Mr. & Ms. Amerikkka

Digger’s Realm reports that Stephen and Virginia Pearcy (a/k/a Mr. & Ms. Amerikkka) are now threatening certain bloggers with lawsuits over coverage of their anti-American soldier-hanging-in-effigy exploits.

Mark Butterworth looks to be the first victim of the Pearcy’s hurt feelings – read this post concerning a phone call he got from Mr. Pearcy not long ago. Understandably, this has pissed Mark off, and hopefully he will countersue for the emotional distress of receiving a phone call from a Marxist.

More on Stephen (“For the last time, I wasn’t in RATT!”) Pearcy and his bearded man-wife Hagatha here and here.

UPDATE:

To clarify, which I think is necessary due to some of the comments here and at Digger’s place, I don’t support the whole “contact the employer” strategy. It’s not that different from Michael Rogers’ gay outing crusade against other bloggers by harassing the bloggers’ webhosts. Contacting employers may even be worse, since you’re going after someone’s livelihood. Is it illegal? Probably not. Is it a questionable tactic? Probably.

This caveat does not change the fact that I would still like a bear to shit in Steven and Virginia’s mouths while they sleep.

15 comments

  1. Pingback: Diggers Realm
  2. Won’t that make them hypocrites? I mean, they are pissed because someone else is expression their free speech in retaliation to their own free speech?

    Liberals. Geez. Hell, even liberals are better than these losers. Let’s get a gang together and toss their asses over the mexican border.

  3. I will countersue for damages, attorney’s fees (if I can’t get some pro bono work), and court costs, but I am going to wait for Pearcy to file against me, although I think I could probably make a pre-emptive strike on a number of issues like prior restraint, and anti-SLAPP suit law.

    If he does go to an attorney who actually knows the law, Pearcy will learn that he’s as bad a lawyer as an American.

  4. Pingback: Diggers Realm
  5. Actually, Mark, I was half joking about the countersuit. I don’t think you’ll actually be sued – I think it’s just a bunch of blustering from a couple of polesmoking idiots.

    And thanks for the lesson in civil litigation, Ralph. Without you, I’d be adrift on a sea of ignunce.





  6. Butterworth is truly an idiot! He’s one of those pathetic soles who rotely repeats that same old cliche, “Free speech has consequences.” He expects that statement to end the discussion.

    Well, Mr. Misguided-Issue-Spotter-Butterworth, if something said is “free speech,” then, by definition, it is “protected speech.” That means it’s supposed to be protected from UNLAWFUL consequences.

    When the Pearcys placed the dummy on their house, they engaged in protected speech. Your defamatory speech and tortious interference with Ms. Pearcy’s business relationship–your so-called “consequences”–were not protected speech. Your “consequences” are exactly the kind of thing from which the First Amendment is intended to protect us all.

    Butterworth is an idiot who gives conservatives a bad name.

Comments are closed.