It was Stephen Scaer’s post about Elle Gallo that got her “copyright demand panties” in a wad. Once again, we see that yet another “transgender activist” cannot STAND that someone has an opinion that varies from theirs. Go ahead and read Stephen’s post and then come back. I’ll wait…
So now, having read Stephen’s post, you know that Elle Gallo censored his speech a first time by “canceling” his billboard “speech” about the issues surrounding transgenderism of minor children. So she “stalked” him (see, two can play this game!) and followed him from the billboard to GraniteGrok. She then found me and decided to submit a demand of me – to censor Stephen a second time (emphasis mine):
Steven Scaer has copied information and images from my website that are subject to copyright restrictions. Please immediately remove his opinion piece dated November 21, 2022 “Derry Democrat Saves Citizens from Dangerous Book”.
I look forward to your response.
Silly person – she failed to read our FAQs concerning emails sent to any of we Groksters:
…Anything you send us is fair game and may be used on the site. Exceptions to this policy include if you ask us not to; however, if we judge the email to be nasty, we may still publish it to skewer poor judgment or lack of critical thinking.
And so I have. And in my judgement as the Beneficent Dictator of GraniteGrok, I judged it’s intent to be “nasty” given that I am a Free Speech supporter – demanding that someone be censored isn’t in my wheelhouse except for a very few reasons (e.g., Adult themes but kid friendly).
So I decided to send a response – and to be technically correct, a commentary on both her email above and on Stephen’s post’s commentary:
Dear Ms. Gallo,
I have reviewed your email below as well as Mr. Scaer’s post (he is BCC’d on this email) and I have a few thoughts.
It is clear that he has commented about information located on your New Hampshire House campaign site (from Derry) that you put out for public review. Thus, his actions are a valid expression of protected Speech under the First Amendment as well as Articles 22 and 30 of the New Hampshire Constitution. It is called “public discourse” – a fundamental part of American civics and governance. While you do have a copyright notice at the bottom of your campaign website (now, only a single page), do you know anything of what is known as the Fair Use doctrine when it comes to such material?
In essence, it is legal for others to extract/abstract limited parts of a larger work (e.g., your public political page) with the intent to report upon your words and/or to formulate any kind of commentary upon your speech. In this case, your political stances and actions. Just because the material is copyrighted does not mean that an iron dome now surrounds it that prevents any commentary by others, either in support of or against it. Others are allowed to express their opinions on it.
If you look at the totality of his post, his limited abstraction of your speech pales in comparison to his commentary upon it. It passes muster.
Please also remember that as you voluntarily decided to run for public office, you became a “public person” making it much more likely that others would comment on your political ideas and stances. Thus, it is also legal for him to use your image in identifying you and to further identify you with your own speech.
Reverse the position – the part of your website that mentioned his copyrighted speech (the billboard). Should he have brought a demand that you erase any mention of your “erasing” his speech? Of course not (although he might be able to bring an action for other reasons).
However, you took it upon yourself not to debate his speech, as he has done, but to “silence” his speech. You didn’t just comment upon his speech as he did on yours – you had him CENSORED. Is this what an New Hampshire State Representative is supposed to do (even though you were not successful: https://www.derrynh.org/sites/g/files/vyhlif3026/f/news/returnofvotes11.8.22.pdf) – and then boast about it? And how would you have justified your action given the Oath of Office you would have had to take (NH Constitution, Part Second, Article 84) in which you would have sworn allegiance to the Constitution before taking your House seat:
I, A.B. do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.
You admit his post was an “opinion piece” – again, protected Constitutional speech. You silenced him once and now you are demanding that *I* be your instrument by which you would strip Mr. Scaer of his Free Speech a second time?
So what is my response to your demand (far better than what you did to Mr. Scaer)?
He caught you red-handed and embarrassed you with your own words about your own actions. You admitted to what you did to him – and now you want to hide it? Oh, WAIT! You have! Why DID you remove that part of your campaign website that he screenshotted?
(click to embiggen)
I searched your website – and it is gone. Ashamed of what you did?
Man up and own up to what you did to him – or does “responsibility” not exist in your vocabulary? In fact, you ought to be apologizing to him.
And to be sure, I WILL be posting this response on GraniteGrok in the morning. Welcome to the Streisand Effect (you can look it up on GraniteGrok), Ms. Gallo.
Oh, one last thing – nice linking to DerryUnited from your website. I dryly note that it, too, is copyrighted yet you used all of its information. Should they be demanding that you take down your use of their information for campaign purposes (heh!)?
GraniteGrok.com | [email protected]
No, as a public person, she cannot just say that you cannot quote what I have put out there for all to see. You ran on it so ANYONE gets to comment on it.
Yes, I stand behind Stephen and his right to comment on Elle Gallo’s stances, ideas, and speech. This is the ESSENCE of our democratic process (seeing that “our democracy” [as the Democrats kept yammering about all during this election cycle as if America would be only a burning husk if they didn’t keep their political power] – and this Democrat wants to have it both ways at the same time:
*I* can talk but you cannot. That’s saving Our Democracy.
Sorry, that makes HER the dangerous and extremist person in all this.
So, Elle Gallo – when did you decide that your mission in life was to be “Karen the Censor”?
And yes, snark and satire is a vital part of Free Speech, Ms. Gallo.
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://granitegrok.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.