Mark earned himself a profile page. Did you know he is part of an elite club of geologists claiming they have yet to see anyone make a strong case for the validity of evolution? Neither did I. Thanks, Google!
Posts archived in Free Speech
Dolley says of my response to being “outed”:
It took him like 11 days to come up with that masterpiece of a denial…what a putz…
Actually, since Naran posted her misinformed theory on April 29, I responded in slightly less than eleven days. More like one. You’re good at counting!
Naran really jumped the shark on this one.
First, she “outs” Shea Gunther as me when he, whoever he is, has nothing to do with me other than the fact that his friendfeed contains a quote from my blog. She posts his photo and bio, then watches as AMGers proceed to lampoon this innocent third party bystander.
She also says this:
He says Shea Gunther is a “friend.” Then, he Tweets this gem:
Am I a dirty hippy blogging from a feces-powered eco-computer? Find out now!
http://bit.ly/bRVaVaWow. Some “friend.”
Naran: You may have had to sell your eyeglasses to pay the property taxes in Kennebunk, but if you squint really hard you will notice that I never said Shea Gunther was my friend. You put “friend” in quotes as if I said it. I know I didn’t say that because I’m pretty sure I’d never even heard of Shea Gunther until two days ago when you dragged him into the AMG pit of ridicule.
She then continues to say that I somehow libeled Mr. Gunther by calling him a “dirty hippie.” Let me say that I like hippies, I’ve got no problem with them. Calling someone a dirty hippie is a way we dirty hippies mock conservatives who call us dirty hippies. Get it?
Frankly, if anyone has committed libel in this whole fracas I think it is Naran. I’m serious. I called someone a dirty hippie. I made fun of something a libertarian politician said on a political message board. Whoopty-doo. Naran, on the other hand, posted the name, photo, and bio of a completely unrelated private party and asserted that he writes this blog. Which shows the most careless disregard for the facts? It’s not as if Naran even had a good reason to think Shea Gunther is me.
In my honest opinion I think Naran is more at risk of a libel judgment than anyone else.
To be clear, however, I don’t even think Naran’s failed attempts at interweb sleuthing rise to the level of libel. I just think she’s a lot closer to it than anything I’ve ever done.
Satire Is Not Libel
First, I want to thank Bill Nemitz for picking up the story. I may very will get more hits on this site in the next few days than in its entire lifetime up to this point.
Second, I want to say wholeheartedly that I completely, in every way, agree with the title: “Online anonymity shouldn’t grant license to libel.” It shouldn’t, and in the end it doesn’t.
I strongly object, however, to the implication that what I said about Mr. Cenci was libel. It simply wasn’t.
Satire is not libel. For something to be libelous, the reader has to think it was meant as fact. Anyone reading my site will discern that it is not serious. It is a parody of a political website. Nearly every post, save this one, is meant to elicit a laugh.
If someone reads a post from an anonymous blogger with a silly website and takes that as actual real evidence that another person the blogger has never met smokes marijuana – and my words clearly refer to Mr. Cenci’s quote as the sole basis for my “knowledge” - then I’m sorry, reader, but you are none too bright. In fact, I think if someone, such as a potential client, truly worries whether Mr. Cenci lights up they should be far more concerned that Mr. Cenci actually admitted he likes watching Harold and Kumar than by my satirical line, “now I know he’s buzzed.” Which carries more weight? Mr. Cenci may have damaged his reputation with his own words far more than I ever could.
The Risk Of Attaching Your Full Name To Everything You Ever Say Online
I also want to disagree with Mr. Nemitz’s implication that Mark Cenci is in no way to blame for this situation by daring to attach his full legal name to every little thing he writes on As Maine Goes.
Nemitz wrote:
In fact, Sam said, all of this could have been avoided if Cenci logged in to As Maine Goes with a pseudonym of his own.
“Then when I refer to his user name, it wouldn’t show up on Google results with his actual name,” Sam said. “So again, there are some real benefits to not having your name attached to everything you do online.”
Translation: Cenci, simply by attaching his real name to his Internet musings, now has nobody but himself to blame for being publicly labeled a pothead.
Not exactly, but here’s my point: The internet is not a private conversation. Everything you write in a public forum like As Maine Goes is there for the entire world to see, possibly forever. In the past, before the internet, statements only became accessible to the entire world with a lot of work. You had to be a big author, or work for a newspaper. Those people put a lot of time and thought into what they say.
The internet is entirely different. What Mr. Cenci did is equivalent to etching into the side of a mountain overlooking the world, “I really, really like Harold and Kumar.” He put it out there for everyone to see. Little children in China may now be aware that Mark Cenci, whoever he is, totally digs that movie. That statement has entered the wider universe along with all the connotations that go with it, not all of which may be what Mr. Cenci was hoping.
This is why many, many people, I daresay most people, use a pseudonym when corresponding in casual online public forums. They don’t have to be anonymous, per se. “Mark T. Cenci” might instead choose to be known as “Mark the Geologist,” or just “Mark.” Sure, his friends would know who he was. But not everyone would.
That way, he wouldn’t have to ponder each and every tiny bit of information he writes and think, “How will this look to people who don’t know me?” How will this look to my clients? How will this look if taken out of context? How will this look when processed through a search engine? How will this look if some kid quotes it on a blog?” His words would be less permanently attached to himself by every single person who ever googles his real name. If Mark Cenci wouldn’t say to a potential client that he likes watching movies about smoking copious amounts of pot, then he shouldn’t attach his name to that statement on a public website either. He chose to make that statement using the same name he uses for his business. His choice.
Anonymity, even partial anonymity, has its uses. The internet is a big scary place. Sometimes the whole world really is listening.
Check out my summary of this whole alleged libel case over at DirigoBlue. Many thanks to Gerald for his support.
And for those of you that haven’t seen Harold and Kumar, here’s a taste. Probably not safe for work due to language and gratuitous man on plant sex.
Dear Mark T. Cenci,
In the past few days we have been discussing, via e-mail, your threat of a lawsuit against me based on a joke I made about something you said on As Maine Goes. The joke went like this: You said that you liked the movie Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle. I wrote:
Another notable movie favorite is Mark T. Cenci’s Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle. I always thought Mark was a buzzkill but now I know he’s just buzzed. Also explains the whole libertarian thing- that is the most convenient philosophy for those angry at the government getting between them and their ganja. Even further explains why Mark wanted to privatize Loring Air Force Base: he thought they’d use it to hold Phish concerts 24/7.
For those that don’t know, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle is an especially popular movie in “stoner” culture. Think of it as a modern day Cheech and Chong flick.
Mark, here is my opinion on this whole thing. You are a recent chair of the Maine Libertarian Party. You are currently listed as its Secretary on Lpedia.org and your AMG posts have, for years, made clear that you were active in Libertarian politics. I made a joke about something you said in a political forum. You somehow think that is the basis for a lawsuit? Get real.
Through your emails, you’ve made clear that you believe the basis for a lawsuit would be my statement that I “know” you are using an illegal substance.
Mark T. Cenci: that is inanely hypocritical. I mean that. There is hypocritical, and then there is holy-cow-what-are-you-smoking-hypocritical. The Libertarian party believes in free speech. The Libertarian party wants to legalize drugs, including cannabis. You, a recent chair of the Libertarian party, wrote that you like one of the most notorious burnout movies of the past decade. The joke was there waiting to made.
Look at it from my point of view. The leader of the “hey man let’s legalize all drugs” party admits he likes watching stoner movies? It would be humor malpractice if I didn’t make a joke about it.
Old Mark T. Cenci, a Libertarian stalwart who purported to support free speech, once had a better sense of humor about this thing. Check out this thread on AMG. In it, AMGer Dan Billings says that he took an online political quiz showing he trended towards libertarianism but that they “lose me on drugs.”
Mark T. Cenci then chimed in with a little joke:
They lose you on drugs? Well get off drugs and then take the quiz.
Did you see that, Mark? You made a joke about someone else using an illegal substance. You told Dan to get off the drugs. Online. In writing.
Under your logic, Dan Billings could have sued you.
Dan, however, took a slightly less deranged path. He responded:
But I thought you had to be high to be a Libertarian?
:D
Oh my goodness. Dan just implied that all Libertarians use illegal substances. Now you can sue him too, Mark! And not just you, but all Libertarians. Everywhere. That would be, like, at least two or three-hundred people. A real class action.
Oddly though, you didn’t sue. You instead wrote:
Is that what they meant when they advised me to take the high road?
What? Just a little light humorous response? No attempts to intimidate Dan into removing his written words from the bowels of the internet? What gives? Why does Dan Billings get a pass but I get the threat of a lawsuit?
Maybe it is because Dan used the little smiley face emoticon when he joked about you being high. Am I going to receive the world’s first legal demand letter insisting that I add an emoticon to my post to make clear that, no, I do not literally know Mark T. Cenci is buzzed? I hope I do so I could frame that sucker. That’d be great.
Here’s the deal Mark: This isn’t going to work. I’m not going to take down my joke without a court order. Political personalities aren’t allowed to coerce people into not making jokes about them. In my opinion, what you are doing is very, very wrong. It is un-American. It is anti-Libertarian. I’m not going to take it.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.