Warning: Animal Rights Blogger is Agent of State Repression

by Red Glitter and Ed MacLeod

Interrupting our series on Vegan Bootcamp: 101 days of Animal Rights Activism, with a little detour
– to alert the AR community of a divisive agent of state repression who is currently operating under the guise of Animal Rights Blogger.

And just who is this lowest of the low? This scum of the earth, this running dog of imperialism, this state collaborating, disciple of Francione, Orwellian nightmare? . . . . Apparently it would me.

As the old saying goes – why am I always the last to know!

And exactly what was my crime, that made me such a divisive enemy of Animal Rights and agent of state repression, Orwellian nightmare and Francione disciple?

This: Dr Steve Best “borrows” BBC homage to British Suffragettes.

well, simply, I pointed out, and quite correctly, that a blogger (Steven Best, who many people have told me is required reading to be a real animal rights activist) had blatantly, I repeat BLATANTLY, plagiarised a 2003 BBC webpost.

But apparently plagiarism is completely acceptable if you are famous.

Or, if you are ripping off the British.

Or something that is more than five years old.

A thorough look at the stats on this blog post that he apparently keeps stumbling over every where he goes – was viewed by 5 people in all of february and 12 on 12 April. (I would suggest that a large portion of those statistics is Best himself, when he left a comment).

And if 17 people viewing this post is going to be such a divisive influence on AR – then AR is HUGE trouble. Huge. Big.

This is the accusations against me:

I keep stumbling on this absurd and divisive blog post, with posts by others still i do not even know personally, and a few perhaps Francione disciples exploiting this “scandal” for its full Owellian, hate-fest potential.

I am going to ask you to kindly remove it, because it serves no purpose, it erroneous and slanderous, and also somewhat comical when you learn the truth of this egregious (!!) scholarly fallacy and breakdown, which is: I posted it to FB with full credits to the BBC, not too hard to do; someone posted it to my blog, not me, and they forgot to add the BBC link up front with the full credits and by-line.

That’s it! That’s all that happened, and yet this is worth venemous posts bouncing around the net and even Twitter, denigrating 30 years of scholarly work and publications, based on something I myself never posted, and which was nothing but a referencing oversight and typo. Pretty clear where the real flaws and flawed ones are in this movement. Try to get a sense of priority folks: there is a holocaust and ecological .rapidly unfolding, other small items such as those marginalia.

You had the information you needed thanks to the person who showed you the FB version of this to know it was a fabricated or non-story, and yet you ran with it, and kept it in the glaring light of defamy on this page.

Enough already, no? Remove this blog and every other one replicating the same innane, baseless claims, if someone had just come to ask me, it could have been corrected and put to rest before the proverbial tempest in the teapot.

We don’t need state repression and corporate power to destruction the animal liberation cause, this is symptomatic of how well a job the “enlightened activists” do all on their own.

Thank you.

Or is not really plagiarism if you attribute it some other place? It seems so.

Mr Best had written on his WordPress blog the 2003 BBC article in question, which was copied WORD-FOR-WORD, this was apparently attributed on his facebook page.

I say apparently, not to dispute his claims, but because there was no link on his blog, no mention of click this for more information, no “source found here”, no directing readers to facebook for more information. So whether there was a correct attribution on his facebook page, readers of his blog that are not members of his special friends on facebook club would actually have absolutely NO WAY to find this out for themselves.

For the 6.999990 billion people on the planet who do not follow Mr Best, I am not really sure how the rest of are suppose to see that proper credit.

Ah but as he points out, a commenter on my original blog about it, had alerted me to the fact that it had been attributed on his facebook page. And I replied at the time – I do not follow him.

But strangely, even bizarrely perhaps, in my country, people only comment on blog posts AFTER they have been published. To say that I was corrected – as to where the actual attribution was – by a comment on the blog piece as a reason for NOT publishing, I’m not quite sure I understand. The laws of physics as they apply to me, is that time moves forward.

And, under Newton’s Third Law of Thermodynamics, which is sometimes known as the action-reaction law, for there to be a reaction (ie, in this case, a comment on the blog) there has to be an action (ie, a blog).

I obey the laws of physics, so I can’t really not have published something in the first place, based on information that comes in as a result of posting it. You see what I’m getting at?

Now, I know that I don’t teach at university like Mr Best, (if he doesn’t teach at a university, mea culpa, I could not be interested enough to read his wiki page) and my students are only in highschool, but if a student of mine handed in an assignment which was copied word for word from someone else, but attributed it correctly in the assignment for another class, I am almost sure that I would not give them a pass mark.

The reasons for his blog post having all the distinguishing features of a lack of attribution is a) it was attributed some place completely separate and accessible to only a handful of people with Mr Bests permission (accepting a friend request) and 2) even if there was no attribution, that is okay too because even though it is his name on the blog, he didn’t post the post, and c) whether he looked at what was posted by someone else on his personal blog, under his personal name later on and noticed there was no attribution, that was not attributed at the time I took the screen caps, is unknown to me – but this is all sounding a bit like a dog ate my homework.

As Mr Best tells me “remove this blog post”, um, I’m not really sure that advocating censorship of those who point out what appears at first glance to be a case of “homage with lack of attribution” is quite up there with campaigning against repression, (that is against for those who missed it), not advocating for.

Pointing out a lack of credit is Orwellian, repressive and defamy, yet demanding I remove it, is un-repression.

I think you and me, Mr Best have two very different dictionaries, because mine doesn’t say anything about censorship being just like freedom and liberation.

and while I’m at it – Heaven forbid someone in AR has a different opinion to someone else, lest they be accused of divisiveness.

The accusation of divisiveness, I have found, is generally leveled against those who disagree with us, regardless of whether they in fact are divisive or not. Accusations like like are used as a means to stifle debate or a free exchange of ideas. If we go around accusing everyone who doesn’t worship at our feet of being divisive, then we are going to find that the next generation of ARAs are obedient unquestioning automatons who are unable to think for themselves because divisiveness is seen as a negative and conformity is encouraged. It’s also a good way to get people who don’t agree with you to shut the hell up, or maybe stand up to bullies who use censorship to silence dissent.

You, Mr Best are a US American, right? Land of the free, Home of the baseball, and first amendment free speech and all that?

Or does free speech not apply when people point out that posts are exact replicas of a 2003 BBC post – I must have missed the day that the US Supreme Court (or whoever) amended that little constitutional guarantee for United States Americans, “free speech for all, except for those who correctly identify instances of copy and paste without credit by famous people”.

And as for calling me a Francione disciple – um, only if that helps you sleep better at night, to believe that everyone who disagrees with you must be a “disciple” of Mr Francione. Because apparently only people who are a – what was that insult Francione disciple in other words – One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of G Francione – could possible find plagiarism noteworthy.

And has been said about Mr Francione – by… oh honestly who gives a damn who said it first, it may even have been you, but attributing sources is so repressive, so let’s just skip over that: “The Guru and his disciples come together in a dance of doctrine and dogma. Like Christian fundamentalists, Francione and his followers believe they possess the Truth …”

and if anyone would like to know who said that, the attribution is on my facebook page, besides, just because someone put a bunch of words together in a particular order why should that mean no else is entitled to use those exact same words in the exact same order – talk about repressive copyright. No, seriously, putting a credit on a bunch of words that is borrowed from someone else really is complete and utter fascism at it most basic.

And you know, Mr Best, for you to desire accuracy, when, oh I don’t know, someone, has said that only Francione disciples believe they possess the truth, would kind of suggest that I’m not the only “Francione disciple” in this conversation … because well, let’s face it, no one else desires “the Truth” (attribution: who gives a damn) do they.

I have never really thought the whole Truth thing was exclusive to Francione disciples, but there you go, learn something new every day.

Seeking accuracy is so oppressive. Having to write a credit on something is such an Orwellian nightmare. And pointing out the obvious is absurd.

What frightening times we live in, indeed.

Copyright is theft, its implying that someone can own a word-order, and once you start owning word-orders it’s just a hop-skip-and-jump from speciesism. So, yes, Mr Best, I am beginning to see your point – owning a piece of work as an author is repression of the highest order, and compare that to owning animals, they are so similar. Don’t know why I failed to see it so clearly before.

And as you point out, Mr Best there is a holocaust going on – not just against the billions of animals in the world slaughtered daily, but also against billions of words, trapped for ever in books and webpages. Owned! Its lexical slavery! It is intolerable.

Set my language free!

We will not have total liberation until all words are free.

But hey, let all vegans and ARs copy and paste without credit as much as they desire, let us all ignore that pesky little thing known as copyright, because we are all perfect. And apparently to point out that someone might have had an entire article published on their blog, under their own name, but actually taken from a BBC website by someone who is not them is being divisive.

What a ridiculous accusation.

Almost as ridiculous of calling it “absurd” to highlight that a 2011 blog post was in fact a 2003 blog post from the BBC.

I kind of have a little trouble accepting that plagiarism is so inconsequential that to point it out is “absurd”. Even more absurd is to suggest that only Francione disciples would care about proper credit for the author of a piece of written text. Because adding “BY THE BBC” is conformity and repression.

And I guess, that knowing all this, and that you think giving credit where it belongs is absurd and repressive, you, Mr Best would have no problem with anyone else in the entire world copying and pasting something you wrote and pasting it on their own personal blog, as long it is attributed correctly in, oh, some completely separate location? Is that fair to say?

And as for removing it, and every other one replicating the same innane, baseless claims, if it baseless, I would remove it, but it isn’t. And, if it has been replicated, all over the net, then perhaps it is a case of someone taking it without my knowledge, which, doesn’t seem to be plagiarism or copyright or anything, so let people take my words. I have no more power over them, or claim to control them, once they are posted as, apparently, the BBC has over their words once they are published.

And if calling someone out – and completely accurately – for not attributing a blog post which was borrowed word for word is “DEFAMY” (attribution: S Best, because I like to give credit where it is due, I refuse to own that spelling mistake) then, your response is just as inaccurate, yawn-inducing, ludicrous, ridiculous, insulting, divisive and defamy.

Although, Mr Best, lets you and me talk about DEFAMY – since English is not my first language, and since Google translate didn’t really tell me what DEFAMY actually means for those of us struggling with English, I am going to assume you mean, defamation, or defamed, maybe defaming, perhaps defamatory, or just plain old ordinary defame

Although perhaps your response was a fraction more “DEFAMY” (attribution: S Best) because where mine was accurate – there was absolutely No BBC credit on the blog post, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, शून्य and no link to a credit on the facebook page – whereas, calling me a Francione disciple is actually inaccurate.

And I know how much of a perfectionist you are when it comes to accuracy, well, apparently except where blog posts on your own blog are concerned.

As an ordained clergy person, to suggest that I am a disciple of another, a mortal, damages my reputation, and my immortal soul, not just on this earth but in other realms, for now and eternity, as much as the suggestion that a vegan is meat-eater or wears silk.

And while I can’t claim to be an expert on the laws of “DEFAMY” (attribution: S Best) as they apply in the USA, I do know that where I am, the laws of defamation are based on threestandards
one – are they true? and what you said about me IS NOT,
b) are they believable, YES it MIGHT be, and
third: are they likely to damage my reputation in the eyes of at least one other person, I believe that you use the phrase “Francione disciple” in a derogatory way with the sole intent to damage my reputation, and according to EFF: “any individual or entity who considers damage to their reputation has or is likely to occur, as a result of material published, may sue the publisher/s of the material.”

Whether or not I believe the words “Francione disciple” (attribution: S Best) to be a description that damages my reputation is irrelevant, what matters is that someone else might believe it and therefore damages my reputation.

A quick look at my past posts would show that I spend as much time pointing out where I disagree with Francione as I do agreeing with him, which could in no way be mistaken for being a “Francione disciple”, where as the accuracy my comment, that your blog post had no credit, is easy to judge, one only has to look.

The following, are defences of “DEFAMY” (attribution: S Best) in my jurisdiction:
Defences that may be successfully pleaded in relation to a defamation action vary throughout Australian jurisdictions. Depending on the jurisdiction, these may include:

* truth/justification
* fair comment (e.g. an expression of an honestly held opinion or a criticism on a subject matter of public interest)
* absolute privilege (this attaches to the occasion, not the statement or speaker, such as during parliamentary proceedings, judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, executive communications and communications between spouses)
* qualified privilege (e.g. fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings, judicial proceedings, public meetings concerning matters of public interest/concern)
* consent (e.g. where the plaintiff expressly or impliedly consented to the publication of the particular imputation)
* triviality (e.g. where the circumstances/occasion of the publication were trivial to the extent that the person defamed was not likely to suffer harm)
* innocent dissemination (e.g. applicable to re-publishers/re-distributors such as newsagents/book sellers, including potentially to ISPs/ICHs. The defence in Clause 91 of the BSA is also relevant to ISPs/ICHs.)
* etc
Source: because I attribute words that I copy and past from someone else EFF

BTW: I know that I said I would happily remove it, but I retracted that on my facebook page, you didn’t see that? I mean, that is the way blogging works, right, you can say something on facebook to qualify what is written in a blog, right?

So, if any part of this is inaccurate, that is because the really, truly accurate version of events is on my facebook page, which there is no excuse for anyone and everyone not seeing.

And, before anyone directs any hate mail towards me, or accuses me of being an Orwellian, divisive, repressive, Francione disciple if meant as an insult, or whatever, let’s just say the whole thing was copy / pasted from … oh, who knows, some place else… I just chose to not attribute it, because it makes me seem so much smarter to not attribute work that was written by someone else.

There is no copyright on this, because apparently owning your own words is oppressive and repressive and Francionish and Orwellian. So I’m taking these words out in the wild and releasing them . . .

Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, words are free at last. (which I just invented, so no attribution required)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: