Stanford’s student paper, the Stanford Daily, has accused me of publishing students’ private information, thereby endangering them, when actually all I did was respond to published, publicly available articles by Stanford students. But when confronted, Stanford Daily’s editor, Courtney Douglas, refuses to retract, and even told more lies about me in an email to my lawyer.
This story is about how academic and journalistic standards have so degenerated today that at one of the nation’s top universities, the student paper feels free to publish outright lies, and refuses to retract even when they’re proven false. That is no surprise given how CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the rest have in recent years been unmasked as propaganda arms for the hard-Left with no interest whatsoever in truth or accuracy — and Courtney Douglas is being groomed for one of the top positions in the corrupt and dishonest corporation. She will fit in well. She has already learned that she can tell any lie about someone she hates, and that to do so is “journalism.”
On October 26, my legal counsel, Paul Hoffman of Hoffman Legal Corporation, sent this via email and regular mail to Marc Tessier-Lavigne, President of Stanford; Hannah Knowles, President and Editor-in-Chief of the Stanford Daily; Ann Grimes, Faculty and Staff Director of the Stanford Daily; Benedict Y. Hur, Legal Director of the Stanford Daily; and Justin Wilck, Staff Writer for the Stanford Daily:
Re: Defamatory statements regarding Robert Spencer
This firm represents Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation (“Jihad Watch”) regarding the defamatory claim that the Stanford Daily recently published about Mr. Spencer in its October 10, 2018, article by Justin Wilck entitled “Change my mind: SCR’s only concern with violence is how to use it”. Without any due diligence, Mr. Wilck wrote the following false statement about Mr. Spencer: “Did SCR care last November when Robert Spencer published students‘ personal information and his followers sent them threatening emails?” (Emphasis added.)
There is no truth to the false accusation that Mr. Spencer doxxed anyone at Stanford or elsewhere. First, the article that Mr. Wilck links to falsely states: “On his blog Spencer named students, posted photos and videos of them, and referred to them as ‘fascists.'” This is completely false and Mr. Wilck either knew that this was false or was reckless in referring to this false statement. Mr. Spencer did not publish any students’ personal information himself. He merely responded to signed articles by Stanford students who put their own names on the articles. What is Mr. Spencer supposed to do? Refer to “the article by ________”?
As the first appearing comment to that article states: “If students write to criticize a given speaker (by name) and sign their names to the criticism, why can’t the speaker write a criticism of the students’ initial criticism and name the students directly in that criticism? After all, the students initially made public their views on the speaker and identified themselves as authors of the criticism. Doesn’t that make these students–who are, after all, adults entering into a public debate–subject to criticism themselves, by name?”
Mere perusal of the article and the above comment should have alerted any reader that, perhaps, the claim that Spencer was doxxing students was not true. Instead, Mr. Wilck either intentionally or, at best, recklessly assumed that Mr. Spencer was doing something improper, which he was not. Accordingly, Mr. Wilck and the Stanford Daily should have fact-checked this reckless and libelous statements before publishing it.
Second, Robert Spencer did not instruct or encourage anyone to send threatening emails to any Stanford students. The claim that Mr. Spencer’s “followers” sent such emails is an attempt to tarnish Mr. Spencer without any proof whatsoever. Mr. Spencer has never agitated for violence, never condoned it, and has never approved of it. Nor is there any evidence that Mr. Spencer has ever done so. It is therefore grossly unfair to attribute any “threatening emails” to Mr. Spencer in any way by claiming that “his followers” did it. How does Mr. Wilck know that? What proof does he have?
Very few people have done as much as Robert Spencer to expose the ongoing oppression of Muslim women, Jews, gays, and other minorities in Middle Eastern countries, which should have been self-evident to Mr. Wilck and the Stanford Daily from news stories demonstrating large-scale murder and repression of Muslims by ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. Mr. Spencer’s research and exposure of the abuse of minority groups at the hands of extremist elements in Muslim countries should be a legitimate part of any dialogue about extremism.
Mr. Wilck’s utter disregard of Mr. Spencer’s long history of work on behalf of persecuted minorities is reckless, and appears to be driven by political malice.
By falsely attributing “threatening emails” to Mr. Spencer and “his followers”, Mr. Wilck and the Stanford Daily are guilty of the very kind of rhetoric which they claim contributes to politically-motivated violence, are damaging their own and the University’s reputations, and are publishing false, defamatory accusations that exposes them to substantial legal liability.
Robert Spencer hereby demands that Mr. Wilck and the Stanford Daily immediately apologize, remove the offending article from the Stanford Daily=s website, and publish a retraction of the false statement they have made about Robert Spencer doxxing students and contributing to “threatening emails”.
Although he would prefer to resolve this matter on an amicable basis, Mr. Spencer reserves the right to exercise all civil remedies to limit any damage to his reputation resulting from this continuing violation of his rights.
Further dissemination of such pernicious misinformation on the Stanford Daily’s website will also demonstrate a malicious intent and will support the imposition of punitive damages against the Stanford Daily and Mr. Wilck personally.
Sincerely yours,
HOFFMAN LEGAL CORPORATION
Paul A. Hoffman,
Individual Rights Foundation affiliate counsel
On November 6, Courtney Douglas, Stanford Daily’s new editor-in-chief, responded:
Mr. Hoffman,
The Stanford Daily has received your correspondence on behalf of Mr. Spencer. Simply put, the statements Mr. Spencer takes issue with in Mr. Wilck’s piece are neither false nor libelous. It is true that over the last year, Mr. Spencer repeatedly posted students’ personal information — names, Snapchat usernames, Facebook profile hyperlinks and more— on Jihad Watch. It is also true that in the aftermath of those postings, followers of Mr. Spencer’s blog sent threatening emails to such students. The remainder of the letter references statements made in other publications for which The Daily bears no legal responsibility.
Regardless of the claims made in your letter, the Op-Ed nowhere states that Mr. Spencer “doxxed” anyone, nor does it state that Mr. Spencer encouraged his followers to threaten anyone. If you are looking for falsity, you will find it in your own letter, not in our piece.
We have removed the phrase “last November” from the sentence to reflect that this dynamic is not specific to Mr. Spencer’s campus visit. Beyond this change, we will not modify the passage, nor will we retract the piece.
Sincerely,
Courtney Douglas
Stanford Daily Editor in Chief
Those claims about what I had posted at Jihad Watch about Stanford students were false. So on the same day, November 6, Hoffman responded, addressing his email to Benedict Hur and cc’ing Douglas and Wilck:
Dear Mr. Hur:
Courtney Douglas, the editor in chief of the Stanford Daily, has written the email below to me. Since you are the Legal Director for the Stanford Daily and a lawyer, I would prefer to communicate with you, unless you authorize me to communicate solely with her.
Contrary to Ms. Douglas’ claim, Mr. Spencer has not published any Snapchat usernames or Facebook profile hyperlinks. This is flat out false. Any names that Mr. Spencer used were in response to the students themselves publishing their own names in the articles or blogs he was responding to. That is not using personal information. That is legitimately responding to a blog or post. It was false and defamatory for Mr. Wilck and the Stanford Daily to claim that Mr. Spencer “published students’ personal information”. Please see the links below and my comments thereto. These are all of Mr. Spencer’s posts.
Please show me where you think Mr. Spencer published any students’ personal information. I challenge you and your clients to show me even one instance of this happening. As shown below, you are unable to do so because such things never happened. Ms. Douglas have provided me no evidence or links proving Mr. Spencer wrong on this. Unless you can do so, the quoted statement above by Mr. Wilck and the Stanford Daily remains false and defamatory and must retracted.
This one is where someone may be telling that a Snapchat username was published, but as you can see, Mr. Spencer picked up a YAF article and video. The fellow published his video on Snapchat, and YAF picked it up from there. You’ll notice, that the student is unnamed in the YAF article and in Mr. Spencer’s comments on it, and his Snapchat username is not mentioned, contrary to Douglas’ claim.
Once again, you see that the fellow is not named (nor does Mr. Spencer know his name), and his Snapchat username is not included (nor does Mr. Spencer know it or ever had access to it). Mr. Spencer mentions the names of four students in this post. You can see that they affixed their names to the Stanford Daily article to which Mr. Spencer was responding.
Where did Mr. Spencer get this student’s name? She signed her name to her piece in the Stanford Review article.
Where did Mr. Spencer get this student’s name? She signed her name to her piece in the Stanford Daily article.
Mr. Spencer did get this one from Facebook, as you can see. But it contains no student names or Facebook profile hyperlinks.
Where did Mr. Spencer get this student’s name? She signed her name to her piece in the Stanford Daily article.
- https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/stanford-student-robert-spencers-books-never-explicitly-false-but
Where did Mr. Spencer get this student’s name? He signed his name to his piece in the Stanford Daily article.
Where did Mr. Spencer get this student’s name? She signed her name to her piece in the Stanford Daily article.
There is a screenshot from Daoud’s Facebook page here, in which he threatens Jewish students. This was published by the College Republicans, and became national news. It is not a case of Mr. Spencer publishing someone’s hitherto unknown Facebook profile. Nor did Mr. Spencer include a link.
As shown above, there are no Snapchat usernames, nor Facebook profile hyperlinks. Ms. Douglas’ statement otherwise is false. I challenge any of you to show me even one instance of this happening. Unless you can do so, I will expect the offending phrase above, that Mr. Spencer “published students’ personal information”, to be retracted. I will wait to hear from you on this.
Paul A. Hoffman, Attorney At Law
Hoffman Legal Corporation
On November 10, Courtney Douglas responded:
Mr. Hoffman,
The Daily has received your correspondence. I stand by my prior statements, and we will not make further changes to this piece.
Sincerely,
Courtney Douglas
Stanford Daily Editor in Chief
If Courtney Douglas has any evidence for her claim, I am challenging her again here and now to present it. So Courtney Douglas, unless she can produce my publication of Stanford students’ Snapchat usernames and Facebook profile hyperlinks, and she can’t, stands exposed as a liar, who has no acquaintance with actual journalism, much less with basic human decency. Salon, the Los Angeles Times, and MSNBC are probably knocking on her door right now with job offers.
Stan Lore says
I await notice that Douglas and Stanford are the object of a civil lawsuit.
LB says
As they should be. IMO all colleges and institutions of “higher learning” in the West should be dissolved completely. Cut the national funding and watch them either melt to the ground or go back to being what they once was before they became leftist indoctrination factories.
But sadly, that will never happen, at least not with all these leftist governments still in power. In that case it is up to the common folk with knowledge and resources to sue these colleges into oblivion. Because contrary to their communist/marxist ideology that they’re championing, all that those leftists care about is money (quite capitalistic of them). “Communism for thee, but not for me.”
Andy says
Liberalism is a disease that MUST be destroyed before it destroys us!
Andy says
Leftist prof attacked for promoting free speech
Wants students exposed to multiple viewpoints
https://www.wnd.com/2018/11/leftist-prof-attacked-for-promoting-free-speech/
https://www.conservativezone.com/articles/liberal-professor-mobbed-by-leftists-for-promoting-free-speech/
J D S says
She is just the duplicate of so many college admin personnel and professors. How did we allow so much extra liberalism into our schools and NOT just schools of higher learning either.
watching from a distance says
Did Mr. Hur, the Legal Director, not reply?
Frank Anderson says
Mr. Spencer, it appears you have a skilled and knowledgeable attorney. Listen carefully to the advice you receive and work to protect your interest and reputation.
Legal action (a lawsuit) demands commitment to fight to the end, OR it should never be started. It is expensive and may produce no net gain in money recovered. But when given sound advice by qualified counsel, it beats letting false statements go without being fought. If people think they can say anything they wish without penalty, they will show others to do the same. Starting in 1983 I was the target of such harmful comments until in 1986 when I did the only thing left and sued; starting a war that lasted more than 10 years through many courts, all the way to the US Supreme Court, teaching them to shut up or start a new war where I am much better prepared by the experience to fight and win.
I urge you to consult your attorney before publishing any letters he writes in the future. I support you and appreciate your work.
Please consult a currently licensed attorney practicing in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
Wellington says
Proving once again that mendacity and Leftism are natural allies as are mendacity and Islam.
Indeed, where would Leftism or Islam be without mendacity? Yes, just imagine a world in which Leftists and Buttlims, i.e., Mohammedans aka Muslims, never lie (I know, it’s deuce difficult to do so but, for theory’s sake, just imagine it nonetheless). Both belief systems would have been gone long ago. A beautiful thought I submit (not meant in an Islamic way whatsoever).
In any case, with any failed ideology, gee, let me think here of two—Islam and Leftism—take away from such a deficient ideology the proclivity to lie and such an ideology would have become history even before getting out of the starting gate of Time.
The dearth of liberty—common sense, a proper moral compass and good general knowledge too—is always wrapped up with something wrong. Always. Leftism and Islam serve as sterling examples of this verity.
Westman says
Perhaps, Wellington, the best way forward is to do nothing but document the articles and letters and publish them after Europe is embroiled in civil war with Islam. We know it’s eventually coming and when hostilities become common, Stanford’s position on Robert Spencer will become more embarassing and damaging to both Stanford and the careers of the slanderous writers.
This college generation and their socialist professors have no experience with war and have a very mistaken belief that their affluent lives, in which they have always escaped service to the nation, will continue without challenge. History itself renders that expectation to be a falsehood. The leftist Bill Maher once claimed that he wanted the economy to fail. He will eventually get his wish but it will be a result of something far more dire.
Time can bury blunders or amplify them yet truth eventually comes to the surface dragging the blunders into the open. We all see the blunders of the neo-cons after 9/11. Someday, Stanford will be seen as having no more moral credentials than Leland Stanford. If the SJWs of Stanford had any credibility thay would already be demanding his statue be removed from the campus.
J D S says
Oh Westman. I think there will be many embarrassing situations when not only Europe but much of the west is embroiled in war with islam…Maybe not just civil war either.
Surely a time will come when not just fighting terrorist groups like ISIS but the whole of islam…Surely the west isn’t as dumb as they appear to be…not to the point to where can NOT be awakened. It just may take more billions of gallons blood spilled to do it.
Frank Anderson says
JDS, I was stuck in a waiting room today for about 4 hours during which I was reading Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for the third time, It just happened that I was finishing the account of the surrender of Czechoslovakia and the start of the final attack on Poland. Shirer’s description of Neville Chamberlain’s “come to Jesus” moment when he realized something was wrong was both graphic and concise. I wonder when our current gutless appeasers will have their moments?
gravenimage says
Yes–we need to learn fro history, Frank. Too few do, though.
gravenimage says
from history
Jayell says
I’ll be very brief. Could someone please tell me exactly how and why this woman actually expects to get away with this fanciful garbage, or is she totally absorbed in her own nasty little fantasy world? Doesn’t she know where reality ends and fantasy begins? In which case she’s got a problem and would seriously need a course of professional therapy before anyone gives her any kind of responsible job. And do CNN, the New York Times and Washington Post also really not understand the difference between accurate news reporting (i.e., printing what’s actually being said and done) rather than creating their own fanciful little ersatz-realities, no doubt as an excuse for public axe-grinding ultimately to gratify their over-sized egos and give themselves some sense of (unearned) public importance? Surely these ‘creative’ talents are better suited to producing tawdry soap operas for the consumption of people with nothing better to do, rather than in the serious communications media of the real world where having integrity and honesty is actually supposed to matter.
Frank Anderson says
Jayell, the reason I am no longer married is that my ex-wife wanted to end the war at any cost, including my surrendering my law license in one state which automatically surrenders it in the other. Liars are both bullies and cowards. They use their positions of power and influence expecting that they will get away with it; because most of the time they do. Fighting takes time, attention and money. Liars know this and doubt until they are shown that the subject of their lies has 1) the financial resources, 2) the legal resources and 3) the will to fight to the last legal weapon and breath to win. Then they will fear, and teach others to fear. Who will do Spencer’s work while he fights?
One major issue in any lawsuit is proof of injury (damages). In some states, some forms of libel (written) or slander (spoken) defamation claims have a presumption of injury under the law. Also, in some states, if the plaintiff (our host) wins he may recover his attorney fees and expenses of litigation, which can be astronomical. Then the problem becomes one of collection.
Until a final judgment is obtained financing the war is to say the least a problem. How much can WE contribute in support of Robert Spencer? Is it enough to obtain victory, or will he be cut short as the US Democratic Congress cut short and abandoned South Vietnam in 1975?
Please consult a currently licensed attorney practicing in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
Jayell says
I’m in the UK, so the ‘leading attorney’ until recently would have been a specimen named Alsion Saunders, who for some reason believed that she was entitled to allow her blatantly malicious personal feminist agenda to inform her actions as head of the Crown Prosecution Service, with the result that for nearly five years life in the UK became like a re-run of the Salem witch-hunts for any man who for any reason had had the misfortune of being accused or ‘rape’. Consequently, many more than just a few men found themselves hounded or even locked up until appeals and reviews led to case after case collapsing, and eventually Saunders ‘decided not to continue her tenure in post’ – after some good advice, no doubt? She never blamed herself but blamed the police for ‘not processing evidence correctly’, of course, but seemed to forget the fact that she herself had instructed the police to step up convictions at any cost and appeared to be conveniently unaware that eveyone else in the UK had remembered her instructions. No word of apology, even to this day, and apparently she’s in for a national honour!!! It strikes me that Courtney Douglas and Alison Saunders have something in common. Can’t think what it might be!
Might be an idea to be bit wary of certain kinds of ‘licensed attorney’.
Frank Anderson says
Jayell, I wholeheartedly agree that many attorneys are to be avoided. I went to law school over 40 years ago for that reason; and my opinion of attorneys has not improved. I have never had as much fun as the 5 times I have asked judges to put lawyers on the witness stand to testify against their clients in the middle of a trial. Under US law, if one knows the cases, it is easy.
The reason for my repeating the admonition to consult a currently licensed attorney for any legal advice is that it is required in order for me, a retired licensed attorney,.to speak/write about legal questions for the purpose of informing non-lawyers of their rights and duties, and then to refer them immediately to currently licensed lawyers. I am posting under enough of my name that the bar will never have any argument that I am trying to hide from it by using a false name. So everything I write is as nearly correct and within all rules as I am capable.
I was the target of a completely false prosecution for doing exactly as bar rules required in the presence of crime or fraud. It took a number of years and the destruction of my family to win. Then I sued the bar and others for abusing their power. To my relief, I fought with only one while the other state bar supported me the whole way. From what I am told, I am the only case that crooked prosecutor ever lost.
Phil Copson says
“….for any man who for any reason had had the misfortune of being accused or ‘rape’…”
————————————————————————————————————-
Not for any man – for any white man, you mean – and preferably a high-profile Conservative. Edward Heath, Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor, Lord Bramall, Lord McAlpine, even poor bl**dy Cliff Richard !
Never a shred of evidence, only ludicrous allegations that could have been disproved in twenty minutes flat by doing some basic fact-checking but that, of course, would have defeated the whole point of these enquiries, which is (A) for the Left to attack it’s class enemies in the Conservative Party, (B) for the Lefty lawyers to get their hands on millions of pounds of public money to carve-up between them, and (C) to distract public attention from the fact that Third World rape-gangs have been unleashed in British towns and cities.
How many weeks mileage did the BBC get out of their stupid story that a top Conservative politician put his hand on a female journalist’s knee TWELVE YEARS AGO ? How could you possibly prove or disprove a story like that ? It shows nothing but contempt for the victims of real sex-crimes that they even ran it as a story at all.
Wellington says
“Could someone please tell me exactly how and why this woman actually expects to get away with this fanciful garbage, or is she totally absorbed in her own nasty little fantasy world?”
All other things being equal, Jayell, if this woman had never attended college, she would have had a far greater chance of not engaging in the errors and lies which your query addressed.
Nothing in our age, not even the MSM or thinking that the Democratic Party has any good ideas left, can make you foolish faster than attending what used to be institutions of higher learning but which have now become indoctrination centers of abysmal learning. Having spent a third of a century or so in academia, I can tell you and all that colleges and universities, with few exceptions, have become terribly corrupted by political correctness and multiculturalism, in short Leftism. And Leftism, which is a totalitarian ideology as is Islam, Nazism and Marxism, doesn’t give a damn about the truth. What it is interested in is power and the destruction of liberty. In short, it has become yet another influential moron posing as something sapient.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, one of the major legal campaigns I helped involved just such academic evil. Two professors were abused for daring to apply for a position that the “powers that be” wanted to go to an outsider, who was not qualified under the handbook to take. At one time I had a dream of earning a PhD in Accounting to escape from the practice of law. But the same academic fascism wrecked that plan. The person who was the common element of the professors and my disappointment was reduced to a quivering mass by the lawsuits we prosecuted. Lawyers, especially those with not enough to do, can go to court real cheap. One of my cohorts, a former Paratrooper, loved to say a lawsuit is the most fun you can have for the price of the court costs.
Norger says
I suspect the real issue is proving damages (i.e. compensatory injury to reputation) in a case like this. If Spencer proves all the elements of libel but fails to prove damages, it’s a victory for the other side. One of the defenses that the student (and Stanford) will offer is that Spencer is such a notorious “Islamophobe” (banned from the U.K., on the SPLC’s “hate” list) that his reputation was not damaged in any discernible way by this article.
Truth be damned,
Frank Anderson says
Norger, I think you have identified correctly the challenge to a defamation case. The liar depends on the difficulty of proving damages as a shield to having to pay for lying. And we can be essentially certain that any individuals sued will be defended with the resources of the school instead of their own. Meaning unlimited defense budget against a limited plaintiff’s budget.
ZM says
Sue
Peter says
Clearly, she is positioning herself for a post-graduation career at MSNBC (Main Socialist News Broadcasting Corporation) or CNN (Contortion News Network).
Wellington says
Also standing (MSNBC and CNN respectively) for Marxist, Socialist Nothing But Crap and the Clinton News Network. One can choose his poison here.
Dapto says
Stanford the Fascist university of America send your children their at your own peril
lisa says
Why are you people begging for a correction? RIDICULOUS. Sue Stanford. If you have been slandered, defamed, and more, SUE THE SCHOOL AND ASK FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES. The only way the media will ever stop slandering is if they are punished….FINANCIALLY. Donate and money to charity. BUT SUE THEM.
Frank Anderson says
Lisa, I think a currently licensed attorney would explain to you that our host, Spencer, is probably a “public figure”. As such he falls under the limitations of New York Times v. Sullivan, where he must show “actual malice” which is defined by the US Supreme Court as “knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth”. By presenting the letter, the first step of prosecuting the case in court is taken. They have no excuse that they did not know of the falsity of their statements. Their failure to correct shows arguable “reckless disregard for the truth”. At this point their best defense is delay, delay, delay, trying to wear out Spencer and spend all his resources before the conclusion of the case.
Please consult a currently licensed attorney practicing in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
mortimer says
Mr. Anderson, There was already in fact a great deal of double dealing against Mr. Spencer in the manner in which his address was managed and sabotaged by those running the university.
It’s time to call them. They are bluffing.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, we who support Spencer and JW need to make sure none of us ever are even suspected of bluffing. When respect fails, FEAR WINS. Terrorize the terrorists. Go back and watch the opening scene of George C. Scott in Patton. The people who wish to enslave us, with many labels, have no respect. Therefore we must teach them fear.
Norger says
“Punitive damages” are a tall order. In legal terms, this requires “aggravated liability” on the part of the defendant; something more than negligence (e.g. recklessness; willful and wanton misconduct). In practical terms, this means convincing the “trier of fact” (judge or jury) that the defendant has done something so outrageous that he/she deserves not just to pay damages, but to be monetarily punished. Unfortunately the jury is unlikely to be made up of JW posters; I think punitive damages are just extremely unlikely here. As noted above, I would expect the defense to argue that Spencer suffered no discernible harm on account of this publication, even though it was demonstrably false.
Frank Anderson says
Norger, I believe you are entirely correct as a general matter and in most states. There is one possibility I know where the general rule has an exception, defamation per se. For example false accusation of insanity or criminal conduct, can make the punitive damage issue a little easier to claim. Them a single dollar of compensatory damages can give rise to punitive or exemplary damages to punish and deter., not just to compensate. As both potential plaintiff and most or all defendants are in one state, California, that state’s laws will almost certainly apply.
Please consult a currently licensed attorney practicing in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
PRCS says
“Very few people have done as much as Robert Spencer to expose the ongoing oppression of Muslim women, Jews, gays, and other minorities in Middle Eastern countries, which should have been self-evident to Mr. Wilck and the Stanford Daily from news stories demonstrating large-scale murder and repression of Muslims by ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. Mr. Spencer’s research and exposure of the abuse of minority groups at the hands of extremist elements in Muslim countries should be a legitimate part of any dialogue about extremism.”
To my knowledge, Mr. Spencer has not limited his research and reporting to so-called “extremist elements” in just Muslim countries.
I wonder if Mr. Hoffman would–after reading Qur’an–be able to explain (a) at what point a Muslim’s compliance with Islam’s TEXTS becomes extremism and (b) which of Qur’an’s passages “moderate” Muslims are permitted to ignore.
gravenimage says
Stanford’s Courtney Douglas publishes lies about Robert Spencer, refuses to retract even when they’re proven false
…………………
Appalling–but no surprise.
RCCA says
You’re dealing with students at Stanford, facts don’t matter, and emotions count more than anything especially with the left and with children. The fact is that you responded to their accusations in a widely read website as opposed to a college student publication. They probably saw that as an adult beating up a little children, so mean, so all bets are off. Unfortunately they are also cynical enough to know that they can get away with this because Robert won’t sue them, he’s pleading for just a retraction. They are laughing at you, Robert. Sad to say.
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know where this is going, but I wish you were suing them.
kouldb says
Mr Spencer. Can you not take legitimate action against this disgraceful establishment? I understand it could be costly & time consuming. But surely as some point one has to make a stand? To sure them that you’re serious? This endless defamation, slander & incitement to violence against anyone who criticises these vapid leftists has to end. I purchased your book The History of Jihad: From Muhammed to ISIS. And even in there, you do not say anything that even remotely incites hatred towards Muslims. I’ve followed your work for years. You articles, videos & posts. Not once have I heard or seen you do or say anything that would even closely resemble the incitement of hatred towards anyone. Least of all Standford students. As for some of them apparently getting hate male. Well they invented the concept. But in any case. How is that linked to you? Those posting hateful comments are likely doing so of their own volition. For goodness knows these people have pushed normal, decent, law-abiding people to the brink. Chances are, any hate being directed at them is the consequence of their own behaviours and/or words. It has nothing to do with you. When did you become responsible for the conduct of everyone the left disagrees with anyway? I thought Donald Trump had that covered. For they blame him for all of it as it stands. Good God. Perhaps you would consider a fund raiser if you need help with legal fees? I think you’ll find you have a great deal of support. In the meantime, best wishes & God bless you from Down Under. Where we still have a sane Prime Minister & freedom of the press. Perhaps you would consider moving here instead? You would be welcome I assure you. And safer by the look of it. In the meantime. Take care, watch your back & let us know if you need support. It would be an honour. You are true hero!
mortimer says
It is standard practice in all ethnical newspapers to publish retractions of statements that are inaccurate with an apology to the person who is falsely accused as well as to the readers.
The Stanford Daily should immediately do so and the management of Stanford U. should insist on it.
Frank Anderson says
Please, how many of us who wish for Spencer to take legal action are willing to make a monetary pledge for the duration of the case, through all discovery and appeals, taking more or less 10 years, that will help finance the case? I predict that many of us could contribute some reasonable, affordable amount each month for that purpose. But, like another issue (SPLC) where many think legal action is needed, where will the money come from to conduct a legal war to the finish? It is easy to sit in the stands and say, “Let’s you and him fight.” It is hard to get in the ring and join the fight, even through something as remote as making contributions to pay the bills. Attorney fees are only part of what must be paid during the lawsuit. Lawsuits are not free. And they certainly do not guarantee a win or a profitable outcome. .
gravenimage says
Grimly true.
David Jackson says
Sue this scourilous libel printing rag and their editor with it, making sure they have to use separate legal counsel (to run up their costs) THe only way now, in the absence of decency is to fight these mongrels with fire.
Daniel Silvan says
Have you got time to file a lawsuit Robert?
Aton says
I would be happy to give $50 towards legal action…
Aton
Frank Anderson says
Aton, it is fair to guess Stanford has billions in assets and hundreds of millions in annual revenue. A monthly litigation budget for Spencer of more or less 100,000 dollars, every month, every year, for the duration of the case, is a fair estimate of what is needed for all expenses and fees. Without adequate funding, he can be expensed out of the case and win nothing, possibly being forced to pay the defendants bills for failing to prosecute his claim. Legal fees and expenses are never discussed on television. Everyone always has plenty of money to do anything the writers imagine. But in the real world, all legal fights need money just as in other wars soldiers need ammunition.
Fifty dollars a month, rain or shine, would add up if enough of us can make and keep a commitment. Shall we lose our freedom alone, or work together to do what we can to protect it from evil. If freedom is lost, money won’t make any difference: What the conquerors don’t take they will tell us how to spend.
Ann Marie says
Courtney Douglas: the face of modern feminism which embodies lying and bullying to the fullest . (and when they don’t get their way, they cry they’re being attacked because they’re female)
G-d save us from these idiots….
Charles A Williams says
“Truth” is now a post-modern inconvenience. Journalists do not care about what is “true” or self-evident anymore.They have a social justice commitment and if they need to lie to create the villains that they need for their virtue, then they will do so. This is the exact mentality that led to the powerful prosecutors of the inquisition, like Tomas De Torquemada, or Robert Bellarmine, or of the Salem Witch trials, like Reverend Cotton Mater, or John Hathorn. They want to be virtuous above a villain, so they will even resort to lies and smears to impugn, then avoid any due process or exculpatory evidence, because the narrative is more important to them than truth. Even at the ACLU, spokesman Faiz Shakir said of Kavanaugh on the Tucker Carlson show “…he is not entitled to the presumption of innocence…”. The “Civil Liberties” in the name have become an Orwellian irony.
Charles says
“Truth” is now a post-modern inconvenience. Journalists do not care about what is “true” or self-evident anymore.They have a social justice commitment and if they need to lie to create the villains that they need for their virtue, then they will do so. This is the exact mentality that led to the powerful prosecutors of the inquisition, like Tomas De Torquemada, or Robert Bellarmine, or of the Salem Witch trials, like Reverend Cotton Mater, or John Hathorn. They want to be virtuous above a villain, so they will even resort to lies and smears to impugn, then avoid any due process or exculpatory evidence, because the narrative is more important to them than truth. Even at the ACLU, spokesman Faiz Shakir said of Kavanaugh on the Tucker Carlson show “…he is not entitled to the presumption of innocence…”. The “Civil Liberties” in the name have become an Orwellian irony.
terry says
Sue their xxx.
Nannette says
Please do the free world a big favour and sue these diabolical hatemongers for everything they’ve got!
They can’t get away with fabricating stories and publishing them as truth!
It would also be serving justice if they were thrown in jail for such lies! Never let these lowlife scumbags get away with such crimes!
Terra Nova says
Stanford University went out a long time ago and will not revive anymore, may be only by gifts from Quatar or the Saudi’s, but not from inside the USA by their citizens. Muslims think today by putting on a smart western suit, puts more fear into us. Excuse me, but clothes do not make you a man. A man is different. He does not beat women, he does not take 3 or 4 wives. He treats his family with respect and love, he does not kill his wife or children for whatever reason, he does not rape, no beheading, no flogging, no stoning till death and he tells no one in his family how to eat sleep, or if she is aloud to drive a car or not.
Women have rights on their own lives to.
All men, imams, sheikhs must be really scared of women, that they behave like that.
QUESTION; Has anybody heard of Mosab Hassas Yousef “son of Hamas aka Green Prince. He is the son of one of the Hamas founders from Palestine.
I came on a few video’s of him and I don’t know…..
You can find him on Google:
“Son of Hamas akaGreen Prince speaks at Jerusalem Post 2016 Conference”
M.H.Y stuns the human rights council debate sept. 29 – 201
M.H.Y vs Imam Turk @ The Museum of Tolerance
Mosabs H.Y. tells the UN the shocking truth about Islam.
This guy was tased as aMuslim with so much hate for the jews, fought under Hamas against Israel, was caught and had to serve in an Israelien jail 25 months. And when he was there, he discovered that Jews were not at all how they wrote about them in the Qur’an, so he started to learn about Christianity and Judaism. He converted to Christianity, which was such a shame for his family as his father was head of Hamas. He started to meditate, and he himself said, that we were to late to stop this, only with Gods help…., but he asked us to condemn the Religion and not all the muslims, anyway, you want to know more, listen to the video’s, but it is the first normal Muslim I have seen and heard, but see for yourself, I would like Mr. Spencer to look, may be he knows him already, if anybody does, pls notify me. Thanks
gravenimage says
Many of us here are familiar with him. A brave man.
Kilauea says
Apparently Stanford either doesn’t have a Journalism Dept. or it doesn’t teach common journalistic standards that were commonplace in the 1970s. Miss Douglas doesn’t seem to know the difference in accurate reporting and an opinion piece that amounts to nothing more than a personal attack on Mr. Spencer. It’s a shame that Stanford University doesn’t have integrity to step in and put a stop to this horse manure that passes for journalism.
mortimer says
Anyone who makes a deal with Islam makes an unholy alliance. The Leftarded globalists at Stanford U. are exploiting Islam as a weapon against Western democracy and its philosophy of freedom.
Stanford U. has become a propaganda factory and has turned its back on the dispassionate pursuit of truth.
Donors should stop contributing to this propaganda mill until it adopts the CHICAGO PRINCIPLES:
1) ongoing intellectual challenge,
2) rigorous questioning,
3) discourse,
4) argument, and
5) lack of deference.
mortimer says
The Stanford Daily is running a kangaroo court and no one accused by Stanford Daily has a right to resist or protest their character assassinations and falsehoods.
The Stanford Daily is like Der Sturmer or the Soviet-era Pravda, a propaganda sheet with one-sided messages and with no questioning of the party line.
Any university that doesn’t defend free discourse and the first amendment freedoms should have its funding cut. PROPAGANDA and PROLETARIAN RAGE should not be the main products of academia.
They are clearly enemies of the pursuit of knowledge.
Edmund Carey says
I haven’t read the whole thread here, so, this simple observation may have been made, but, what this all comes down to is that Courtney Douglas, for being, indisputably, a “liar, who has no acquaintance with actual journalism, much less with basic human decency” – which is clearly something in which she feels fully justified simply because her cause is so politically correct – will be the opposite of criticised by her colleagues, by the student body at her university, and, incredibly, by officials of that university. She will be celebrated for it.
I don’t know if Robert Spencer through his legal representatives intends to pursue this, but, I would call it advisable. Time for a lesson in responsibility – unless Miss Douglas is in fact five years old. Which is about the level of her emotional maturity.
UNCLE VLADDI says
i.e: “Since life is too complex for anyone to ever be able to understand cause and effect, and all so-called objective “facts” are really only opinions, therefore my entirely fact-free, subjective opinion is the diversely opposite equal to your silly facts, Robert Spencer! Whee!”