John C. Hall, Jr. of Dublin, Georgia, has complained (although not directly to me) that a post on this blog from December 30, 2011, libeled him. He did not specify the libel (which, of course, is required) or claim that anything specific said by anyone was untrue (as most of the original post consisted of complete quotes from him, as as he contributed the most comments to the post, he finds himself in a difficult situation, for reproducing what he has said does not constitute libel). Apparently what set him over the edge was my posting what he said on the SHPG’s Facebook page on January 10, 2012, namely:
no thanks I will skip an article …especially when you see the author’s name….zimmerman…..
(You can read Connie Chastain’s defense of this comment here.)
Originally I gave Mr. Hall ten days to identify the libel in the post of December 30, 2011. He has failed to respond. He has a week left to identify the libel. Failure to do so constitutes an admission that there is nothing libelous in the post.
Originally I had pulled the post on my own pending his reply, but, seeing nothing libelous in what is there (perhaps Mr. Hall confuses self-incrimination with libel), and lacking Mr. Hall’s identification of what is libelous, I’ve decided to return it to its rightful place.
Note: for the comments made by Mr. Hall on The Atlantic’s online blogs, see the following:
… and …
… and …
As for Mr. Hall’s Confederate ancestor, see here.
Crossroads 
Could I please see the blog from december 30th?
You can.
And, Aaron, since you seem curious about this, I’ve added images of Mr. Hall’s comments at The Atlantic for you to see. The link is here, so you can enjoy the entire exchange.
Aaron, you will find that the trash he’s posted here and elsewhere, hiding behind the screen name of “Fortpillow,” is very different in tone and substance than what he posts on SHPG under his own name.
When good “seed” goes bad.
That would be an interesting libel case – defaming somebody by reprinting his own words. It would actually beat one that I defended in which the defamed plaintiff claimed at deposition that his mental distress was caused by his lawyer’s press conference announcing the lawsuit. I’ll leave aside the separate question of reputation before and after publication.
Mr. Hall cannot object to the original post for two reasons:
1) All it does is present his own words.
2) His initial response? “Mr. Simpson…bravo….I appreciate the notoriety.” No mention there of being libeled … in fact, he kindly took ownership of the posts at The Atlantic published under his screen name, “Fortpillow.”
So the post stays.
Nor has Mr. Hall actually notified me of anything. He threatens people via phone messages and e-mails. Nor has anyone told me to do anything in response to his threats.
Mr. Hall’s been given a chance to specify what’s libelous. He’s failed to respond to that offer.
Oh, I’d be rather surprised if any even half-competent lawyer could tell him with a straight face that he has a defamation claim. Even ambulance chasers make sure that the odds are in their favor.
Well, a trial would certainly give a lot of publicity to what Mr. Hall has been saying, since he’d have to argue that quoting his own words defames/libels him. Ponder the consequences of that argument.
Yep -that’s my point. There’s a reason a very small percentage of defamation lawsuit threats go beyond the “threat” stage. Clemens cajoled his lawyers to file but then it all still headed south. There’s all this nasty stuff about “truth”, how good was the “reputation” to begin with, etc. This one wouldn’t even need a McNamee – it would only need the plaintiff..
From Mr. Hall on the SHPG: “Gentlemen and Ladies. I have become quite a target by Yankee abolitionists’ blog. It seems that either he or one of the members here is feeding information from this group to this individual. Just wanted all to be aware of this. Cowardice is the perceived failure to demonstrate sufficient mental robustness and courage in the face of a challenge. Nuff said.”
Then again, he’s admitted this: “Knowing that the NAACP was at the forefront of the charge against the colors across the South since their declaration of war in 1991. I took it personally to delve into the enemy’s lair. I am a CPA and used it as a ruse to get a copy of the NAACP’s tax return. Any 501-3c has to hand over their tax return upon request. Ah but the NAACP will send you their consolidated return. It is the parent return that shows the ridiculous salaries and compensation for this corrupt organization. I do believe that is why I was targeted by the FBI and the SPLC.” Interesting admission.
And one might not be surprised by this statement: “I will chip in to fund the boat back to Kenya for the current occupant of the “White” house….”
Mr. Simpson, why not just leave John alone? Why not just leave the SHPG alone? Are you tickled by defeaming people?
So what you’re arguing, Aaron, is that it’s fine for John C. Hall, Jr. to attack people and discuss their heritage and “seed,” but he should be left alone (and free to continue to bother others)? And the SHPG should be left alone so that its members may disparage others, including various bloggers? Is quoting what John C. Hall, Jr. says “defeaming” him?
What you’re telling me is that the SHPG can’t take scrutiny. Members don’t want to be held accountable for what they say. You have offered various comments over there critical of others, but you don’t want to be held accountable for what you say or have to back up what you say. Is that it?
Perhaps you need to offer other people your own advice, Aaron. That would include yourself. I don’t comment at the SHPG. You comment here. And the people at the SHPG should leave the good people of Lexington alone, if we are to follow your logic.
There’s a very good argument to make that one can give the SHPG too much attention, since, according to former member Connie Chastain, it is largely ineffective. Others here have offered various opinions on that.
Tell you what, Aaron: if John C. Hall, Jr. apologized here and on the comment section of The Atlantic to the people he insulted, we’d see that he wanted to be left alone (instead of expressing his appreciation for the attention, as he did on this blog). He can also contact the people he’s contacted at ASU and withdraw his allegations and complaints. Let’s see evidence of that by this coming Monday, when Americans celebrate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And let’s see you share all this with your friends at the SHPG. Thank you.
John has a message he wanted me to give you:”Nuts.” And here is the response he got from the ASu president:
Mr. Hall:
I received your correspondence and understand that you have previously received a reply from my office explaining Arizona State University’s lack of purview in this matter.
Earlier this week, I also received a copy of Professor Simpson’s reply to you and, as clearly stated by the disclaimer on his personal blog and in his e-mail, his online comments neither reflect the opinions of ASU nor are they endorsed by ASU. Given that fact, and also that Professor Simpson’s blog is not housed on university servers, there is no action to be taken by ASU.
Thank you for your inquiry and please note that this e-mail constitutes my office’s final communication on this issue.
Michael M. Crow
President
Arizona State University
So John Hall is hiding behind teenagers now?
So it would seem. He’s actually never conveyed his charges directly to me, so in fact there are no charges or allegations in play … just threats made to one’s workplace that lack support for the allegations made.
The more Mr. Hall does, the more he draws attention to what he has said and done.
I note that Mr. Kidd did not share my request with the SHPG.
Note that Mr. Kidd never did respond to the challenge. Recall what Mr. Hall posted on the SHPG: “Cowardice is the perceived failure to demonstrate sufficient mental robustness and courage in the face of a challenge.”
Of course, the SHPG later took that down … apparently members did not want to look too carefully into the idea that some of its membership … or its leadership … was sharing information with outsiders.
Perhaps, Mr. Kidd, you should invest in a dictionary, so you can learn the definition of (as well as the spelling of) “defaming.” Presenting a person’s own words and allowing those words to speak for themselves is not defaming that person.
Do you agree with Mr. Hall’s apparent claim that being an abolitionist is a bad thing?
Mr. Kidd makes occasional visits here. When asked to prove an assertion, he disappears.
Mr. Kidd,
It is apparent to all that Mr. Hall is wrong, knows he is wrong, and simply cannot admit such.
It really is that simple.
Neil
Well, January 21 has come and gone. Mr. Hall has failed to highlight where I’ve libeled him. Enough said, especially by him.
Brooks,
He has been busy at my site and on Connies new facebook site…he has an open forum on Connies for guessing people’s ethnic heritage (and getting wrong) just like the circus side-show of guessing someone’s weight!