Richard Warman is continuing his campaign of harrassment and attempted intimidation of Free Dominion. We were served another set of papers from the Censorship Czar moments ago.Same as before, he doesn't like the harsh language used to describe his activities (apparently he believed that after his previous complaints FD users would be praising him) and he's upset about being described as an enemy of freedom, a censorship champion and an anti-free speech campaigner. He considers that defamatory and libelous and he wants a complete retraction to be published on FD website - otherwise Warman threatens to sue.
As in the first set, Warman is threating to sue unless his demands are met.
Defamatory? Libelous? Why doesn't he check out the good old Webster?
Censor: 1) A person who inspects printed matter or motion pictures with power to suppress anything objectionable.I wonder what in this definition doesn't fit Richard Warman. Looking at his record on Wikipedia - that's exactly what he's been doing. Does it make him less of a censor because the matter he inspects is not printed on paper but published electronically? And sure, he may not (yet) have the actual power (or authority) to suppress anything he finds objectionable, but as a lawyer, he's got all the skills and he's always there to help those who actually have the power to do so.
But wait... Maybe it's the second meaning of "Censor" that troubles him?
2) One of two early Roman magistrates whose duties included taking the census.If so - then I'm ready to publish a retraction:
Dear Mr. Richard Warman! When I call you a censor, I never mean the early Roman magistrate.