Vanguard News Network

Pretenses of free speech aside, Canuks, for the most part, are the children of British loyalists– Tories. Genetics is more important than environment. Even California, determined by me years ago as for human habitation, has an anti-SLAPP lawsuit provision in the its Code of Civil Procedure. It would be interesting to read all filings purporting to prove the allegations in this document.

I am so upset. Mr. Fromm is one of my Internet Pals. I wish Bud and Mark would have a special VNN radio tonight and have him as a guest. I don’t know if that is feasible or not, but it would let him know we support him.

That woman judge is one of three things – a disgusting Jewess, a ding bat Feminist or a repulsive Lesbian. How could any honorable person do anything like this to man as fine as Paul Fromm?

Heather Blue:

Jews don’t know what fineness is or fairness or decency. They only know destruction, lies, filth, and faggotry.

In the court document, Warman admits he “attacks ‘hate’ speech” by “availing himself of the law” and has filed “numerous” libel suits in pursuit of this agenda. Thus, Fromm’s defense that Warman seeks to “throttle” “unpopular speech” is true on its face.

A man who files numerous lawsuits to harass and intimidate people for expressing political opinions is no other than an enemy of free speech. What else would being an enemy of free speech consist of?

Perhaps another kind of enemy of free speech would be a government official who introduces successful anti-speech legislation, or initiates prosecution under such legislation. Warman, despite his denials, is certainly at least very close to being such.

Observe also the “head I win-tails you lose” nature of Warman’s claim that he is merely “availing himself of the law.” He is not an enemy of free speech, he claims, because he does not have the governmental power to enforce censorship. Therefore, he is not a censor. Therefore, he is entitled to damages in his Libel Suit No. X (out of many) against someone for expressing the opinion that he is a censor.

In other words, Warman’s case is the following: “It is false that I am a censor – I merely avail myself of censorship on a regular basis in pursuit of my political values.”

As to the “damage” done to his reputation: if the shoe fits, wear it. Fromm’s statements were clearly materially true: Warman’s suit is just more evidence of that!

Something is wrong with Warman. He seems to be a sadist and a power-luster. Historically, such people, if persistent, usually meet a bad end. Think Ceausescu and Mussolini.

“Something is wrong with Warman. He seems to be a sadist and a power-luster. Historically, such people, if persistent, usually meet a bad end. ”

Think Robespierre.