

but that aside, did you really just ask “But without any harassment, how would publishing home phone numbers cause people to think about disrupting events- which is his claimed motivation.”?

how about the knowledge that people will publish your information as a deterrent? i’m not weaselly on not wanting people to be harassed. i don’t think calling and respectfully giving your opinion to someone who has done something like this is harassment at all.

fierceness of DEMOCRATS wanting to win? i note that you conveniently don’t mention that the ORP - THE OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY (not some wingnut blogger, not some individual, but the official party itself) once published the home address and home phone number to the mother of a blogger they didn’t like.

where were you then oh mr. defender of all that is right and good? how much time did you spend bashing the ORP? please show us the links. i’m not talking about when you said naugle and kurtz crossed the line, but when the ORP published jerid’s mom’s address and phone number (and yes, she was called).

Posted by Brian | Aug 10, 2008 6:19 pm

Tim, don’t you see that very often one man’s plain fact is another man’s partisan opinion? For example, apply this “smears make it ok” rationale you have to arguments over man-made global warming or the righteousness of the Iraq war. If individuals on each side can decide that some arguments constitute smears and that retaliation is then acceptable, then very quickly we’ll be seeing a lot of invitations for the general public to harass people at home. It’s not going to stop at the line between facts and smears that you draw. To cite a favorite liberal line, an eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind.

Posted by tim russo | Aug 10, 2008 6:39 pm

brian, try not to use the magic wingnut Logic Eliminator Gun, ok?

if “Barack Obama doesn’t give the pledge” is a partisan opinion, then what evidence do you have that Barack Obama doesn’t say the pledge of allegiance?

calling this “an opinion” is absurd.

Posted by Brian | Aug 10, 2008 6:50 pm

Eric, yes I know the Ohio leftosphere’s talking points about this blog: I pretend to be independent but am really in the tank for Republicans. I’ll just repeat again: I’m on the libertarian right, therefore I tend to agree with Republicans more often than with Democrats, but I am not a partisan Republican. Yada, yada, yada.

If it makes you feel better, the ORP were assholes to print Jerid’s mom’s phone number. According to Blue Bexley (a partisan Democrat whom I respect),

When Jerid Kurtz of Buckeye State Blog posted the phone number of a top GOP official earlier this year, many of his peers thought that he had crossed a line by posting what they felt was private information, or at least was an implicit invitation to harrassment of a public figure. Others were of the opinion that lobbying a public figure on an important issue shouldn’t be restricted to those with access to contact information that was semi-private at best.

The GOP had no such moral dilemma. They responded by publishing Jerid’s mother’s phone number. Not Jerid’s. His mother’s. I know two things about Jerid’s mother. The first one is that she received harrassing phone calls from right-wingers because of something she neither did nor was even aware of, and the second was that she once had to fight tooth and nail to get out from under the predatory lender she had turned to in order to buy Christmas presents for her children.

And that illustrates my point exactly: this tit for tat, you’re publishing our phone numbers so we’ll publish your phone numbers, will become an endless chain of harassment, and it’s wrong for both sides. As you mention, I’ve criticized Matt Naugle, despite the fact that he’s a friend of this blog, on those occasions when I thought he went too far. I didn’t criticize the ORP for their publishing of Jerid’s mother’s phone number because that happened before this blog started publishing.

“i don’t think calling and respectfully giving your opinion to someone who has done something like this is harassment at all.” Right, Eric. You don’t anticipate that the person whose number has been published will receive scores of calls, at all hours of the day, some of which will be abusive. All those calls will be civil and intellectual and enlightening- like a French salon some time after the revolution. That’s believable.

Posted by Brian | Aug 10, 2008 7:08 pm

Tim, according to reports, the Obama campaign frequently begins with the pledge of allegiance. And from all reports, Obama deftly handled John Quinn’s demand/outburst. So it’s weird that you’re turning this plus for Obama into a negative for Obama-supporting bloggers.

But as you must be aware, and as I can only guess that John Quinn is aware of, there are questions about Obama’s opinion about this country- the pledge is just a symbol in that debate. I won’t repeat the questions here but there’s a list of items-you’ve seen them, I’ve seen them. Those questions veer beyond concrete facts into impressions and gut feelings about a politician’s inner thoughts- though they’re usually based on concrete facts. I don’t, generally speaking, put too much stock into those doubts, but I also don’t put them into the category of smears. I don’t know.

But again, that’s the question: who decides what’s a smear, and who hands out the punishment? You and Eric?

Posted by PoliticalOutcast | Aug 10, 2008 7:11 pm

What security threat? Based on the video, the guy wanted BHO to say the Pledge. He didn’t make threats to him or anyone else.

Posted by Thomas Paine | Aug 10, 2008 8:10 pm

Just a quick question for Tim: would you also consider convicted sex offenders at the event a security threat?

Posted by Hickmania | Aug 11, 2008 3:21 pm

Eric, it is obvious you just recently published my personal address information at NaugBlog.

http://www.naugblog.com/2008/08/09/sue-eric-and-the-pedophile/

YOU Eric, the one who tried to run me down at Victorian’s Midnight Cafe then you harrassed the manager until she told you where I live. In the end, you came to my house uninvited, you stood on my porch and knocked on my door despite knowing that you were unwelcome. You should be glad I didn’t open that door. You were threatening me on MY property… YOU STUPID MF.

Eric, YOU regularly cross both legal and ethical lines in numerous ways, with numerous people. Don’t project blame regarding your wrong-doings onto others… especially me. YOU are the one itching for an unecessary and unproductive physical altercation with various people. YOU provoke it, YOU search for ways to make confrontation happen, YOU pester people and finally you go out of your way to show your ass (both online and in-person).

There are plenty of people who would attest to you abusing people with “high testosterone” methods. The lefty women bloggers forced you to sit through a whole RootsCamp session related to trying to get bloggers like you to be more professional and tone down your testosterone.

YOU, Eric have absolutely NO room to even debate this. Your escapades have been well documented and archived by many. Tread lightly biatch !!

Regarding Tim Russo… you have zero credibilty regarding avoiding criminal prosecution and abiding by good ethics. Why should we enable your blog misinformation and crazy rants (IMO) by engaging you in debate ??

Posted by Hickmania | Aug 12, 2008 12:46 pm

I’m not even going to give PlunderDUMB Eric the benefit of me commenting on this piece of BS propaganda against me.

However, it does prove that Eric Vessels is concerned about his inappropriate behavior enough to try to rationalize his way out of it by lying and projecting unjustified blame toward me.

Whatever… what a tangled web he weaves as he practices to deceive !!!

http://www.plunderbund.com/2008/08/11/progressive-activist-david-b-hickman-jr-uses-rightwing-blogs-to-unleash-smears/

Posted by Hickmania | Aug 13, 2008 6:11 pm

Not so big and bad BS Blogger ModernEsquire presents his new novel regarding me (Dave Hickman). But BS hack ModernEsquire has one thing wrong, I never worked for Bob Fitrakis’ Green Party campaign for Governor. That’s just what ModernEsquire wants everybody to believe, despite him being informed about the reality of this situation, on several occasions, over the last year or more (ModernEsquire is a little thick in the head)

http://modern-esquire.blogspot.com/2008/08/thanks-for-visiting-dave-hickman.html

Posted by Columbuser.com » Stay with your own kind | Aug 18, 2008 11:06 am

[…] Nick D will post the car owner’s home phone number- after all, it’s a smear! Trackback | Posted by Brian | Aug 18, 2008 11:06 am | Permalink | Bookmark Categories: Blogs, […]

Posted by YouTube BANS PlunderBum | Aug 24, 2008 2:07 pm

How can I help myself from not blasting this around the Ohio Blogs ???

The Censorship, Bash and Ban Klan gets a taste of their own medicine:
http://www.plunderbund.com/2008/08/23/youtube-cancels-my-account/

13 comments on “What’s a little phone harassment among enemies?”

Leave a comment

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Ohio

Akron

Bexley

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Grandview Heights

Hilliard

Marietta

Toledo

The Feed