In quotations. *I* did not use the man's name. Hello?

You chose someone whose daughter was bullied over the internet, and decided to bully him over the internet for working as a defence attorney. The only connection that illustrated to me was that people love saying unwarranted and unpleasant things about this family to serve their own agenda.
/QUOTE]

No. The man, as a DA, is in a public position. I am referrring to his *work*, not his body nor his self. I'm also not talking about him in a demaning way; I made a point of saying in the first paragraph that defending accused criminals is not only his job, but it's an admirable one. If you cannot see the 180 degree difference between criticizing *effective arguments* that demean women as a class, which is what I'm doing, and sexist language that demeans specific women as individuals, which is what I'm criticizing, then I'm at a loss.

In quotations. *I* did not use the man's name. Hello?

You chose someone whose daughter was bullied over the internet, and decided to bully him over the internet for working as a defence attorney. The only connection that illustrated to me was that people love saying unwarranted and unpleasant things about this family to serve their own agenda.
/QUOTE]

No. The man, as a DA, is in a public position. I am referrring to his *work*, not his body nor his self. I'm also not talking about him in a demaning way; I made a point of saying in the first paragraph that defending accused criminals is not only his job, but it's an admirable one. If you cannot see the 180 degree difference between criticizing *effective arguments* that demean women as a class, which is what I'm doing, and sexist language that demeans specific women as individuals, which is what I'm criticizing, then I'm at a loss.

And finally, regarding this whole "by reporting this story you're perpetuating it" line of argument: there is a difference between reporting (including news commentary) and harassment. If you want to argue that talking *about* a specific case of harassment effectively amounts to continuing it, then what you're going to end up with is a situation where victims of harassment will remain isolated and vulnerable. Yes, reporting or commenting on something or someone as a news story often results in unwanted publicity. But it is *not* the same as saying "oh look, that chick's hot, I'd do her." Failing to make that distinction is a real problem, akin to blaming the messenger.

Moshi moshi?

I like Wyrd and Orlog, better.

So you copy and pasted rather than typed. The end result is the same - this person's name included in the text of an article you submitted. If you did not want to use his name and bring negative attention to him, you could have replaced it with '******'. Copy and pasting his name into your article is not any different to typing his name in your article.

Or, would it have been alright if the sports blogger writing about his daughter had simply included her name as a quote from somewhere else, and then put his inflammatory opinions? Didn't think so.

I know. And I'm taking issue with you chastising him for his work. The man is a defence attorney that defended his client. You don't seem to understand his unique position in the case as a defence attorney; he was not a judge or a juror. If he was in the position of judge or juror, Al Stokke may well have given these people a lengthy sentence and found them guilty. But he wasn't a judge, and he wasn't allowed to judge whether anyone was guilty.
His legal mandate was to advance any argument he thought might be successful, and he shouldn't be 'told off' for doing so.

In every single court case, there is either a lawyer who is defending a guilty person or prosecuting an innocent person. If you launched vigilante attacks on every lawyer who'd defended a bad person or prosecuted a nice person then the legal profession would be empty.

Consequently, the blame for accepting outlandish arguments from lawyers who are just doing their job needs to lie with the judge and jury, end of story.

I know. That is why I didn't say anything against the Allison Stokke article you posted. That was just reporting an incident of harassment. This, however, is an incident of harassment in itself.

What is that book, Morgan? Omg, that's just like my case against my father, and that's the exact defence they gave against me too! I was also 7.

I was 17 when I tried the case, and they pulled my boyfriend up on the stand, and tried to dig up my past sexual partners! Of which, funnity enough, there were none at that time.

Again, nope. Not chastising the man, nor his job, which--again--I said is a noble one. Chastising the fact that the arguments he successfully made *are* successful ones in this society.

Okay. But the overall tone of your article did seem like it was condemning him. Or maybe it was the several pages of comments that followed saying 'Al Stokke is an asshole' that gave me that impression.

This story even made the Dutch newspapers, including a photo of the girl. If it's all a plot to make her famous, it's a damn good one.