Not censoring blog posts isn’t defamation, and neither is posting public email.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:48:03 -0700, “Nicholas Schultz” <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Ted,
I am writing with regards to the online interview published on the OC website. I have considered many alternatives, but I have come to the realization that many members of your audience have found the interview to be offensive. I originally intended to share my ideas with a diverse audience, but i feel that the post-dialogue only promotes negative campaigning. On a personal level, I found the false accusations against me to be disheartening and troublesome. Therefore, I am suggesting that you remove the interview from the OC website. While I do appreciate your compatability with my needs, the interivew has seemed to cause more trouble than it is worth. Therefore, I hope that you will take my suggestion into consideration. Good luckon your campaign.
Nick Schultz
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:55:13 -0700, “Oregon Commentator” <[email protected]> wrote:
Nick-
I share your concerns about the blog becoming a forum for non-constructive criticism. I can assure you that I have not directed any of the Commentator staff in any way regarding our inteview series, and that any comments solely represent the views of the individual expressing them. The administrator of the blog and the board of the Oregon Commentator has a policy of keeping censorship of the blog to a minimum (spam and racism are the only precedents for expunging content), and therefore I can not comply with your request. You voluntarily agreed to the interview, and the reception your ideas receive on campus are your responsiblity, not mine. I am sorry I can not help you further with this.
Ted Niedermeyer
Editor-in-Chief, Oregon Commentator
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:02:29 -0700, “Nicholas Schultz” <[email protected]> wrote:
Ted,
Thank you for responding to my e-mail and I appreciate you stating that you share my concerns. However, I find it disturbing that you, as Editor in Chief of the Oregon Commentator, are powerless to influence the content of your magazine or to advise the Board of situations that could hold the magazine liable. False accusations and comments are Slander and can be interpreted as Defamation of Character. In addition, I find it troublesome that the Oregon Commentator condones unprofessional behavior. Lastly, I feel that this behavior does not demonstrate electoral responsibility. Electoral procedure is intended to focus criticism on the “issues” rather than the individuals. However, I understand your helpless position in this matter. Once again, it is unfortunate that these events have transpired and were unable to be corrected. Good luck in your campaign.
Sincerely,
Nick Schultz
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:21:52 -0700, “Oregon Commentator” <[email protected]> wrote:
Nick-
I am sorry to see your anger at my unwillingness to censor opinons, including your own, on our blog. Let me clarify a few things for you. I do have full control of what appears in the Oregon Commentator magazine, but your interview was never intended to appear there. Your interview is one in a series of interviews of candidates for positions other than Executive, and was intended for the blog from the get-go. A number more candidates will be appearing, exposing them to the same audience as you. If you have enemies who choose to attack you on the blog, it is not my responsibility to delete anything that hurts your feelings. Furthermore, if you say something stupid then you have to expect someone to mock you, for the simple fact that it’s the internet. The Commentator is not attacking you, and accusations of slander and defamation are legally baseless and highly inappropriate.
Best of luck to you,
Ted
Dear Ted,
When did you get your law degree? I value the legal opinion of an experienced, licensed attorney with a large reputable law firm over yours.
I am sorry that you have misinterpreted my emails to be angry. I was simply trying to figure out what you stand for and you have completely satisfied our curiosity.
The comment you made “if you say something stupid then you have to expect someone to mock you” is mean-spirited, unprofessional and inappropriate . This seems to be the general consensus of your leadership and The Oregon Commentator. As far as making enemies is concerned, I am a freshman at U of O and had no enemies prior to this interview. What does that tell you? Once again, another unprofessional comment and opinion that I imagine was meant “to hurt my feelings” as you so put it. Your attempt did not work.
This has been very informative. I feel there is no need for us to correspond further. And of course, best of luck with your campaign.
Nick
Wrong again…I am an independent candidate who openly supports Ari Lesser and Phil Wood for ASUO Executive. I support them and they support me. I still maintain my own campagin staff, campagin manager and a separate agenda. Lets just see what the election show us…I think Ari and Phil will be running this campus in a few weeks.
Yup pretty shady eh? I still feel badly for the guy though. He’s a frosh can you blame him for not knowing what to do? I mean not everyone has a Rees to “show” the ropes.
So Nick basically lied to the ODE when he said he wouldn’t join a slate? Classy. He apparently joined the worst slate imaginable to boot.
Ok I don’t feel sorry for him anymore. Mr. Nick, aka proud independent got swept up in Phil and Ari’s slate which is being formed. This could be an interesting year.
My van runs on dreams.
I don’t feel sorry for the kid anymore. I did, but…well, I guess I’m a cold-hearted asshole sometimes. And when you claim to not have alliances but do, that’s not the rhetoric I appreciate hearing from elected officials. I prefer they say “I can’t tell you how I’d deal with a situation like that becuase each situation is so subjective.”
Or my favorite, which I actually hoped would come true: “I’m Andy Dolberg and if you elect me I will reduce the incidental fee by 10 percent in a year.” I voted for you Andy, and I don’t regret it, even with this new information about your affinity for little people.
not long enough
How long is this vacation going to last?
Yah, I wanted to say “the kid just rubs me the wrong way”
Sorry, the kid just rubs me the a way. I retract my 11th hour comment about his scholng. I was just sort of appalled to see Schultz reply that he is not an insider when he so clearly is. He works for campus recycling and that is a fact. I don’t have a problem with the proposed new vans, I like campus recycling. I know some people who work there and one of them told me that he is constantly in the office working with the non student management trying to figure out ways to get the money they need for these new vans. Just read the proposal, they are going after money from the incidental fee. This does not sit well with me.
:
A small guy with a big penis is a little like a mule with a spinnin’ wheel . . .
Yeah, I’m constantly amazed by where this shit ends up. What the fuck, the OC is on vacation… I guess schlongs are as intellectually stimulating as it’s gonna get.
I’m really starting to rethink Nick’s request to take some of these responses off the blog. Haha. I’m lightly amused at the change in topic to Ron Jeremy and Andy’s admiration for short men with large schlongs. I guess economists do love the anomalies. While entertaining, it’s not the intellectually stimulating discourse I’ve come to appreciate from the OC. Then again, I guess it’s not the OCers guiding the content in that direction…
So…DOES he work for campus recycling?
Ron Jeremy isn’t that tall….
Amy:
Jesus, I hope not. But then:
Hm. Perhaps that could have been phrased differently.
*blink*
This just took a turn that I hoped it wouldn’t. I’m bailing.
Some of the biggest men I know are small in stature Nick. Maybe one day you can learn about the meaningful subjects of life.
This is crazy.
I’m out …
You do work for campus recycling don’t you? You are an insider and a lier, and by little man I believe he was talking about your schlong. Because no man who protests as much as you do could be well hung, your just to good with the excuses, “little man”. I have dated my share small men, and you talk the talk.
*sigh* I love politics. Especially when people self destruct.
Taking bets he won’t last out the Primaries.
Don’t worry…I am having fun. Check out the facts at the ASUO. They have a projected proposal. Oh…I am 6’2″.
Pay itself off in ten years??
What is biodiesel cheaper than regular diesel? Are you attempting to forecast the light sweet crude commodities market 10 years in advance?
If you could accurately predict the price of diesel just 6 months in advance I would offer you $500,000 a year to work for me. But alas, even the best on wall street can’t make 10% gain y.o.y.
Get your economics straight little man, because now your really lying your ass off.
And also Nick, the next time the boys in blue are in your face, just remember when you threatened our freedoms at the magazine ok? You’re nothing but a cheap socialist sellout, and I hope your campaign ruins your term.
Two Errors:
1) I do not cater to “special interests”
2) I support a $287,000 proposal that will pay itself off in 10 years.
Be sure that your facts are right before making a statement.
Schultz is totally catering to special interests, I mean HELLO!!!! he want’s the students to pay campus recycling like $400,000 so they can get new bio diesel vans. And he works for campus recycling doesn’t that say anything to any one? Nick Schultz = Manchurian Candidate.
What are you talking about, “jeez”? Do you remember this comment that Schultz directed at the OC?
“Perhaps you could find some fascist to run for PFC and cut programs from multi-cultural groups.”
To me, that doesn’t sound like a guy who wouldn’t succumb to special interests. A while ago, someone said that candidates should be judged their stance on the issues, and everything else is irrelevant. I disagree; a candidate’s character counts for everything. Otherwise, he can’t really be trusted fulfill the promises he made while campaigning. Negative campaigning is crucial for this reason. Now, I don’t know how much credibility I have with y’all, but I know for a fact that Schultz did indeed shout those blatantly misogynistic words into Susan Campbell Hall in the fall, because I know Eric Fuller to be a credible source. That, in conjunction with everything else Schultz has “shared” with the OC blog, is reason enough to doubt his character. I don’t feel sorry for the guy at all.
Do you imply we’re a special interest? The only thing we’re discouraging him from is douchebaggery.
Leave the poor guy alone. Who knows, he might be the next great thinker that DOESN’T succumb to special interests (unlikely, however), and the OC wouldn’t want to discourage that, now would they?
That case is part of why Nick’s little threats are so hilarious. Also, his utter douchebaggery and total pussitude.
Hey guys… I’m no lawyer, but you should probably see the federal court case about Tucker Max. Basically, a federal court ruled that a blog isn’t liable for defamatory comments made by its commenters.
It’s also the funniest federal court decision ever written. (Or at least, that I’ve ever read.) It’s all here.
fair comment
n. a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that to protect free speech, statements made about a public person (politician, officeholder, movie star, author, etc.), even though untrue and harmful, are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm. Thus, a public figure may not sue for defamation based on published opinions or alleged information which would be the basis of a lawsuit if said or published about a private person not worthy of opinion or comment. This is a crucial defense against libel suits put up by members of the media.
This has been one of the best finals week distractions of my scholastic career. Thank you Nick Schultz, thank you. I think you should start contributing to the emerald pulse column. You are Every Bit As Entertaining as Erin Shakera and Alie Slater ever were.
Everyone should use Firefox, if for no reason other than its built-in spell checking.
I think the poor boy needs to educate himself a bit. Maybe you can give him a few copies of the Supreme Court case that back up what you said Ted. He is just a tad iggnorant.
PS. Thank you to the OC Blog for helping me follow along with the bullshit from the ASUO even though I have graduated and live in Guatemala. You guys rock! The best use of the incidental fee I say. And that is “view-point nuetral”
Andy, do you have autotext scripts running?
Damn socialists! I told you they don’t care about natural rights; only when their imaginary right to be free from ridicule is ‘violated.’
“False accusations and comments are Slander and can be interpreted as Defamation of Character
What a great read. Thanks!
I really feel sorry for the guy. He’s a freshman so he has no idea what can be published an what can’t. It’s his own fault for not researching a bit (or simply asking Ted) about what is public and what’s not (referring to the e-mail). Besides that, he has to understand, and I think he does now, that it doesn’t matter who’s running for what; if you’re in the public spotlight, there’s going to be some shit flingin’. It’s the nature of politics. I wouldn’t go so far as saying he’s done, though. People have said much worse and still gotten elected. If nothing else, I hope he doesn’t give up on his career in the ASUO. There’s nothing that makes a man feel more like a man than being able to stick out his chest and boast, “I worked in student government.”
You’re reaching Frischian levels of brilliance here, Nick.
Slander: Spoken.
Defamation of character: You’re doing that yourself at this point.
Whys everyone so sensitive when they get their feelings hurt? Cmon Nick, take it like a man, sissy!
I had a lawyer from Salem read the blog and asked him if Schultz had any basis.
He laughed so hard he started crying.
No they’re not (in this case), and no they can’t be (in this case). However, when people threaten us with lawyers – even when it’s a ridiculous thing to do and wouldn’t intimidate a child, as is the case right now – we still all have to do a shot. I hope you’re happy, Nick.
(And by the way, if your default mode of dealing with the public involves random threats involving non-specific silly lawsuits, you might not be cut out for politics at this level. Just a heads-up.)
Yep. Schultz is done. Sorry man, but you dug your own grave and now you’re lying in it…covered in dirt.
Best of luck to you both, Ted and nick!
Also:
Maybe Nick has multiple personality disorder and that’s the cause of all this trouble. One personality wanted to be interviewed, another personality didn’t, and a third is doing copious amounts of heroin.
With finals at 8 and 10 am tomorrow?
You bet I am!
“When did you get your law degree? I value the legal opinion of an experienced, licensed attorney with a large reputable law firm over yours.”
Drink!
This is how seriously I take your threats, Nick.
And the law degree is from the great school of North Common Fucking Sense State. How am I possibly in a position to control how people comment on this blog? Only now am I even tempted to defame you, let alone mention you in our magazine. File a grievance if you want (It’s not like the Con Court has my back), but I’d check with that lawyer you so subtly referred to first.
Oh yeah, we can be “mean spirited, unprofessional and innapropriate” when we want. The best way to see us get that way is to ask us to censor ourselves, and then threaten us legally when we don’t roll over for you. I’m sorry your interview didn’t work out exactly the way you wanted… you are young, and freshman year is all about learning experiences. You will live.
Best of luck,
Ted