Friday, January 05, 2007

Free SPOCKO, Fuck Disney

KSFO/Disney Corp has used threats and intimidation to silence "Spocko," a Bay Area blogger noted formerly (til he had to take it down) for "Spocko's Brain," in which forum he has taken serious exception to the alarming tendency of many of KSFO's right-wing fucktard--that vicious, vapid, vacuous bint Melanie Morgan, among them--air personnel to enjoin and encourage their listeners to violence against politicians (e.g., Nancy Pelosi) and others with whom they have disagreements. The story of Spocko's fight, and his fate, is here.

The files over which the flap occurred, which Spocko used to persuade KSFO advertizers to drop KSFO's feculent, foetid hate-mongers and vicious, flying-monkey 2nd-raters can be found here.

When I figure out how to do it (Calling Curlytech!@!!!), I'll put up links.

Til then, please c&p this and any other info you might garner on this unfolding scandal and send it to anybody else who would like to stick a big, stinky, shit-covered finger in the ojos de Raton...


¡El Gato Negro! said...



Joo should feel free, no, joo should feel encouraged to blogwhore thees post, guilt-free, as far and wide as joo can.

Gracias again for jour help.


Anonymous said...

I believe your blog misrerpresents the facts. What I read on the situation is he stole soundbytes that were protected by copyright. He was written a letter asking him to remove the soundbytes from his website or his account would be closed in seven days. He refused to remove the soundbytes and his account was closed, therefore he CHOSE to have it closed, since he wasn't abiding by federal law.

I've had a chance to read a few of his posts the past day or so and saw that he was trying to stop the free speech of others because he didn't agree with what they were saying.

Its facism, at its finest, that he was practicing. Free speech is something all Americans should be entitled to use and it certainly shouldn't be thwarted or dictated by anonymous bloggers with control issues.

Facism isn't cool, under any name or guise...and that's what the guy was espousing and practicing. Facism.

Anonymous said...

So, a private citizen with no ties to corporations or government is practicing facism?

If the advertisers believe in the radio hate speech, they won't cancel their ads when presented with winners like:

Brian Sussman tells caller to say 'Allah is a whore'

KSFO caller suggests bombing Syrian mosques

Brian Sussman wants military weapons in his home

Brian Sussman says he doesn't have to tolerate Islam

Brian Sussman says we should cut off detainee fingers and penises

Melanie Morgan and Ann Coulter say liberals should be executed

Coulter and Morgan say Bill Keller should be executed - sound effects by Officer Vic

Brian Sussman says Islam is a false religion

Anonymous said...

Absolutely. The person is practicing facist values in trying to impede the rights of others....from free speech and from their personal property as the anonymous blogger did.

I don't feel sorry for anyone who does what he did. Everyone is entitled to their views, no matter how much we disagree. You have no right to try to control the views of others. If you don't like it, simply turn off the station or debate what you don't like, expressing your own view.

It doesn't matter what people say--they are entitled to their thoughts and their views. Nothing makes your view any more valuable than their view. Not under the roots for this country stands.

Squeling free speech is simply unacceptable and something no ethical blogger would ever subscribe to, endorse or even sympathize with.

What this blogger did was simply facist behavior...and what contributed to what became Nazi Germany.

Interrobang said...

Um, it's not fascist behaviour to write to someone's advertisers and say "Do you really like your brand being associated with this?" Nobody made those advertisers leave KSFO; if they were cool with that, they could have told Spocko to take a long walk off a short pier.

I think you misunderstand what "free speech" is. It isn't "free speech" when you have the money and power of a major corporation and your opponent has a soapbox on the corner, so you can sue their ass into the ground for complaining about them. Free speech also doesn't mean that corporations and the people who work for them get to say whatever they like on company time. If Brian Sussman or Melanie Morgan or whomever wants to say whatever kind of stuff in their private lives, they can, but on the company dime, they have to follow the rules by which that company is bound.

Keep in mind, the FCC licenses the public's airwaves to KSFO with a very stringent set of rules (some of which were devised and set into place by right-wingers, which now look to be about to come back and bite the KSFO people on the rear end -- OOPS!). They're not allowed to use obscene language. Thanks to the Religious Right, that now carries a $325K fine. They're also not allowed to practice hiring discrimination, which, in effect, by having the GM of the station married to someone who thinks it's perfectly ok to go on the air and badmouth Muslims, they are. They don't have a religious broadcaster license, so they can't specify which religions their employees can belong to. They are licensed by the FCC, and need to follow the FCC's rules, which they have not been.

As to your contention that Spocko "stole" those clips and violated copyright, don't make me laugh. He recorded them off of broadcast radio, which has been perfectly legal to do for years and years. Then he put tiny, edited excerpts on his website for the purposes of education and commentary, all of which is permitted (as far as we can tell) under Fair Use statutes. Disney/KSFO, whom I suspect you work for, hasn't got a leg to stand on...and neither have you, having invoked Godwin's law ages ago on this thread and having lost the argument forthwith.

Anonymous said...

He took property that didn't belong to him and put it into public domain.

That, in itself, is illegal. Didn't your Mama ever tell you, "Don't touch things that don't belong to you."

He tried to thwart the free speech of others because he interpreted the comments of others, in a fashion that was familiar to him (violent) rather than actually looking at the definition and the meanings of what was said, by whom they were said, etc.

Sorry Dear...we live in America, not some repressive extremist society and EVERYONE is entitled to free speech. If you don't like an opinion, you have choices. You can turn off the tv, change the radio station, even write a commentary. But you cannot steal their copywritten material. You cannot try to thwart their free speech and you cannot try to adversely affect their business to silent them from exercising their right to free speech.

He has some issues, with control, with demanding everyone subscribe to his views or he "will silence them" and a sense of entitlement that he should be allowed access and the ability to take the property of others.

It was his choice to have the blog closed. I read where he could have easily and simply removed the copywritten material, which he chose not to do. Apparently, he wasn't interested in discourse, debate or conversation, but only in the acquisition and dissemination of copywritten material.

Ethical bloggers do not subscribe to his facist type notions of free speech only to those who subscribe to his beliefs, nor to the acquisition of private property without permission. They have respect for others and the property of others.

In America, EVERYONE has a right to express their views, like it or not.

You could always live in Iran, which practices what he does....

Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!) said...


what is it about the marketplace of ideas to which you object?

surely you are aware and are in sympathy with the scores of cases in which the machinations of (often congregationally organized) religious boycotters have silenced liberal and prgogressive voices for being permissive, or scatological...
are you claiming the franchise on 'the good'?
hubris, brudda...unbecoming and dangerous..'

Anonymous said...

Free speech, yes. Inciting violence, no.

I'm assuming you haven't heard any of the audio clips, blogical. I'd bet dollars to donuts they'd be considered R-rated, i.e., inapprpriate for children, in their blatant and graphic imagery. (Yes, I've listened to all of them - and posted them to numerous sites.)

KSFO has a license, not a right, to use the public airwaves. When their broadcasts become obscene to a reasonable person in their community, they need to change their practices or risk losing that license.

Fair Use law allows a person to copy materials and publish them for purposes of education, information, critique or parody. Spocko was not altering or selling the material; the clips were short enough to avoid 're-broadcasting' charges while still providing context.

And I agree with I-bang - you smell of Disney/KSFO, friend.

Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!) said...

Yo, Rip...
S'true, ain't it?
the reek of corporate complicity and corruption is just about undeniable...the CorpoRat shills are the unflappable ones, martialing facts in a coldly unemotional manner.


Anonymous said...

WGG, check your comments IPs and see who this blogicalthought is, will ya? I've seen him making the same comments, roughly, on two other blogs tonite.

¡El Gato Negro! said...

Blogical ees Pathoblogical.

(sneef, sneef)

...and he smells like a sockpuppet, no?


blogicalthought said...

Fair use applies to non-profit organizations and to educational endeavors, however through his own admission, he doesn't qualify for either of those. He publicly stated his blog was for "political purposes."

Just because he is unsuccessful enough to acquire sponsors doesn't mean he is a "nonprofit" organiza tion, despite his claims. LOL!

Unfortunately, the anonymous blogger has a terribly warped perception of what he heard...making accusations based upon that warped perception.

In example, he reported he heard a broadcaster state they had a bulls eye on a legislator. When I read the quote I heard the same thing. However, he perceived it to be in a violent manner while my perception was clearly not one which involved violence. Perhaps it is because he lacks a high level of education and a severe ability to exercise logical deduction.

Interpretation of statements not only pertain to the use and definition of words, but the context in which they are stated, the conditions in which they are stated and by the abilities of those stating the comments.

"Bulls eye" is defined as being the "center of a target." Target is defined as a goal or objective. So, therefore, the statement referred to the center of an objective. So, what was the objective?

Clearly, the warped perception of the blogger interpreted the objective to be violent, because that is his mindset. However, he didn't logically assess the persons, the definitions or the situation, as the broadcasters were discussing the past actions of the legislator and stated they would be watching her in the future.

Therefore, the interpretation was not within the twisted perception of the anonymous blogger but with the meaning of being the target of discussion or future controversy should the legislator "screw up."

Nonetheless, the blogger accused the broadcasters of a criminal action, which is a defamation, added to his unauthorized and unlawful use of their protected material.

Pretty unethical...the guy has issues and does not represent the values or the ethics of responsible bloggers, who, like it or not are acting as journalists. He does not possess the intelligence or the ability to exercise logic in coming to a conclusion, which makes him a "lousy blogger" and merely a bullhorn spouting out senseless rhetoric.

He has no credibility in the blogging community and made a choice to allow his website to be terminated due to his violation of terms of service and unlawful acts.

I feel no sympathy for him, nor do many other bloggers with whom I've spoken.

kelley b. said...

...and we have no sympathy for you, blogicalthought, corporate troll.

You know, with a Democratic administration and Congress (when it happens), your actions- and the actions of Disney/ ABC- will be percieved as hate crimes and the infringement of civil rights.

One hopes Mr. Spocko makes a bundle off of all your sorry asses.

blogicalthought said...

Now, now Kelley...

Can you please detail what you feel a "Democratic Congress" is going to do to me because I have voiced my opinion about some guy who thinks he is a Vulcan who has shown an unhealthy obsession toward a radio talk show host by stealing her sound bytes and who would rather give up his website than her sound bytes.

this is just too funny! I love your definition of "hate speech." Clearly, you and the anonymous blogger share the same definition, because all I have done is expressed my view on someone who obviously has some serious issues....apparently, you interpret anything that is contrary to your belief system as hate speech.

Seriously, I had to laugh over the comment of the anonymous blogger that he was going to sue someone for defaming his screen name. That was classic....

But thanks for giving me a great laugh today...

Do you really think that a Democratic Congress is going to classify free speech which is differing opinion as "hate crimes" and "infringement of civil rights?" Whoa, then you have validated my s statement about facist tactics! Thanks!

You are way, way, way too funny.

And as to your statement as me being a "corporate troll," that is even more hilarious. Obviously, you feel you know something I don't.

Perhaps you can find out where I can pick up a paycheck that will supplement my retirement, huh? And do me a favor...don't tell my husband about all the money I am making on the side. By the way, how much am I making?

Gotta love the assumptions and the wild statements of the bloggers...

And you guys write political blog? LOL!!! Come on, fill me in. Just how many of the unsuspecting public do you con a day? Huh?

This entire situation would make a hilarious sitcom however if I were the talk show host, I'd be a little scared with the obsession.

Anyway, thanks, from a very amused and very retired Grandma! Your humor has made my day!

Anonymous said...

My name is Tom Siebert. I am a reporter for MediaPost, covering the Spocko/Disney dustup. If anyone can determine that blogicalthought is a sock puppet, please contact me at:

Thank you.


Toofs said...

Enough of that creepy poster. Sockpuppet or troll, we should move on. "I'm right, you're a fascist for not completely agreeing with me." Yoikes.

Where's the files? I gots many many servers, and would love to distribute.

Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!) said...

go here, and scroll down...

if you can suggest to me how i can put 'em up in such a way that they rmain accessible, i'd appreciate...

Zeno said...

For anyone else who might be following this, BlogicalThought has been trolling about the blogosphere in the wake of this story, lone defender of the jack-boot tactics of ABC/Disney on behalf of its right-wing KSFO affiliate. Visit Online Blogintegrity for a lengthening list of BlogicalThought's trollfest.

Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!) said...


kelley b. said...

Interestingly, the paid troll seems to have shut up once we started correlating his appearances.

Mr. Siebert, I hope you noticed the list of his appearances here

ChuckL said...


You are either the most thick-headed poster I have ever encountered, or you are purposely ignoring the laws regarding Fair Use.

The original comments made at KSFO were done on a PUBLIC broadcast system. They were therefore fair game for anyone who wanted to re-use the entire broadcast for editorial purposes.

If specific content WITHIN the broadcast was the editorial subject, then the rules involving using only specific clips would apply. But that was not the case here, since the entire broadcast was the subject.

The Fair Use rules apply to any publically published material. As long as the material is not altered in a way that substantially changes the original intent of the material, Fair Use applies.

It also doesn't matter how much, or how little, income the blogger makes. If the blogger presents the material in an editorial format, then it IS editorial use, and is protected as such.