A company has copyrighted the phrase about tumbling down and not being able to achieve an upright position…so I’m gonna copyright the following one…
“I’ve taken a spill on my fucking ass and now I’m sitting in a pile of shit and boy am I pissed.”
So, remember, I’ve got dibs on that one..any of you emergency phone number companies…you’ll have to come to me.
From the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/health/09malpractice.html
” The lawmaker and retired obstetrician sponsoring a Congressional bill to sharply cut medical malpractice awards was involved in a $500,000 settlement of a malpractice lawsuit. The action was brought by a pregnant woman who charged that inappropriate care caused the loss of her fetus and other complications.
Enlarge This Image
Drew Angerer/The New York Times
Representative Phil Gingrey, of Georgia, worked for three decades as an obstetrician.
The money was paid in 2007 to settle a medical malpractice lawsuit brought against several doctors, including Representative Phil Gingrey, who worked for three decades as an obstetrician before he was elected to Congress in 2002.
Since then, the Georgia Republican has introduced earlier versions of the bill and has been among the leading Congressional advocates of efforts to limit malpractice awards, arguing that such cases are often frivolous.
The settlement of the lawsuit, which had been reinstated after being initially dismissed at trial, occurred not long before a second trial was scheduled to begin. The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that Dr. Gingrey and two other obstetricians in the same practice failed to properly diagnose the woman’s appendicitis.
Her appendix burst, leading to the loss of her fetus and other complications including a stroke, court papers show.
A spokeswoman for Dr. Gingrey, Brooke Sammon, said on Tuesday that the lawmaker was not available for comment.
In response to written questions, his office issued a statement: “All parties in the case agreed to settle due to various factors, including the cost, time commitment and stress of another trial, along with the desire by all parties to have final closure on this case.” The statement added that Dr. Gingrey “strongly believes he and his partners practiced fully within the standard of care and no causation on his part was ever established in this case.”
Dr. Gingrey was not the only obstetrician to treat the woman after she was hospitalized in 2001 for symptoms, including intense abdominal pain. The case included an accusation by the woman’s husband that Dr. Gingrey, contrary to hospital records, had not checked on his wife for several hours while he was on his shift; Dr. Gingrey insisted that he had. “
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Pole,_Countess_of_Salisbury
The Countess was charged with treason and sentenced to death.
Back in the 16th century, the execution was a bladed affair.
Here is the description of the event :
“On the morning of 27 May 1541, Lady Salisbury was told she was to die within the hour. She answered that no crime had been imputed to her. Nevertheless, she was taken from her cell to the place within the precincts of the Tower of London where a low wooden block had been prepared. As she was of noble birth, she was not executed before the populace, though there were about 150 witnesses.[13] The frail and ill lady was dragged to the block and, as she refused to lay her head on it, was forced down. As she struggled, the inexperienced executioner’s first blow made a gash in her shoulder rather than her neck. Ten additional blows were required to complete the execution.[14] A less reputable account states that she leapt from the block after the first clumsy blow and ran, pursued by the executioner, being struck eleven times before she died. She was buried at the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula within the Tower of London.[15]”
YOU MIGHT BE A CRIMINAL HACKER IF… you violated a Website’s “Terms of Service”
See below:
“The government, however, has interpreted the anti-hacking provisions to include activities such as violating a Web site’s terms of service or a company’s computer usage policy, a position a federal appeals court in April said means “millions of unsuspecting individuals would find that they are engaging in criminal conduct.”
From the JSTOR portion of the article on Aaron Swartz at
I am angry. I am angry because a bright, involved, caring young man ended his own life rather than face what I feel was malicious persecution via legal prosecution. I did not know Aaron Swartz, but, as an internet citizen who opposed SOPA, I feel I owe him a debt for his outstanding fight against the passage of SOPA and for his many efforts to make information free.
Many things could be said about Aaron, and will be. He was apparently a technical genius, he was also, in the end, a depressed young man who, on 1-11-13, facing a criminal prosecution for downloading files from JSTOR, with the intent (allegedly) of uploading them to filesharing sites, decided to end his life by hanging himself.
His complaint against JSTOR was that they were charging large fees for people to read scholarly articles, and yet, not compensating the authors who wrote them, and by engaging in this practice, denying many people from having access to these articles.
The sad thing is that JSTOR itself, had decided not to pursue a civil complaint, and yet, over zealous US attorneys, had decided to go after him with an obsessive zeal that makes one ask, were they trying to “make their bones” from a career standpoint, on the body of a poor 26 year old computer genius ?
The reasons I ask this are illustrated in the Wikipedia post about this .
Go to=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz and then read the portion
under “JSTOR”. I quote (under Fair Use)
On July 19, 2011, Swartz was charged by U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer, in relation to downloading roughly 4 million academic journal articles from JSTOR.[26] According to the indictment against him, Swartz surreptitiously attached a laptop to MIT’s computer network, which allowed him to “rapidly download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR.”[27]Prosecutors in the case claim Swartz acted with the intention of making the papers available on P2P file-sharing sites.[28]
Swartz surrendered to authorities, pleading not guilty on all accounts, and was released on US$100,000 unsecured bail.[29][30] Prosecution of the case continued, with charges of wire fraud and computer fraud, carrying a potential prison term of up to 35 years and a fine of up to $1 million.[31][32] After Swartz’s arrest, JSTOR put out a statement saying it would not pursue civil litigation against him.[29][33]
Despite JSTOR having dropped all civil charges, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen P. Heymann and Scott L. Garland[34][35][36] pursued the criminal case against Swartz under U.S. attorney Carmen M. Ortiz, who justified the charges by stating “stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars.”[29] The case tested the reach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was passed in 1984 to enhance the government’s ability to prosecute hackers who accessed computers to steal information or to disrupt or destroy computer functionality.
The government, however, has interpreted the anti-hacking provisions to include activities such as violating a Web site’s terms of service or a company’s computer usage policy, a position a federal appeals court in April said means “millions of unsuspecting individuals would find that they are engaging in criminal conduct.” The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, in limiting reach of the CFAA, said that violations of employee contract agreements and Web sites’ terms of service were better left to civil lawsuits. (—>I added the bold for emphasis)
The rulings by the 9th Circuit cover the West, and not Massachusetts, meaning they are not binding in Swartz’s prosecution. The Obama administration declined to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.[37][38] ” [ END of QUOTE ]
Now… I want you to take the time , if you will, to read ALL of the article, because it is important to place what Aaron did with regard to JSTOR in the context of his life’s work, as well as his downloading of PACER documents and trying to make them freely available to the public as well.
But, one small bit of that article bears repeating and thinking about.
”The government, however, has interpreted the anti-hacking provisions to include activities such as violating a Web site’s terms of service or a company’s computer usage policy, a position a federal appeals court in April said means “millions of unsuspecting individuals would find that they are engaging in criminal conduct.” “
The government has INTERPRETED the anti-hacking provisions to include such activities as violating the websites terms of service or a company’s computer usage policy…which means, to be considered a criminal hacker, you don’t have to be actually “hacking”, if you just fail to follow the minutia , the small print of a website’s terms of service, you may be considered a hacker, could be prosecuted (as they were going to do to Aaron) and face decades in prison.
I think, Aaron was looking at perhaps 30 years in federal prison for just downloading lots of articles.
——The Tyranny of the Copyright Cartel ——
Now, what in G-d’s name would prompt federal persecutors / officially called “prosecutors” to try to put a 26 year old man in prison for more years than a lot of murderers get. And, while we are asking questions, another good one is given the fact that apparently the financial giant HSBC was guilty of some pretty bad things like criminal laundering of money for drug kingpins and possible money laundering for “terrorists”, why were they allowed to pony up a 1.9 billion dollar payoff to the government and skate on any criminal charges. What they were alleged to be doing caused FAR MORE HARM than anything Aaron did in his whole 26 years of life !
For more on the HSBC thing, read these links.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/11/hsbc-laundering-probe/1760351/
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/13/167174208/hsbc-critic-too-big-to-indict-may-mean-too-big-to-exist
The bottom line is that there is a stranglehold on our government by what I call the “Copyright Cartel”. These include such groups as the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, but other organizations that CLAIM they represent content creators, but in the end, screw both the content creator AND those people wanting to access the works. They grow fat at the expense of both the public and the artist, be the artist a writer, a singer, a painter, whatever.
As noted, you can be found to be doing criminal hacking even though all you did was to not go along with every minute rule of a website creators “proper use guidelines”, no matter how arcane, no matter how well hidden the website use guidelines may be.
JSTOR itself did not go after Swartz…but the government wanted to make an example of Aaron. Well..you did that..without having to call one friggin’ witness…you gave him death by hanging.
I hope the government is proud of itself. You scared a depressed young man into killing himself rather than face 30 years in federal prison for trying to let people read some scientific papers, some of which may have dealt with treatments for cancer.
So…to Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen P. Heymann and Scott L. Garland …I hope both of you assholes feel great pride. I hope your corporate, copyright cartel masters give you both big attaboys. I hope you feel like big men for causing a depressed young man to commit suicide rather than face decades in prison. What big men you are…
No..what pathetic lackeys you are !
Back in the day, when I was in college, protests often took the form of “Sit Ins”, where students would occupy a room or building, sitting down in protest, and as a collateral effect, making the conduct of business hard, if not impossible.
In fact, I like the way Wikipedia describes it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in ”A sit-in or sit-down is a form of direct action that involves one or more people nonviolently occupying an area for a protest, often to promote political, social, or economic change.”
So, it is 1) direct action 2 )involves one or more persons 3) is non-violent 4) Occupies an area 5) is a protest and 6) often promotes political, social, or economic change.
In the 21st century, the Internet has become the venue for much of what was conducted in the physical world back in the 1960s, for business, commerce, education, communication, and more.
Now, how does a person “occupy” a website. Well, one “logs into” a website, not via a password and login name always, but by connecting to the domain name / IP address.
Now, imagine that you convinced everyone on the planet with access to the internet, that to show their protest of a website, they should try to connect to the same website at the same time. Each time one tries to connect, a “page request” is generated. For most sites, if that number of people tried, at the same time to connect to the site in protest, chances are, it would crash the site (although with load balancing, some sites may not crash).
Basically, a DDoS is non-violent, occupies a limited space of internet addresses, is used to protest , is conducted by one or more persons, and often meant to effect a social or political change or make a statement. Viewed in this context, if you compare this description with that of the Wikipedia description of a “Sit-in”, it is easy to see the comparison is apt.
The distributed denial of service (DDoS) takes a legal action ( requesting a page) and multiplies it many many times within a short time period. It’s not only staged DDoS actions that crash websites, often, a website because of a news item, spontaneously generates so many page requests that the server crashes. This has happened to governmental sites and other sites.
Wikipedia defines a DDoS this way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack ”In computing, a denial-of-service attack (DoS attack) or distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS attack) is an attempt to make a machine or network resource unavailable to its intended users. Although the means to carry out, motives for, and targets of a DoS attack may vary, it generally consists of the efforts of one or more people to temporarily or indefinitely interrupt or suspend services of a host connected to the Internet.”
The rest of the article goes into specific mechanisms or techniques of DDoS, but for the purposes of this discussion, the first paragraph was all that we need.
In a real life sit-in, most times, there was no intent to permanently damage facilities or hurt people..just to occupy a space and make it unusable for its regular purposes.
The same is true with MOST DDoS attacks. Sites knocked offline don’t stay offline forever,
and just as with a sit-in, no permanent damage is done…just a temporary interference with
its normal usefulness.
I decided to write this article after reading a piece of trash by Brendan Greeley, published in the magazine with the name of one of the One Percenters, Bloomberg Business Week.
The article is at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-11/a-distributed-denial-of-service-attack-isnt-an-act-of-civil-disobedience
It is clear to people of my generation who actually WERE there when the Sit-Ins of the 1960s were going on, that the DDoS is the modern counterpart on the Internet, of what we were doing at colleges and other institutions back in the heyday of protests. I can guarantee you that if there were an internet available to us as college students then, and tools to perform DDoS attacks, we would see that as just another version of a physical sit-in.
`Anon99
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular”James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills, claimed in a video posted on YouTube and Facebook thathe would “start killing people” if President Barack Obama decides to take executive action to pass further gun control policies, Raw Story reports.
In a frenetic address to the camera, Yeager puts a call out to other gun rights advocates to “load your damn mags” and “get ready to fight” in what he claims will turn into a “civil war” if gun control measures in the country get any stricter.”
First off, I have treasured friends on both sides of the gun debate, and both groups get very angry when you start giving them views from the other side.
This article is NOT to debate with anyone, not to convince you I am right, because I may NOT be right. This is instead, me kind of talking myself through what my opinion of this debate is…I hope no one is offended, because, I respect both sides and feel they both have merit. That said…how I see this debate.
__________________________________________________________________
Full disclosure, I own guns…not a lot, but those I own are single shot, high quality firearms. I also own a variety of custom knives. That said, here’s my thoughts on this ongoing controversy.
People often ask “Why does anyone need a gun which has the capability to shoot at a high rate of speed, a number of bullets from a clip or magazine?”
It’s not for hunting, not for target practice, it’s for one man or woman, being able to take out, or intimidate, large numbers of people when that person is outnumbered and facing large numbers of people who would do them or their loved ones harm. The Korean store owners, during riots, protected their businesses from looting and destruction, by using semi-automatic, possibly automatic firearms.
Self defence against an enraged mob or group that wants to drag you out of your car or house, rape you, rob you, kill you, is a legitimate reason to have a weapon that evens the odds. Make no mistake, if the economy tanks, if the power grid goes down, mobs could start going on raids, emboldened by the chaotic conditions.
Now, the Second Amendment talks about a militia. For that reason, they were contemplating citizens to have and maintain weapons that could be used in a military situation, and I believe, if it were transposed to today, they would be referring to military grade weapons.
Thanksgiving day, I cut a portion of my ring finger off with a large, extremely large knife made in Germany (Solingen) while cutting an onion. It was not the onion’s fault, not the cutting board’s fault, and certainly, not the knife’s fault. It was an
error in judgement of my own, and I take full blame for it. The knife, without me, would have laid there, not hurting anyone.
The guns I have are stored in the house, and since I have no children, putting them in a safe place is much easier.
I have never in 60 years, pointed a loaded weapon at anyone. I was taught if you ever draw your gun, you should be ready to use it. My father, a Navy World War II veteran, was a very good shot, and he made it clear to me that guns, even BB guns are very dangerous, never “play” with them, drop them with a bullet in the chamber off safety, etc..
MY guns, are safe. They do not hurt anyone because I tend to be a rational person, and if push comes to shove, I have the skills to handle hand to hand combat, knife to knife combat (in spite of my Thanksgiving accident, I actually am trained with the knife).
But, if a person is psychotic, bent on killing, even a fork, even a kitchen knife could be a deadly weapon. Now, of course “nutty people” should not have weapons, but I personally have known some paranoid schizophrenics who can, when called for, appear extremely rational and logical, especially if they feel they have to “play the part” in a social setting.
Cars are deadly weapons. Not to argue statistics, they kill as many people as guns do yearly, and the stats demonstrate that most people killed with firearms (statistically) are folks who commit suicide. Of course, some of those people who commit suicide unfortunately, take other people out before they kill themselves.
If severe gun control goes into effect, we may see the same thing nationally, that we see in DC where gun control is very strict, but is one of the most dangerous geographical regions in the USA. So, “gun control” is not the answer. Furthermore,
I can assure you that criminals will get guns on the black market, will rob sporting goods stores, or even, appropriate weapons from the military through “dark channels”. Yeah, you would make it a bit harder, but the effect would be that honest people who need a gun for self protection, would find it almost impossible to get guns, whereas the very people who would victimize them, would obtain whatever guns they want.
Our “epidemic” if you want to call it that, really is not the mere presence of guns, it is the seething rage of young men who, for various reasons, instead of smashing their hand on a wall, pull a trigger and slaughter innocent, unarmed people.
But, the most scary aspect of all this is the person who says “What do YOU NEED that gun for?” or says “No one NEEDS a semi-automatic gun”.
When people think they are the arbiter, the judge and jury of what you NEED, this is headed toward a horrible, tyrannical situation. Why would one NEED a nice large house when a smaller one will do. Why would one NEED a new car, when an old but working one would do. Why would one NEED a new shirt , pair of jeans, or guitar.
We are, like it or not, a society that’s economy is driven by purchases of goods and services. In my whole life, the “keeping up with the Joneses” phenomenon has driven a lot of purchasing which in turn, has kept people employed. I am NOT saying that that mindset is good, far from it, but good or not, it is intimately tied with the engine of our economy.
I have some decent guitars, but if I got the money to buy a new Les Paul, and someone told me “You don’t NEED that…”, well, knowing the old Pyrate, you can imagine what I would do and say. It would involve telling them to mind their own business and STFU.
Guns have been part of the landscape of the USA since 1776 and before.
I am NOT pro-NRA. I think they are assholes, having dealt with them in some attempts to oppose legislation years ago. I certainly am not a fan of that weasel Wayne LaPierre.
So, the question is NOT, do guns CAUSE the violence or we would have seen more mass murderers when guns were even easier to obtain, without a background check.
No, the problem is young adult men, who have perhaps played too many first person shooters, who have watched too many movies in which the hero goes on a mass murdering spree against the “bad guys”. We create heroes in popular media who use their gun to solve their problems. It is more dramatic than someone talking through conflict.
When you have someone like Boehner telling his elder colleague, Harry Reid, “go fuck yourself” http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/07/boehner_explains_why_he_told_reid_to_go_fuck_himself.html
I think there is a deeper issue in America…a rage that is like an immature child that screams and hits things when it doesn’t get its way.
Now, let’s say that the young lady who was raped by a mob of men, beaten with iron rods, who died, or the young lady in Ohio who “allegedly” (for the legal eagles)
was raped and abused by several men, had a handgun and were able to retrieve it and use it, could it be possible that the outcome would be different ?
I know, here in the South, one way to calm down a would be burglar, is for them to hear a 12 gauge shotgun being racked…and, if racking a shotgun prevents a possible murder, I think that is a good thing.
I know that I want my wife to have a concealed carry permit and weapon for her purse because she is , like me, on the highways driving a lot in her job. Since I have been in martial arts for many years, taught the arts, I have instructed her in hand to hand defence, but, when the other person may force her car off the road and approach her with a knife or tire iron or bat, I want my wife coming back home safely…and if she must terminate a threat with extreme prejudice, then so be it.
Mass murderers can use homemade bombs, poison in water, neurotoxic gas…there are many ways to kill large numbers of people, and banning guns, may just divert them to this.
So, if you ban guns or severely restrict their sale, you may generally decrease the ability of law abiding people to get them, but criminals don’t follow the law, and they will get them, one way or another.
Just my perspective.
`Anon99
In late November, early December, people starting noticing that one of our “regular crew” was not tweeting. I was worried, but the furor died down and I figured folks
found he was OK and was just taking a break from Twitter. His handle was
@WeywerdSun. It is only today, tonight actually, that I found he was found dead on November 25th, 2012…ironically, with iPad in hand. I sent condolences to his granddaughter, and though I, and many more, will miss this fine man, the death of someone I know always sets into motion ideas of our own mortality.
I’m 60 years old…theoretically, probably living on borrowed time anyway…Nature is ready to recycle my organic molecules into something else…but, procrastinator that I am, will be putting that off.
But, back to the subject. I made my wife promise that if anything happens to me, she is to go on Twitter and let them know that the Pyrate has left this mortal coil. She is not to tell who I am or what I did for a living. I want to be solely judged on what I did, who I helped, how I conducted myself.
I can be profane, I can be harsh, but, underneath all of that, I am a man who truly cares for his fellow man / woman, and cares greatly for animal welfare.
I certainly don’t know for a certainty what waits on the “other side”. It could be that when you die, its like clicking the light off. I accept that as a possibility, but experiences in my life persuade me that its not that simple.
Whether I just cease to exist, go to heaven, Valhalla, or just get my ashes scattered..my education, my money, my looks, really mean nothing. What matters is how I treated others….if I cared for others, if I help others without expecting a return.
I am reminded of Elvis Costello’s tune… EVERY DAY I WRITE THE BOOK.
Every day we DO write the book of our lives. The least little slip
can spell disaster…as in my cutting part of my finger off cutting
an onion on Thanksgiving day.
It wouldn’t matter if I were a millionaire, a rocket scientists,
a plumber, a lawyer, a coder, a doctor…what matters is what I said…
whether it helped people or hurt them.
I believe Weywerd is out there…flying, laughing, and enjoying what lies beyond.
Perhaps that is naive, perhaps it is a defense mechanism, perhaps a lot, but to me,
its what i believe.
Whether I am an anarchist, democrat, republican, or whatever, it mans little what I professed, and more on what I did.
I live day by day. I try my very best to love my wife, my mother,my cats as if I would never see them again. I don’t think they mind it.
You are what you do. If you constantly troll people, you’re a troll. If you try to fight for animal rights, you are an animal rights activist,
In my 60 years, my preoccupation if you can call it that…is with determining what reality really is. As Huxley so clearly pointed out…our brains are “reducing valves” that take in a flood of sensations and electromagnet energy…and what puny amount makes it through, we try to create a problem solving plan.
If anything does happen, please don’t cry for me. I will be in a much better place.
I’m tired, my ear is killing me…but I had to express this.
Much Luv to U @weywerdsun and my sadness of those who benefited from knowing him. So @weywerdSun rest well my brother.
Rest well Weywerd…you earned it Brother.
#AnonFamily RIP weywerdsun@gmail.com
`Anon99
http://fox8.com/2013/01/05/masked-protesters-storm-steubenville-courthouse/
STEUBENVILLE, Ohio — Hundreds and hundreds of masks occupied the Steubenville courthouse steps Saturday.
They were there for a protest organized by the online activist group Anonymous to voice their opposition to a shocking teen rape case.
“I couldn’t even imagine what that mom is going through. And I’m just thankful that Anonymous brought attention because for months, there was nothing out there,” said Donna from Canton.
Two 16-year-old football players, Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond, are charged with raping a 16-year-old girl at series of back to school parties in August.
Police say they documented the night through pictures, video, and tweets online.
“This is for justice for the victim, nobody else. This is not a race thing,” said an anonymous protestor.
Many bloggers and hacktivists believe the alleged crimes were covered up because the teens are star football players in town.
“We need to draw more attention to date rape, teen rape, and kids posting video to YouTube,” said another protestor.
“There are a lot of great students at Big Red. It’s a shame that no one is calling out the few that did this,” added another protestor.
This protest comes one week after another protest, also organized by Anonymous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
In United States law, public figure is a term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure.
The controlling precedent in the United States was set in 1964 by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. It is considered a key decision in supporting the First Amendment andfreedom of the press.
A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status. Typically, they must either be:
According to attorney Aaron Larson:[2]
A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established…A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, [jokes about]… Terry Rakolta [an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married With Children] were fair comments… within the confines of her public conduct [and] protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”.
