A recent post to Andy Schlafly’s talk page on Conservapedia suggests that we’ve not yet heard the last from him on the Lenski debate. In fact, it almost sounds like Andy’s preparing to sue – or, rather, threaten to sue – Lenski, just to possibly make a point. Given the turn that events could take, it’s important to remember that Andy Schlafly approaches law as a political tool, to use to get what he wants, regardless of whether he’s right, or even honest.
Schlafly’s past and potential future use of sketchy lawyering tactics against Lenski is by no means the first time he’s stooped to abuse of legal knowledge to make his case. Andy views law not as a profession in service of the public, but rather as another weapon to use to wound his ideological opponents, without regard to professional ethics. Another example:
Last year, Conservapedia’s mortal enemy, RationalWiki, posted a side-by-side, point-by-point refutation of one of Conservapedia’s articles. The RationalWiki refutation article obviously included Conservapedia content, and employed it towards the end of comparison and criticism, which is clearly fair use within United States copyright law. When Andy saw RationalWiki’s article, though, and its appropriation and critique, he threatened to sue, asserting that his “copyright” on the Conservapedia material was infringed by its reproduction and critique. To say that Andy was wrong is to understate the point: it’s unclear whether Conservapedia, an open-source encyclopedia, even has a copyright, and even if it did, copying to critique is clearly fair use. Andy’s position was so wrong that he could not have even entertained the possibility that he was right. He threatened civil litigation knowing the law wasn’t on his side, hoping his legally unsophisticated opponent didn’t know enough to fight him. Threatening civil litigation in bad faith is bad enough; using a bad faith threat to exploit a legally unsophisticated party is even worse.
We law students – as future lawyers – get a bad rap because of people like this. Law is a powerful tool: it turns knowledge into power quicker than almost any other skill set, and in the wrong hands it can be a frightening weapon. The power that lawyers wield can only be justified by adherence to a strong code of ethics. Despite protestations of his Christian morality, Andy lacks this requisite professional moral code. So if you find yourself in a debate with him, and he threatens you with a lawsuit or starts to use legal reasoning against you, (1) be suspicious, and (2) be afraid. Weave a circle ’round him thrice and close your eyes in holy dread. He won’t hesitate to lie or abuse his power to beat you down.
Oh, and Andy, if you’re thinking of suing over this post, just remember that truth is a complete defense.
The more I read the Conservapedia talk pages on this debacle, the more I am amused by the interactions between Aschlafly and the other users.
Some of them, even the most ignorant and dogmatically opposed to evolution, tell him he’s being stupid and making Conservapedia look bad (er, even worse) .
And then some of them (*cough* Bugler) just grovel before Schlafly and praise and enable his every idiotic move. It’s hilarious to watch him bask in it. I’m so tempted to join Conservative just so I can become a faux-follower. Maybe a little creative disinformation…
Although, from what I hear, there is already one spot-on spoof creationist on Conservapedia, “Dr. Richard Paley” (read his hilarious spoof site for some laughs: http://objectiveministries.org/creation/)
Posted by Dan | June 26, 2008, 5:07 pmThat’s awesome. And I’m fairly convinced, btw, that Bugler is a parody/subversive sock bent on destroying the site. So, I wouldn’t be too upset about him ;-). And you’re absolutely right, most of the foot soldiers are livid with Schlafly for making them look SO, SO DUMB. Dumber than usual. Case in point, Philip J. Rayment, a nice guy who at least puts some *thought* into creationism, and wisely chooses his battles. Taking on Lenski is not a battle he would’ve chosen, and this is why.
Posted by Ames | June 26, 2008, 6:30 pmHehe, if Bugler is a spoof that’s hilarious. Banning anyone with a shred of non-sycophantic thought is definitely the right way to tear the place up from the inside :-)
Right about Rayment. He seems to be more or less fair and tactically savvy, although steadfastly and dogmatically in denial of evolution.
Posted by Dan | June 27, 2008, 1:55 amRecently there have been a couple of very astute posters trying to explain the actual *science* and *data* to the CP crowd:
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=482697&oldid=482674
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog/archive1#Piltdown_All_Over_Again (see divaricatum’s several paragraphs)
Good luck to ‘em, and to everyone else injecting rational thought or common decency into the discussion… though I fear they’re just wasting their time.
Posted by Dan | June 27, 2008, 1:59 amYou forgot to mention the FBI Incident!
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | June 27, 2008, 5:00 amHeh. Who’s trying to bring beef about alleged copyright infringement?
(Cough) Tu quoque (cough)…
Posted by AJ Milne | June 28, 2008, 11:43 amCopying for fair use is different than appropriating images for the very use they were originally designed, buddy :-)
Posted by Ames | June 28, 2008, 11:56 amIt’s true, actually, innit. I’m misusing the expression. Since, presumably, TR’s action actually is covered under fair use, this really isn’t ‘you too’ so much as ‘just you’.
Posted by AJ Milne | June 28, 2008, 1:10 pmSo you think we’re not covered by Fair Use? I’m confused.
Posted by Ames | June 28, 2008, 1:11 pmYour honour, I’ve conferred with my client, and we’d now like to enter the plea that explaining the joke further will kill it even more dead than it was when we first started.
Posted by AJ Milne | June 28, 2008, 1:15 pmLOL! The plea is accepted. I’ll now commit ritual hari-kari for missing a joke that could’ve been funny, and making myself look like an idiot on my own site.
**HURK** Ouch, that smarts…
Posted by Ames | June 28, 2008, 1:22 pmHeh. No worries. Counsel hereby assures the court the line was offered in good faith, and not meant to cause that kind of embarrassment, anyway.
Posted by AJ Milne | June 28, 2008, 1:33 pmlol, this page was linked from Conservapedia. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Copyright_redux
“We don’t use copyright to censor.” – ASchlafly
Posted by Barley | November 8, 2008, 5:19 pm