Michelle Malkin » Gawker lies again

Gawker lies again

By Michelle Malkin • September 17, 2008 06:56 PM

The predictable response from the Gawker smear machine to my criticism of their decision to publish illegally obtained photos of the Palin children?

Slime, false moral equivalence, and more lies.

Here’s the summary, so I don’t have to link and you don’t have to give them traffic:

*They repost the fake bikini photoshop that gives them so much sick pleasure.

*They get their nutroots talking points wrong about the infamous UC Santa Cruz incident. The “college kids” were anti-war militants who publicized their own contact information on a public website and in a public press release in order to tout their efforts to sabotage military recruitment efforts on campus. Those militants never contacted me, never complained, and never asked me to take their public information off my site.

(But never mind. In their warped heads, there’s no difference at all between republishing public information made public by those individuals and publishing private photos of children obtained through the federal crime of illegal e-mail hacking. While we’re on the subject of nutroots talking points, it looks like they forgot to dredge up my “stalking” of the Graeme Frost family and CNN/YouTube debate plants.)

*And to top it all off, they make libelous claims about my second book.

In short: Gawker Media is proud to have violated the Palin children’s privacy and will happily smear those who dare challenge them.

***

From the Gawker advertising page:

Posted in: Gawker, Sarah Palin

Printer Friendly

comments (93)

trackbacks (15)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On September 18th, 2008 at 1:38 pm, jeffislouie said:

So you’re using the same term to describe college kids as the media uses for Islamic terrorists who, you know, actually kill people? Interesting….

Yeah, the ‘media’ uses that term to describe terrorists. That’s because the ‘media’ are idiots. They are afraid to call ismlamic terrorists by name and use the easier to digest term ‘militant’.

So, dipsticks, here’s the definition of ‘militant’:
an aggressive or fighting person; one who serves as a soldier; aggressive or combative; fighting or warlike; belligerent

and here is the definition of terrorist:

Anyone who uses terror as a weapon in a political struggle, frequently in an attempt to coerce a more powerful opponent

Those college kids were militants. The a-hole radical islamists who kill people in the name of god? They are terrorists.

It’s called ‘english’ and I recommend you take some time to learn about it.
#104

On September 19th, 2008 at 4:42 pm, lgm said:

Ron Rockstar said (#90):

I said “generally speaking”. (insult omitted) Yes, there are a few Republicans who have a disdain for the law,

OK. Name the clean ones.

Bush ?
Cheney ?
McCain ?
Romney ?
Huckabee (seems clean to me)