“Evil Light” or False Light? A Pro-Life California Woman Objects to False Image in Democratic Ad

There was an interesting torts question raised last week over an abortion rights video ad shared by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, and others. The video was made to support Proposition 1, a pro-choice amendment to the California State Constitution. Macy Petty is a pro-life activist who was falsely portrayed as crying outside of the Supreme Court after its overturning of Roe v. Wade this year.  The video ad was reportedly paid for by the California Democratic Party.

The proposition has faced bipartisan opposition due to its sweeping language but it is expected to pass. After the Dobbs decision, each state may establish its own laws on abortion services.

In an open letter Petty objects that the widely disseminated video depicts her as collapsed in sorrow in June over the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Superimposed over her image was the word “sad,” implying that Petty’s reaction was one of devastation instead of joy.

In her letter and tweet, Petty says “Hey Hillary, I’m the girl crying in this video. I am pro-life and those are HAPPY tears because I just witnessed a MIRACLE!”

As part of a deeply pro-life and religious family, Petty expressed “outrage” in an interview with The Christian Post. After her objections, her image was removed though the original video is still accessible on social media.

The question is whether such a false portrayal is actionable. In her letter, Petty alleged the footage “portrayed me in an evil light and distorted my emotions as part of your political games.”


Petty has clearly alleged that her reputation has been harmed by the portrayal in the ad, which is being used to push a constitutional amendment that she vehemently opposes.

For the purposes of defamation, Petty is presumably a non-public figure.

In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard that required public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.

The standard was later extended to public figures.  The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when  someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.”

A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).

I do not see why participating in a protest would make Petty even “a limited public figure”, though it is not clear if she gave public statements or served in a more public organizational role.

The statement that Petty was “sad” about the ruling is clearly false and strongly suggests that she supports the right to abortion.

False Light

In objecting to the portrayal in “an evil light,” Petty may have a case for “false light.”

The case raises a classic “false light” claim as opposed to a conventional defamation claim. While some states have rejected false light claims in favor of using defamation actions exclusively, California recognizes both claims. (Many judges resist both claims going to a jury since they are based on different underlying claims of a false statement as opposed to a false implication. Courts will often dismiss one claim in favor of the other before trial).

Under a false light claim, a person can sue when a publication or image implies something that is both highly offensive and untrue. Where defamation deals with false statements, false light deals with false implications.

California produced an important case that is particularly illustrative in this circumstance. In Gill v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 239 P.2d 630 (Cal. 1952), the court considered a “Ladies Home Journal” article that was highly critical of couples who claimed to be cases of “love at first sight.” The article suggested that such impulses were more sexual than serious. The magazine included a photo of a couple, with the caption, “[p]ublicized as glamorous, desirable, ‘love at first sight’ is a bad risk.” The couple was unaware that the photo was used and never consented to its inclusion in the magazine. They prevailed in an action for false light given the suggestion that they were one of these sexualized, “wrong” attractions.

Petty does have a basis for claiming the elements of the offense. Here are the elements in the standard California jury instruction:

1. That [name of defendant] publicly disclosed information or material that showed [name of plaintiff] in a false light;
2. That the false light created by the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s position;
3. [That there is clear and convincing evidence that [name of defendant] knew the disclosure would create a false impression about [name of plaintiff] or acted with reckless disregard for the truth;]
[That [name of defendant] was negligent in determining the truth of the information or whether a false impression would be created by its disclosure;]
4. [That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and]
[That [name of plaintiff] sustained harm to [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] property, business, profession, or occupation [including money spent as a result of the statement(s)]; and]
5. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

Petty could show falsehood in the portrayal of being pro-choice and supporting Roe v. Wade. In Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002), the court found false light in the use of an actor’s photo on the cover of Playgirl magazine. In combination with the headlines, the plaintiffs argued that the magazine created the false impression that nude photos of the actor were featured inside the magazine.

Petty can also argue that the implication is highly offensive to her on political and religious grounds. Indeed, she notes that her family has long been active in the pro-life movement and it is in her “DNA.” While many would argue that being considered pro-choice is not harmful to a reputation, Petty insists that she views the position as immoral and the image also suggests a degree of hypocrisy given her past advocacy.

She can also show that she is sufficiently identified in the video and that the video was publicly disclosed and disseminated.

She can also make a compelling claim of fault that there was no effort to confirm if she was one of many of the pro-life protesters outside of the Court. There were large groups on both sides and many were crying from joy or regret.

The fact that the video is used for political purposes does not make it opinion or otherwise protected in my view. This is not a case where defenses of opinion or parody would be compelling.

Petty would need to show harm. Her objections were publicly made and covered by national media outlets like the New York Post and Fox News. Her image was then taken down from the video. A jury or court could find the actual harm or damages to be de minimus.  However, that is generally a matter left to discovery and the trial in terms of the scope of harm.

It is not clear if Petty wants to sue. The most obvious defendants are the makers of the video and the California Democratic Party. It could be more of a challenge to pursue Clinton and Newsom who retweeted and distributed the video. It is not clear if they continued to distribute the video after knowing the false implication of that one image. As a video used in the midst of an important political debate, courts may be leery of imposing tort damages that might chill political speech.

Petty has one year to decide whether to file for defamation under California’s statute of limitations.

59 thoughts on ““Evil Light” or False Light? A Pro-Life California Woman Objects to False Image in Democratic Ad”

    1. The Supreme Court – which cannot seem to get anything right – is completetly remiss in its Constitutional duty to protect innocent life. A baby in the womb is undeniably alive, the baby is a being, the baby is a human being, the baby must be killed to perform what the Leftists call an abortion. It is not an abortion – it is a savage act of murder. Just as it took the Supreme Court forever to recognize the humanity of slaves they seem forever blind to the humanity of babies in the womb. in fact, the Supreme Court is so cowardly that it could not even find that a baby one day prior to birth is protected by its Constitutional right to life. It is easier for them to shirk their duty and punt it over to the States. This is moaral depravity wrapped up in fancy briefs and black robes – black robes of death – how apropos.

      1. Also — re SS:
        “Charles Evans Whittaker resigned from the United States Supreme Court because he understood that he was unqualified. Today there is a justice who is so unqualified, and so blinded by ideology and ethnic narcissism, that she cannot even understand how unqualified she is.”

  1. I hope she does sue. Apparently, without the risk of monetary loss, most of the media has no impetus to portray the truth. The media ran and amplified those ads. There is some small hope that getting sued would be a lesson to the politicians who make those ads.

    Her inclusion in the Pro Choice ad would have allegedly required deliberate editing out of her holding clearly Pro Life signs, as well as her joyful reaction. Such deliberate editing could be deemed malicious. For those who have spent years trying to defend the individual right to life of the unborn, having their images used to promote abortion would be traumatic. To be frank, the same would hold true if a Pro Life ad used edited footage of a Pro Choice protestor, in order to make it seem like she supported the unborn’s right to life.

    There is plenty of footage of sobbing young women upset that they have to participate in the Democratic process to determine how late into a pregnancy a woman can abort her unborn child. Apparently, they wanted no input or responsibility, whatsoever, and would rather rely upon 9 unelected lifetime tenure Supreme Court justices, which would make every single presidential election fraught with emotion. The angst over Supreme Court nominations was a tacit admission that there is no clearly stated Constitutional right to abort a pregnancy, and that Roe v Wade was, in fact, always and forever going to be vulnerable to being overturned. Abortion law is best left up to the states, which puts the people in some control.

    1. More of Karen’s anti-Democrat BS she got from Fox, which constantly puts out anti-Democrat lies, one result of which was the attack on Paul Pelosi: “”In the course of the interview, DePape articulated he viewed Nancy as the ‘leader of the pack’ of lies told by the Democratic Party,” the federal affidavit states. “DePape also later explained that by breaking Nancy’s kneecaps, she would then have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress there were consequences to actions.” ” To the extent Turley contributes to the Fox anti-Democrat attack machine by using his credentials, he bears some reasponsibility. There can be no doubt that the source of this “Nancy is a liar” meme is alt-right media. How any Republican could ever attack Nancy Pelosi for being a liar, in view of Donald Trump’s historic and consistent pattern of endless lies is nothing short of stunning in its hypocrisy, just like today’s Turley piece is stunning.

      Once again, Karen S. is pretending to be knowledgeable about the Constitution by repeating the blather she believes because she got it from her favorite alt-right media outlet: “there is no cleary stated Constitutional right to abort a pregnancy, and that Roe v Wade was, in fact, always and forever going to be vulnerable to being overturned.” This isn’t something she came up with on her own, but just an alt-right talking point. Hey Karen S: the Constitution doesn’t say the government can’t tap your phone or hack your computer either, so that must mean it’s OK–right? What your alt-right media sources don’t tell you is that the fundamental rights of privacy and personal liberty ARE enshrined in the Constitution. How they apply to daily living is evolving, but if you have a right of privacy and personal liberty, no state can regulate that or take it away. THAT was the basis for Roe v. Wade. The lame Alito argument about abortion not being “deeply rooted” is just that: a lame argument.

      1. Well Natasha, aka Gigi, both Pelosi and Trump are habitual, inveterate liars. Do you feel better now?

      2. Gigi too bad this blog doesn’t have a liar button.

        You’re full of nonsense.

        Many of think slaughtering babies is wrong.

      3. I presume the crowds of young people in NYC that were chanting AOC has got to go at her townhall were all right wing nuts too ?

        DePape is nuts – he has been for a decades.
        It is near certain he wanted to do harm to Nancy Pelosi.
        That does not make him a right wing nut.
        He is from Berkeley – that is NOT MAGA country.
        There is nothing in his actual background that suggests any meaningful ties to anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

        But mostly he is a homeless drug addicted nutjob.

      4. Gigi:

        You sound an awful lot like Natasha.

        DePape was a chronically homeless, mentally ill man, known for extreme activism as a nudist. He was long known as a far Leftist. The bus in which he stayed was emblazoned with BLM and gay pride flags.

        San Francisco is infamous for mentally ill and/or drug addicted homeless. It is infamous for crime. It is infamous for violent crime.

        A mentally ill homeless man attacked Paul Pelosi in their home. Instead of holding Nancy Pelosi accountable for the out of control drug addiction, homelessness, and the mentally ill staggering around San Francisco, or the Poop Maps which have overflown the Tenderloin into large swaths of SF, Demcorats went on the offensive. Rather than take responsibility, they went on the attack.

        We are to believe that we must not criticize the disastrous Democrat policies that have decimated California, or the politicians who make those policies, or else we will be held responsible for any crime committed by any sane, or insane, person against those politicians.

        Are you willing to take responsibility for the attempted assassination of Kavanaugh? The unending death threats against Matt Walsh? Ron DeSantis? Trump? All the assaults on adults and children just for wearing a MAGA hat?

        Unless someone is actually calling for literal violence, he or she is not responsible for someone else’s crimes. Bernie Sanders is free to call Capitalism immoral, and to destroy Republicans in his speeches. It’s not his fault that one of his supporters shot Republicans.

        Democrat politicians openly urged people to riot, and they bailed them out of jail so they could go right back out there and riot again. Yet, the Democrat Party is not smoking ashes, like so many black-owned small businesses that they destroyed. Why is that?

    2. “[T]here is no clearly stated Constitutional right to abort a pregnancy . . .”

      Yet another person who does not understand the nature and purpose of the U.S. Constitution.

      Where do you all get the idea that the Constitution is a *comprehensive* list of rights? Where do you get the idea that a private person can ony take those actions that are *permitted* by the Constitution? And where do you get the (destructive) idea that if an action is not permitted by the Constitution, government can ban it?

      Or are those rights-destroying ideas being trotted out only now, for this case, in order to rationalize banning abortion?


    “Pelosi attack suspect David DePape was a psychotic homeless addict estranged from his pedophile lover & their children”

    “And, as I soon discovered, DePape lived with a notorious local nudist in a Berkeley home, complete with a Black Lives Matter sign in the window and an LGBT rainbow flag, emblazoned with a marijuana symbol, hanging from a tree. A closer look reveals the characteristics of a homeless encampment, or what Europeans call “an open drug scene.” In the driveway, there is a broken-down camper van. On the street is a yellow school bus, which neighbors said DePape occasionally stayed in. Both are filled with garbage typical of such structures in homeless encampments. People come and go from the house and the vehicles, neighbors say, in part to partake in the use of a potent psychedelic drug, ibogaine.”

    “Neighbors described DePape as a homeless addict with politics that was, until recently, left-wing, but of secondary importance to his psychotic and paranoid behavior.

    “What I know about the family is that they’re very radical activists,” said one of DePape’s neighbors, a woman who only gave her first name, Trish. “They seem very left. They are all about the Black Lives Matter movement. Gay pride. But they’re very detached from reality. They have called the cops on several of the neighbors, including us, claiming that we are plotting against them. It’s really weird to see that they are willing to be so aggressive toward somebody else who is also a lefty.”

    “Not all of the news media missed DePape’s history of drug use, psychosis, and homelessness. CNN reported that a woman named Laura Hayes, who said she worked with DePape 10 years ago making hemp bracelets, said he had been living in a storage shed. “He talks to angels,” she said, and told her that “there will be a hard time coming.”

    “Another woman, Linda Schneider, told CNN and Bay Area NBC TV affiliate, KRON4, that she got to know DePape around 2014 and that he was still homeless, living in a storage unit, and using hard drugs. “He [was] likely a mindless follower of something he saw on social media because I don’t think he had the courage to be part of any political or terrorist group,” said Schneider. “His drug use began again and he went off his rocker.”

    “But much of the rest of the news media, particularly local journalists who could have interviewed DePape’s neighbors, were swept up in the narrative that DePape was more like John Wilkes Booth, the fanatical but sane assassin of Abraham Lincoln, than John Hinkley, Jr., the mentally ill man who shot Ronald Reagan. DePape is much more like one of the hundreds of psychotic homeless people I’ve interviewed in recent years than the fanatical climate ideologues who I’ve been writing about in recent weeks.

    “Wrapped up in their own obsession with Trump Republicans, most journalists have missed the real story. David DePape is not a microcosm of the political psychosis gripping America in general. Rather, he’s a microcosm of the drug-induced psychosis gripping the West Coast in particular.

    “Drugs, Paranoia, and Pedophilia”

    “I visited the Berkeley house where DePape had lived with his former lover, Oxane “Gypsy” Taub, 53, a charismatic Russian immigrant 11 years David’s senior. DePape appears to have fallen under the spell of Taub around 2003, when DePape was a quiet, video game-obsessed 21-year-old in Powell River, a town of 14,000 people that is a four-hour drive up the coast of British Columbia from Vancouver.

    “A Nov. 27, 2008, article in the Oakland Tribune said Taub and DePape were married with three children. But DePape’s stepfather, Gene, told AP yesterday that Taub was his stepson’s girlfriend, not wife; that David and Taub had two, not three, children together; and that David’s third child was with another woman.
    Neighbors described DePape as a drug addict with left-wing politics.

    “The article, which carried the headline, “Need is great on Thanksgiving Day in the East Bay,” described Taub, Pape, and their three children eating Thanksgiving dinner with the homeless. Taub told the reporter that they were there for the community, not because they couldn’t afford to eat at home.

    “Taub was in the news again five years later when she, then 44, married a 20-year-old man, Jamyz Smith, naked, at City Hall in San Francisco. A photo in the December 16, 2013, edition of The San Francisco Chronicle shows DePape, Taub, Smith, and the three children huddled under a blanket watching television together. The caption describes DePape as “a family friend.” As in The Oakland Tribune article, the focus was on Taub, with no quotes from DePape.

    “Ryan La Coste, who lives in an apartment directly behind the Taub-DePape house, said that the day after Taub’s wedding to Smith, “There was a huge fight. The guy [Smith] that she married got locked up. And so Taub married somebody else. My understanding was that David [DePape] was the best man to her husband at the wedding.”

    – Michael Shellenberger

  3. “Pelosi Attacker Was Progressive and Mentally Ill, Says Ex-Girlfriend”

    He was not a MAGA member; he did not support the “insurrection” of Jan. 6; and he was never even a Republican. But David DePape, 42, was a known nudist activist who his ex-girlfriend says was also a progressive and mentally ill. DePape was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, elder abuse and burglary for having bludgeoned Paul Pelosi, 82, with a hammer, fracturing his skull. DePape has been residing in a decrepit school bus that sits outside the Berkeley home of his ex-girlfriend, Oxane “Gypsy” Taub, also a pro-nudist activist. A two-decade resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, DePape was also known for his pro-nudity activism. He had picketed naked at protests against laws requiring people to be clothed in public. Protesting such a reasonable law is not usually an activity of a Trump supporter.

    Taub, the mother of DePape’s three children, told the New York Post he has been suffering from mental illness. “He is mentally ill,” she told ABC-7. “He has been mentally ill for a long time.”
    Taub, who currently is serving time in a California prison for abducting a teenage boy, said DePape had disappeared for over a year and then resurfaced recently.

    “He thought he was Jesus,” she told ABC-7. “He was constantly paranoid, thinking people were after him. And it took a good year or two to get back to, you know, being halfway normal.”

    She also noted DePape’s politics were not right wing.

    “Well, when I met him, he was only 20 years old, and he didn’t have any experience in politics,” she said. “And he was very much in alignment with my views, and I’ve always been very progressive.”

    “I wasn’t surprised because another crazy story is coming from someone in that house,” DePape’s Berkeley neighbor Ryan La Coste told the N.Y. Post.

    “They are always toxic and always up to something. They are always on the news and trying to be ‘activists.’ They always want to be in the spotlight.”

    Reporters on social media noted some shaky details in mainstream media’s initial portrayal of Pelosi’s attacker as a right-wing activist.

    “Why did Paul Pelosi’s alleged attacker, a nudist Green Party activist, go off the grid for years and then start posting Q rants just a few weeks ago?”

    – By Eric Mack

  4. Stand fast. Fear not.

    I adjure thee oh lord, to battle the goats and children of disobedience on this day of Satan’s Sabbath, Halloween.

  5. Wow! Turley uses his blog to attack Democrats over this trivial matter while ignoring the outrageous lies put out by Republicans. Let’s just cover Friday’s attack on Paul Pelosi, shall we? Some alt-right media are trying to make the case: 1. that the attacker was a liberal fanatic–a complete lie. He is someone, like many on this blog, who fell for the Big Lie and other alt-right conspiracy theories; plus, he’s seriously mentally ill; 2. that he was really there for a homosexual liaison with Paul Pelosi, another total lie, even though he was asking “where’s Nancy”, was armed with a hammer and beat Paul Pelosi on his face, requiring surgery. The dependably low-class Trump, Jr., mocked the situation, just like he mocked John Fetterman, calling him “brain dead”. Does Turley have anything whatsoever to say about either of these matters? No. He, as usual, looks for something, anything, to attack Democrats. which is why Turley has lost any credibility whatsoever. He’s just a Fox News political hack, which is why I don’t read his posts in detail. It’s not worth my time. Anything to feed red meat to the disciples.

    1. Why does this surprise you, Turley has been throwing out chum for the Trump base for quite a while now.

    2. The Big Lie. LOL. Take off that mask and get some oxygen into your head then turn off your TV. Maybe then you’ll see you’re being duped. If that doesn’t work take a look at your retirement balance, your costs for food, clothing, shelter, an energy, and then read about the moronic war your moron BRAIN DEAD President and his band of criminally sociopathic handlers they are profiting from.

      Then, after the time passes for you to possibly readjust your own brain instead of having it pre-programmed, enough time will have passed to show you all the evidence that criminal insider trader and drink and drug-addled homosexual Paul Pelosi was part of a bad trip with his equally self-absorbed homosexual drug-addict buddies.

      But, that’s right, you do not read, you absorb what you are told, so I’m sure in a weeks time, you will have moved on to some other shiny object your TV tells you to believe.

      I got 5:1 you have one of these unintendedly hilarious signs on your domicile: I believe in science… LOL, what a bunch of morons the left has assembled.

      Oh, and to get back on point, I hope the GOP takes a picture of you smiling from ear to ear the next time you ingest your mood-moderating drugs and plasters it all over his campaign ads.

      1. And, Neil, you know that Paul Pelosi is a “criminal insider trader and drink and drug-addled homosexual” based on what, exactly? Where is there any proof of any of this? You don’t have any, and just like ALL Trump supporters, you don’t need any, either. You follow and believe the lies of a chronic, habitual liar, a frivolous playboy who was supported by his Daddy well into his forties who has nurtured a fake image of a fabulously-wealthy genius, but who bankrupted multiple businesses when hid daddy couldn’t bail him out any more, who stole classified documents, and whoconstantly lies about losing an election, despite all proof to the contrary. You don’t need proof. You are felony-stupid.

        1. I see we can at least agree on the fact that you voted for and support the moron BRAIN DEAD President and his band of criminally sociopathic handlers.

          Oh, I’m sure you loathe Trump and that he triggers your own daddy issues.

          But for evidentiary sake, do you believe in science?

        2. We know that Pelosi engaged in insider Trading – read the news.

          The trades the Pelosi made as well as those of many members of congress run afoul of SEC insider trading rules that apply to the rest of us – but not congress. Pelosi has killed repeated efforts to subject congress to relaxed versions of the SEC rules that apply to the rest of us.

          We also know that Paul Pelosi was way over the legal limit in his recent accident.

          Is he a drug addict ? Is Nancy is beard ? we do not know.

          What we do know is that the reporting of this is a mess, and raises enormous questions.

          We do not know if many of the claimed early errors are actual errors. or attempts to hide the facts.
          We do know that LEFT as well as right news sources reported all the facts that are now claimed to be false or mean something different.

          Early errors ? Possibly, if so from the left as well as the right.

          We do know that DePape is a dangerous nut, and has been for a long time.
          That his long trial leads to the conclusion he is a violent LEFT wing nut.

          We also know that no one should belive spin from Pelosi.

    3. Please familiarize yourself with the known FACTS regarding the Pelosi attack.
      At the very best – this is going too play out to be the same as the 2017 Bus murders by Jeremey Christian
      Who was purportedly a white supremecist.
      But Ultimately just turned out to be a mentally deranged drunk Bernie bro who said some racist things and stabbed 3 people – 2 of whom died.

      There are many many unanswered questions regarding the events at Pelosi’s home.
      None of which are going to lead to answers that further they idiotic claim that this is J6 related or an example of right wing violence.

      Most of us have sufficient brains cells to grasp that there is not an actual MAGA republican within 100 miles of Berkeley.
      And DePape is an illegal Canadian who has been in Berkeley for two decades.
      He is also a violent drug addict with a long rap sheet, serious mental health problems, spouting all kinds of political nonsense – nearly all left wing. Though fundamentally just a broken person.

      And there are lots of answered questions and suspicious facts that strongly suggest, DePape did not break in.

    4. It is inarguable that DePape was:
      A drug addict
      Had a history of violence
      Had decades long affiliation with left wing causes
      Is mentally ill.
      That both Paul Pelosi and DePape were seriously injured.
      DePape was also hospitalized.
      Both DePape and Pelosi were in their underwear at the time of the attack.

      There was either a massive security failure at the Pelosi Mansion – which has a high fence, several 24×7 guards, dogs, and security cameras,
      or DePape did not break in.

      Their was a 3rd party present who let the police in.

      The 911 Transcript does not support the claims the news has made.

      It apears that both Paul Pelosi and DePape had hammers.

    5. Why is Fetterman in this race after his stroke ?
      I am sorry for what happened to him – My father had a stroke, a close friend did.
      I would not wish that on anyone.
      1/3 of people who have strokes are dead within 3 years.
      The effects vary but frequently include cognitive impairment.

      The effects on my father were heartbreaking.
      Over the next 3 years he slowly lost cognitive abilities
      AND he knew it was happening.

      I hope Fetterman’s doctors are correct and he will be fully recovered by January.
      But the odds against that are poor.

      If his family and friends cared about him – he would have dealt with his heart arrhythmia – which my wife has and untreated like Fetterman’s will lead to strokes.
      And when after failing to address his arrhythmia he had a storke he would have withdrawn, let the other democrat finish the race.
      and gone home to be with his family.

      That his party and his family and friends would continue to allow him to look like a fool is immoral.

    6. Fetterman IS a brain damaged cyborg radical leftist. That’s plain truth to see with your own eyes. Turns out Pelosi’s attacker was not his gay lover. Nor is he a MAGA extremist — THAT is an outrageous lie. What’s true is the attacker is a drug addled nut job who should have been deported decades ago. And there are still many gaping holes in the cover “story”…

      1. “Turns out Pelosi’s attacker was not his gay lover.”

        Or was he? We just don’t know until they release the footage of what happened. Security cams, body cams, etc. Until more evidence is provided to the public, we will assume he was Pelosi’s gay lover.

    7. Gigi:

      Is your position that a right wing fanatic lived in Berkeley, was a heavy drug user, nudist activist, lived in a bus with BLM and gay pride flags all over? All of that has been verified.

      DePape had a long history of chronic drug use, chronic homelessness, mental illness, and a total inability to get a job. He was completely unstable. A former neighbor said he would go “off his rocker” when he did hard drugs.

      A non functioning, mentally ill person, can have far Left views, and then, during a psychotic break, read how Nancy Pelosi was a liar, and go try to harm her, before going back to his nudist, BLM, gay pride bus. That doesn’t make him “far Right”. That makes him insane.

      If you talk about how we “have 12 years to stop climate change before the planet is doomed”, and then a mentally ill person goes on a murder spree, thinking he’s putting people out of their misery because he heard you say “the planet is doomed”, is that your fault? Or is it the fault of the mentally ill person, who probably should have been committed before he harmed someone? Are you willing to take personal responsibility for every crime committed by anyone who hears the harsh Democrat anti-Republican rhetoric that you’ve voiced? What if a deranged person said, “Gigi told me to do it?”

    1. Darren Smith, how does one activate the “Star, Like?” Clicking on it isn’t effective.

      1. George,

        Thank you for the effort in trying to click the Like link, though I’m afraid I might not have a definite answer for you. With conjecture I suspect a probable reason could be that one has to be authenticated to a user account that WordPress or Gravitar recognizes in order to facilitate the passing of the Like into the system. Pressing [Like] by an authenticated user causes the system to notify the author of the comment and pass along the username that did so. (That is if the author has chosen to accept like notifications) And I also imagine that WordPress or whomever is involved could also keep records of the topics for which the “Like’er” clicked for data mining or whatever it is they do with–it if anything. But that is beyond my control or involvement. But if the system isn’t able to authenticte the Like, then it might just ignore it or decline to process the like. (since it might not give what the webdesigners want) Again, I am just speculating here and don’t have the true answer. There could easily be other causes as well.

        1. Yup. I used to have a Gravatar because of my now defunct blog that I ran on WordPress. I was able to use the “like” feature when visiting other WP blogs. Recall my Estovir account had an image of St Thomas Aquinas when I first arrived here. However, once I deleted my WP blog, my Gravatar account was also deactivated, preventing me from “liking” anyone and hence becoming a Pink “light in my loafers” commenter, not a bad thing.


          NB: your filter for the N word also catches URLs that may use the N word. Not sure if you can adjust that but FYI

          1. Estovir,

            That is correct about how proscribed words result in automatic trapping in either the ordinary message body of the comment and any links therein. The system seems to parse for this globally and my observation is that it includes the entirety of comments “body” and any user information such as the username or “friendly name” passed along within the comment’s posting. Encapsulations within hyperlinks do not allow for exceptions to the parsing. In fact, it would be more difficult to script for the exception of hyperlinks than to just filter everything. Surely this could be done by someone, but I don’t see it happening in this web log’s instance. When we see if proscribed or prohibited text elements happen and we see these comments “waiting moderation” in the trap folder they are then individually screened and a judgement call is made to see whether or not to approve the comment and allow its visibility. Probably the URL that gets flagged the most are hyperlinks pointing to Bit Chute’s website. When a hyperlink is included in a comment that points to this website, the concatination of Bit Chute (Sans space character) into a URL results in a prohibited word being formed for the purposes of filtering and it gets rejected by WordPress. It then remains in the moderation trap until one of us manually approves it. THis is an artifact of the filtering system applied, and a spillover cost of the rules formulated by the site’s owner.

            1. Your description and particularly the costs involved are very relevant to discussions regarding SM censorship.

              Those on the left do not understand the very real cost of all this censorship – in this case the direct costs, of people who must go through and decide what is allowed and what is not.

              The very lite censorship of this blog is not free.
              There is cost just to removing spam.

              There is some discussion here about Musk charging blue checks on Twitter,

              A discussion of charging people extra for free speech.

              But the reality should be the opposite.
              Users should have to pay more if they want content filtering.

              Free speech is actually free. Censorship is very expensive.

              Regardless, understanding some of what is involved and what goes wrong with respect to content moderation is very informative.

        2. Thks Daren/guys,

          That saved me time asking the same.

          I don’t register everywhere as I’ve had many data breaches over the year.

          Getting Rid of Microsoft stuff help A Lot!

      2. Just as a heads up that many likely already know:

        Pogo (comic Strip) – “We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us.”


        We have the 5 eyes groups spying & coding against all of us citizens & we also have the US Govt & Corporation Illegal doing the same.

        Below is a bit about:

        Breaking News
        Watch Live
        Infowars Network
        The Alex Jones Show
        The War Room with Owen Shroyer
        The American Journal
        Infowars Store
        Download Our App

        Terms of Service

        DHS Coordinated Massive Censorship Operations With Major Big Tech Platforms, Leaked Docs Confirm
        by Jamie White
        October 31st 2022, 1:55 pm
        DHS held monthly meetings with Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, Wikipedia, and other platforms to coordinate “content moderation” operations before 2020 election.
        Government agencies circumvented the First Amendment by tasking social media platforms to remove information they didn’t like.
        Image Credit:

        The Department of Homeland Security, FBI and other government agencies have been working closely with numerous Big Tech companies to coordinate widespread censorship operations, leaked internal documents reveal.



  6. Really, how hard would it have been to find a pro abortion weeper on the court house steps. Why let due diligence get in the way when you’ve got a story to tell. Truth be damned.

  7. California Democratic party? There is nothing else in CA, not in any meaningful way beyond the billionaires like Barbara Grimmway that control the less ‘Democratic’ Central Valley which is absurdly polluted, drug addled (the TV show ‘Breaking Bad’ was originally written to take place there, but New Mexico gave them better tax breaks – Google it) and though the people have a great deal of heart – it is *almost* unliveable, on the level of the more polluted parts of China, and that fact is largely due to the bigger cities in CA. If you are going to mention California in a sentence, you are going to have to accept this: CA really probably should secede, how many other states do you have to go through ‘customs’ if you enter through a car? The rest of us do not need their insanity. I understand that they are part of the Union and for the Professor this is a viable mental exercise, and rightly so; but he can forget it. And lest you think I am talking out of my behind, my dad was born in LA, 80+ years ago, and I have lived in California (within the past ten years, and I still visit family there regularly each year). Nothing they do is deserving of the lens of logic, fairness, Constitutionality, or even sanity. California is very much a lost cause in those terms. The entire point of this post is moot, and good luck changing it. This is not a mental exercise for the people that live in these places. Everything in CA has gone from bad to worse, and then somehow, even worse than that.


    You only abort the human beings in your wombs because they are smaller than you.

    Give them a few years, they will fight back, they will stop you.

  9. Prior to the 1980’s, it was standard practice for news photographers and videographers to obtain “Consent Forms” of anyone in any photo that could be identified. If your photo ended up in a newspaper or publication, the photographer/videographer would try to obtain your permission (release signed by you).

    There is also the profit issue. If a magazine or publication makes a profit using your image (without our consent) shouldn’t we get paid a percentage of the profit?

    Although this is probably not legally required, it seems like a good ethical practice to require consent to avoid lawsuits like this one.

  10. I would like to congratulate Macy Petty and wish her luck if she decide to file a suit. Since HRC is involved in this she might wish to name the suit “Torts for Tarts”

  11. There is no mystery in sex and conception. Most women and men celebrate the informed consent, safe sanctuary, and shared responsibility for “our Posterity” that follows with their first choice.

  12. Democrats selling a lie? What’s news worthy here. It isn’t even worth worrying whether the law will find them guilty – we know the system is on their side…

  13. Didn’t she bring attention to herself and “harm” when she decided to go public with the claim?

    The video was taken down, but once on the Internet it’s there forever.

  14. We’ve been told by Democrats for decades that opposition to abortion is driven by men. Democrats claim men don’t want abortion because they want to control a woman’s body.

    Now you’re telling me a woman opposes abortion. And her conviction is so strong that she broke down in tears of joy because Roe was overturned.

    The only way that can be true is if Democrats are liars.

    1. I thought they couldn’t define a “woman”?

      Men can have babies, right?

      Democrats War on Women. Democrats War on Children.

      This young lady needs to take them to court. In the words of Greta…..how dare they!

      The National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party there in no truth in them.

      1. “I thought they couldn’t define a “woman”? Men can have babies, right?”

        ZZ: The left is crazy. We can see that here when some leftist bloggers speak.

        Here is an interesting article.

        University midwifery students taught biological men can give birth

        “Midwifery students at a university in Scotland were instructed on how to care for a “birthing person” who has male genitalia.”


        1. As a result of nonsense with Svelaz, I worked out my problems joining Truth Social.

          I immediately found Gov. Gavin Newsom was their.
          So much for Truth being MAGA hell.

          I did find alot of contributors I could follow posting memes – I do not think there are so many memes on Parlor.

          I particularly liked

          “MAGA Women do not have Penis’s”

        2. S.Meyer just insanity.

          The National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party and it’s War on Women, War on Children and the War on babies.

  15. Is anyone surprised that Hillary Clinton and Gavin Newsom, among other notables, simply grabbed this woman’s image and used it, not having a clue about who she is or her beliefs?

  16. A well qualified lawyer should do some pro bono work here and sue the Democrat Party of California and the makers of the video and anyone else who participated in the fraudulent video and its promotion….to include Hillary Clinton and Newsom as they as Public Figures should have done their due diligence to know if the material was accurate before adding their stature and position to the video and its contents. Clinton and Newsom are exactly the kinds of people that endorse censorship of that they call disinformation or false information…..and thus they have injected themselves into this by doing that then turning around and posting such a bogus video.

    1. caveat emptor

      The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.

      We already have too many laws. I have no power to protect fools from themselves. The govt cant do it either.

      1. Aye. There’s not enough time in the day for you to protect you from yourself.

Comments are closed.