Tuesday, December 6, 2016

The "objectionable content" warning is gone from Legal Schnauzer as Trump's loons fail in their effort to muzzle our reporting on Bill Pryor and Jeff Sessions

Bill Pryor
The content warning that had been placed on Legal Schnauzer for several days is gone, hopefully never to return. You can chalk that up, we think, as a small victory for those of us who refuse to let loony supporters of President-Elect Donald Trump win by intimidation. It also shows the complainers failed to follow Google policy, which probably helped ensure their efforts to essentially censor this blog would fail.

A content warning appeared here not long after our November 17 report titled "Our posts about Judge Bill Pryor's ties to 1990s gay pornography have gone viral, thanks to Trump election -- and now, a second nude Pryor photo has surfaced." Our number of visitors skyrocketed as thousands of readers landed at Legal Schnauzer from Facebook, Reddit, Above the Law, and many other sites. Also the widely read fact-checking site Snopes.com weighed in on the Pryor gay-porn story.

About the same time, we ran a post stating that Trump's nomination of U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as U.S. attorney general was like "picking Tiny Tim to lead the New York Philharmonic."

That, plus the Pryor posts in November, seemed to unleash a flood of nutty, nonsensical, and threatening comments -- many of which I deleted or sent to spam.  Along with that, came what appeared to be a coordinated effort to complain about a nude photo of Pryor that ran at the gay-pornography site badpuppy.com in the 1990s. I had run the photo twice before, always including a warning that those who are squeamish about nudity should not scroll to the bottom of the post, where the picture was placed. So what happened? Naturally, certain readers ignored the warning, scrolled to the bottom to see the photo, got a case of the vapors, and whined to Google about it.

The origins of the complaints and wacky comments are not known for sure right now. But given that Sessions is Trump's AG pick -- and Pryor (because of his ties to Sessions) likely is near the top of Trump's list of possible nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court -- it seems a safe bet that Trump supporters launched the attack. I'm guessing they were particularly alarmed about our statements that a second nude photo of Pryor has surfaced, and we have information that could lead to explosive and revealing articles about Sessions.

Given Trump's clear lack of respect for the rule of law, no one should be surprised that his followers can't follow rules either. In fact, they violated Google policy in making their complaints about Legal Schnauzer.

What do I mean? The Blogger platform, which comes under the Google umbrella, has a "report inappropriate content" policy; it can be found at this link. A key part of the policy is this:

If an author’s contact information is listed on their blog, contact them directly to ask them to remove or change the content in question.

My e-mail address is available in the upper right-hand corner of the blog; it's hard to miss. But no one contacted me directly to complain about objectionable content. So in whining that I was violating Google policy, the whiners themselves violated Google policy.

I like to think we are providing a public service by giving a glimpse at what life likely will be like under a President Donald Trump. After all, it's quite clear that this "content warning" is about politics and not about nudity. In other words, the people responsible for it are dishonest, threatening, psychologically unhinged -- and they are too cowardly to contact me directly, as Google policy requires them to do.

Pryor is considered a prime candidate to be nominated to SCOTUS, and my accurate reporting on his foray into gay pornography is a possible threat to his ascent -- hence the complaints about objectionable content. I also have information that could be powerful enough to scuttle the Sessions nomination.

Any nude photos on this blog now have been pixilated, so nudity no longer is an issue. I proved that to Google, and also showed that whiners had violated policy by not contacting me directly first, and the content warning went away.

Is the content warning gone for good? I don't know; this is my first time dealing with the issue, so it's hard to say. At this point, I'm impressed by Google's response to my request to have the warning removed.

I soon will be running a second nude photograph of Pryor, and the plan is to pixilate that. But I'm guessing a new uproar will break out because Pryor supporters aren't concerned about nudity; they are concerned about my reporting, which shows that their homophobic judge is a world-class hypocrite for having dabbled in gay pornography while he was in college. Jeff Sessions also has a closet-full of skeletons, and we will be reporting on them.

That's why we landed in the cross hairs of unhinged Trump supporters; it had nothing to do with a nude photograph.


Anonymous said...

Way to go, Schnauzer. Keep kicking their asses.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure you know this already, but these people are not about to contact you directly to register complaints about a nudie photo. That would give away their identity, so they complain directly to Google.

Anonymous said...

LS: Two can play this game. You've outlined behavior on the part of anonymous persons that could be considered harassment and/or bullying, which violates Google's policies. Why don't you turn some suspicious visitors in?

Anonymous said...

Trump already has said he wants to make it easier to sue for defamation, so it's little surprise that his followers would attack a site like yours, which reports stories they don't want reported.

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to your upcoming reports on Pryor and Sessions. What a couple of dirt bags.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:02 -- Yes, two can play this game, and yes, my next move will be to report the harassing commenters -- if they continue on their recent path. Do you know if Google has a policy for reporting such commenters? I haven't been able to find it yet. If you could send a link, I would appreciate it.

One problem in this is that Google policy seems to favor readers over bloggers. That's odd, given that bloggers actually use Google products, and readers might not. Heck, I use a Google platform to produce one of the top 50 law blogs in North America. You would think Google would appreciate that. Instead, they take a handful of complaints from agenda-driven readers (maybe only one; I don't know how many it takes) and they stick a warning on my blog without checking with me. To be clear, neither the complainers, nor Google, checked with me before the warning went up. And the readers likely aren't regulars on my blog. They are a bunch of malcontents who think Trump's election means they can go around singing "Everybody Wants to Rule the World."

While I'm pleased Google got rid of the warning (in about 10 days' time), I'm not real pleased with what appears to be a one-sided process. I would have more respect for it if they took complaints only from people who provided their real names and contact information and forwarded that info to the blogger for a response, or corrective action, before putting up a warning. To allow anonymous whiners to lodge complaints that lead to content warnings, is a system that is ripe for abuse.

Anonymous said...

Look at it this way, LS. You're on the leading edge, being attacked by Trumpistas before he even takes office.

Anonymous said...

I cry out to Mr. Trump to have our highest court demand that a PMO order be filed immediately. The penis measurement order "PMO" is a high tech scientific method much like a court ordered DNA analogy. It is a sad but none the less true fact that when the family value conservative republican movement came into to power so did a obsession over the male penis. Overnight it seems we had penis issues showing up everywhere. If you recall it came up during the Trump campaign when Mr. Trump question the size of another candidate hands. You see in the far right, family value camp, the bigger, the better is the rule they live by. Today there are many youth republicans just like this judge who are watering at the mouth for a chance to take a hands on approach to resolving this question. The public has a right to know if the next judge to sit on our supreme court "measures" up or not. If someone doesn't get a hand around this penis issue now, it is guarantee to blow off in someone's face soon. I say, it is in the publics best interest to order the judge to whip it out, whip it out now and let the PMO determined the truth. The more these pictures keep coming into view the more the whip it out movement will grow larger, larger.

Davy Hay said...

So I guess, based on your capitulating to the complaints and blurring the picture...this is now the 2nd time you have self censored?

legalschnauzer said...

Davy Hay --

Here is a question for you: Once you've screwed over a client, and failed to do the "exhaustive discovery" that you have promised, you then file smart-aleck remarks to them online? What a class act you are!

Why don't you answer this question: Who paid you to change your tune in the middle of the song, after engaging in "oral argument" with Bill Baxley. My experience has been that lawyers never do anything for free. Since I didn't pay you, who did pay you to come up with your BS "$1 plan"? I find it interesting that your promise to file a counterclaim and conduct "exhaustive discovery" went out the window once you communicated with your hero, Bill Baxley.

Is that how a lawyer goes about selling out a client? You get more free publicity from my case than all of your other cases combined, and then you stab me in the back. In fact, you conned the public, with your high-and-mighty claims regarding the First Amendment, and then you want to sell out the First Amendment for $1. Some "legal champion" you are.

Here's how it looks from my seat: Jessica Garrison and Luther Strange can't handle discovery because they did, in fact, have an affair -- and I'm sure you know that. So someone persuaded you, and made it worth your while, to ignore your promise of conducting discovery.
You wind up siding with a lowlife like Bill Baxley, which must make you very proud.

No wonder so many people consider lawyers to be a bunch of blood-sucking con artists. Why don't you give me a call if you wish to discuss further? You have my number, unless you sold that out, too.

Anonymous said...

For the life of me, I can't figure out why a grown man is so obsessed with another man's nude picture(s).

legalschnauzer said...

@9:58 --

Do you know much about Bill Pryor? He's an ardent homophobe, he has spoken out repeatedly against gay rights, and yet he appeared nude at a gay-porn Web site. You don't see the hypocrisy there? Are you really that dense.

Are you aware that any federal appointee is asked during confirmation if there is anything in his past that would embarrass the office or the president who picked him? If Pryor did not answer that question truthfully, if he lied to Congress and the FBI, that's a crime.

You really can't figure that out? Sheesh.

In a small-picture sense, it was a cabal of readers who complained about the photo, not me. Seems to me you are pointing your own obsession in the wrong direction.

Anonymous said...

December 07, 1941, The day that still lives in infamy; less we forget; that 34 sets of brothers were killed that morning in defense of our nation result of this surprise attack.

Davy Hay said...


Here is the thing. Most people would have guessed it would be a lark to take on your case. Maybe get a couple mentions in the paper, maybe in a law review...Then people get to know you. There was no amount of publicity that would make representing you and your tin foil hat conspiracies worth it. There is not enough paper in all the south to print a bill for the time spent listening to you drone on about "the plot" to get you.

How about this...pay your bills, do your personal work on your own time and try being civil to people. Give it a year and I bet you things start looking up for you.

Otherwise..I suspect a 3rd, 4th and beyond examples of further self censoring (and selling out to your principles) are in your future.

As for calling you...every phone owned has your number permanently blocked.

Now go get your shine box.

legalschnauzer said...

Davy Hay --

You are pathetic. A "lark" to take on my case? And you were the one with all the high-minded rhetoric, on your Facebook page and in the press, about the First Amendment and this being the most important case you've ever done. You were lying on Facebook and to reporters then, as you are lying now -- trying to make it sound like it's my fault that you are a con man.

Your lies don't even make sense. (A) We didn't talk on the phone much; (B) You took my case after I had explained everything to you, so you didn't think it was about conspiracies then; (C) I only became a "loon" once you had encountered Bill Baxley, and he (or someone like him) convinced to you sell out your own client.

It's not a surprise that you would try to blame me once you've been outed for your complete lack of ethics. And it's interesting that you avoid answering the questions I put to you:

Anonymous said...

Sure does seem like payoffs are the norm of your colleagues, legalschnauzer? Thank goodness, Alabama doesn't get very much positive attention with the gov't admin and judiciary philandering there! This Hay guy sounds like a pointed loser that needs to go back in the haystack.

More importantly, back to Alabama's government positions and Jeff Sessions' boy, Bill Pryor...

Doesn't chameleon Pryor have a gay brother, besides indications of his own bow to homosexuality or bi-sexuality?

I could care less if Bill and/or his maybe "hidden away" brother are gay or tri-sexual, or that Bill oh-so-willingly posed nude for an up and coming publication? (tee hee hee)

But aren't Bad Billy's behavior, and then his subsequent sellout / cover-up with such maniacal and crazed - even mentally-ill - pleas and legal filings and arguments suggesting and supporting and advocating the incarceration of and denial of civil rights to the LGBT populous, basically a more direct slam-and-hide move to deny that he has a brother who is gay? What a shame that someone who tows such a benevolent bunch of bs would be so unloving to a lone brother?

I wonder if anyone has mentioned this interesting bunch of info and the old photos compared to even new ones to MSNBC?

I think Lawrence and Rachel might be interested in a few more resources being allotted to some more definitive investigation of this potential Supreme Court nominee!!!! Really? This fellow seems quite unstable if he can't own up to basic events of his youth into adulthood; and if his integrity is in question, and his discrimination so radical, I don't think the elite membership of the Supreme Court would want him in their number. Maybe a few more classmate ID's of young stud Pryor at the time of these shining examples of his prowess, and high-tech scrutiny of more indisputable evidence of the presence and unique characteristics of his strabismus amblyopia or "lazy eye", as well as the spacing between ears and hairline, bridge of nose to eye sockets, and more particularly the extent of protrusion of his front tooth, might be in order - in short order?

Anonymous said...

Maybe because our Supreme Court generally is comprised of noble lawyer types that the people of Alabama, who elect sleezeballs, wouldn't recognize if Muscle Shoals were turned upside down and the river ran backwards, and they began thinking with a little more social acceptance than the Civil War slave/owner, hide the gay boys in the guv's closet, sort of mentality.

I don't want to see any of "your people" leading our country.

You are, apparently, proud of this man standing straight up in the nude picture, who would be deceitful and yet another liar in your booster club.

I hope Sessions and Pryor and all the cronies are laid out naked in front of everybody in the U.S. with all their pasts disclosed.

Let's see if good ol' America thinks they're good enough dicks to run the country.

e.a.f. said...

Strumpets oh, trumpets are complaining about your blog and pictures of Pryor? I am so looking forward to your articles on Sessions. Don't know much about him, but Pryor, well I've been reading your blog for some time and if even a smigen of what you wrote about him were true he isn't material for the Supreme Court. of course this is America we're talking about and we know what the President elect did to some women.

What is so weird is the amount of "interest" these Republicans have about penises. During the contest for Republican candidates penis size was something discussed. Then you have pictures of a naked Republican judge. then you have Republicans not happy about it. don't think it has ever been a topic in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, etc. during elections amongst candidates. Oh, well this all will end I guess when Trump decided he is going to change the laws of America to suit himself regarding libel, etc. Of course his "buddy" Putin goes around with his shirt off riding horses. Bit weird. No wonder they have a "mutual" admiration society happening. Now he is even considering making some oil exec his secretary of State. I guy who has done "big deals" with Russia. Now that sounds really weird. O.K. I think if those boys target L.S. you just might qualify for refugee status in Canada. You can always apply and while in Canada get medical care.

Anonymous said...

Child porn reported. After reading this website, you will never again be able to trust The Hon. R. David Pryor, and you will see with crystal clarity the way that he can pervert any established ideology. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth.
Something recently occurred to me that might occur to Pryor, as well, if he would just turn down the volume of his voice for a moment: Pryor promotes a victimization hierarchy. He and his compadres appear at the top of the hierarchy, naturally, and therefore assert that they deserve to be given more money, support, power, etc. than anyone else.

Other groups, depending on Pryor's view of them, are further down the list. At the bottom are those of us who realize that the purpose of this website is far greater than to prove to you how fractious and stultiloquent Pryor has become. The purpose of this website is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how he doesn't simply want people to believe that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. Pryor wants this belief drummed into people's heads from birth. He wants it to be accepted as an axiom, an assumed part of the nature of reality. Only then will Pryor truly be able to get away with igniting a maelstrom of ultraism.

Thank you, Roger!

legalschnauzer said...

I think you men William Pryor, right? R. David Proctor is a different judge in Birmingham.