|
National Review
Online and 2nd Amendment:
Publishes Kopel Smear
Job, Refuses Rebuttal
October 15, 2003
Over three weeks ago, NationalReview.com allowed their writer to smear the
Silveira
v. Lockyer Second Amendment lawsuit we are funding and smear the people involved. Kopel's weapon of choice was misinformation, and plenty of it.
His smears came out one week before the
Supreme Court was due to consider the lawsuit -- long after such a smear campaign
could serve any useful purpose.
In an effort to allow NRO
to appear fair and balanced, we offered to submit a rebuttal. They agreed to
print our reply to their writer's hit piece smearing Silveira
v. Lockyer. Kathryn
Lopez, National Review Online Editor, strung us along for over a week, assuring us
repeatedly that she would publish our rebuttal to Kopel's article.
We waited on them based on
their word that they'd run it. Now they refuse, based on the flimsiest of
reasons.
They are protecting their
writer, who clearly spreads misinformation. We offered to let them run:
KOPEL
CLUELESS:
Silveira Lawsuit Attacker is Shooting Blanks
by Roy Lucas
October 15, 2003
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Kopel.asp
Following are the email
exchanges where their Editor repeatedly said they would run it.
NRO has space to disparage an important Second Amendment case currently awaiting a grant of certiorari (a decision to hear the case) by the U.S. Supreme Court. They have space to promote
the government's "Total Information Awareness" system as a blessing when it's a curse. They have space to run
movie
reviews glorifying violence. But they refuse to provide space for a rebuttal to a hatchet job on Second Amendment lawyers and activists.
Feel free to contact NRO's
editor, and Mr. David Kopel, to express your concerns.
National Review Online
Editor, Kathryn Lopez: klopez@nationalreview.com
National Review Online
Smear Campaigner, David Kopel: davekopel@hotmail.com
Other National Review
Online Email Contacts:
Submissions: submissions@nationalreview.com
Letters: letters@nationalreview.com
Webmaster: webmaster@nationalreview.com
Advertising: lcapano@nationalreview.com
OR
Write or
call:
National Review
215 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10016
212-679-7330
Subscriber
Customer Service: 815-734 1232
FIRST, WE TRIED THEIR
PUBLISHED EMAIL ADDRESSES:
From: "Angel Shamaya" <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
To: nronline@nationalreview.com,
submissions@nationalreview.com
Date sent: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 01:13:52 -0700
Subject: YOUR ATTACK ON ALLIES, REBUTTAL IN ORDER
Priority: urgent
Friends at NationalReview.com
Dave Kopel attacked a true Second Amendment case in which our organization [and
our fellow organization] has invested over $60,000 and lots of painstaking care and devotion -- and he did it on your website.
We have written to request space to rebut but have heard nothing back as of yet, though it's been several days.
The attorney who's done most of the later work on the Silveira v. Lockyer case is drafting a
careful, civil, thorough response -- and we are asking you to be fair and publish it. Allowing us to respond to direct, calculated attacks is the honorable thing to do, and we have believed for years that your publication is run by honorable people.
I await your reply. Our organization has been driving traffic to NRO for over three years, and we've been very consistent about it. It would sadden us greatly to find that your site is used to attack allies but precludes fair, reasoned, measured, considered responses to same.
Respectfully,
Angel Shamaya
KeepAndBearArms.com, the organization funding the legal research and writing in the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit your writer attacked.
(928) 522-8833
NO RESPONSE EVER CAME.
SO WE CALLED THEM AND WERE SENT TO KATHRYN LOPEZ'S VOICE MAIL, WHERE WE GOT HER
EMAIL ADDRESS AND ALSO LEFT A MESSAGE. SHE DID NOT RESPOND BY PHONE, SO WE SENT
ANOTHER EMAIL:
From: Angel Shamaya <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 2:13 PM
To: klopez@nationalreview.com
Subject: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Mrs. Lopez,
An ill-informed editorial on your website published 9/23/2003 directly attacks a Second Amendment lawsuit into which our national gun rights organization and our sister organization have invested over $60,000.
It was a two-part attack that used over 4,900 words to present a great deal of misinformation, leaving out numerous key facts -- like a hit piece we'd expect to read from gun banners.
We've written twice to request rebuttal space. We called last week and finally got a return call today. Vicki put me through to your voice mail, and I left a message. Since your voice mail gave your email, I thought I'd try to reach you here.
We've been sending traffic to NationalReview.com for over three years. We link to your site with regularity and even linked to the Kopel attack editorials. We are requesting and believe we deserve equal space to defend the work of which your writer clearly knows very little.
Please respond.
Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
(928) 522-8833
KATHY RESPONDED BY
EMAIL:
From: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
To: <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Date sent: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:12:48 -0400
Please do write a reponse [sic] letter (apologies--this is the first email I believe I have seen from you). shorter preferred,
to whatever extent possible, but I realize you need to make your argument. thanks.
OUR REPLY, WHICH
INCLUDED THE LINK TO OUR ATTORNEY'S REBUTTAL, DATED OCTOBER 6, 2003:
From: "Angel Shamaya" <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
To: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
Date sent: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:03:19 -0700
Subject: HERE IT IS, KATHY....RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Priority: urgent
Kathy,
Per your agreement to grant space for a Reply, following is a link to our legal researcher's Reply to Mr. Kopel's attack editorial on National Review Online. This has not been released to our thousands of daily readers -- many of whom are clamoring for a response -- because we want to let NRO release it to show that your organization is fair and balanced. We also want to assure that our Reply reaches the same people Mr. Kopel's sniping reached.
Thank you for understanding that many arguments were raised by Mr. Kopel and need to be covered. In the interest of saving your time, we created the html-ready version for your web publishing staff -- all you really need to do is cut and paste:
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Kopel.asp
You are authorized to take that html page from our site, including the footnotes please, to share with NRO readers.
Please let me know when this will run. It's been two weeks since Mr. Kopel's inaccurate editorials ran on your website, and he's caused us lots of unnecessary grief and forced us to waste precious time responding. Our people are waiting for a Reply. Can you please give us a date that it will it run on NRO?
NOTE: We do not wish to have this edited in any way. Please run it as is. Being as we publish original works that sometimes require editing, I know that could come across as overbearing. But I ask you to understand that we are defending ourselves, not initiating this situation -- so please adhere to this respectful request. If you are unable or unwilling to print, in full, our self-defensive reply, please give us a right to review your edits and a commitment to link to the above page so people can view our response in full.
Call if you have any questions. Have a wonderful remainder of your day and week. :-)
Respectfully,
Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
(928) 522-8833
AFTER THREE DAYS OF NO
RESPONSE, WE LEFT MRS. LOPEZ ANOTHER VOICE MAIL TO MAKE SURE SHE HAD OUR
RESPONSE. SHE DID NOT CALL BACK, SO THE FOLLOWING EMAIL WAS SENT:
From: Angel Shamaya <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
To: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS, KATHY....RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Date sent: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:29:20 -0700
Why are you ignoring me, Kathy? Your writer attacked us with false information about our lawsuit three weeks ago. We submitted a
rebuttal. I've called, I've emailed, yet I get silence. Why? Is this how NRO is? How long are we supposed to wait to hear back?
We want to reply to false information your publication printed about a lawsuit we are funding. Are you going to give us satisfaction, or not?
KATHRYN LOPEZ RESPONDED
ASSURING US AGAIN THAT SHE WOULD RUN OUR REPLY:
From: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
To: <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
Subject: RE: HERE IT IS, KATHY....RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Date sent: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:58:53 -0400
Mr. Shamaya, You are not being ignored. We have been preoccupied with the recall and other news events but
will be running your reply in a matter of a few days. KATHRYN Lopez
WE RESPONDED BACK
IMMEDIATELY:
From: "Angel Shamaya" <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
To: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
Date sent: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:10:38 -0700
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Priority: normal
Kathryn,
I only used "Kathy" as that was how you referred to yourself on voice mail. I meant no offense whatsoever.
We were attacked three weeks ago. The html is a cut and paste job. You've got time to publish movie reviews and rehashed arguments about how awful the Demoncrat party is. Why "a few days", to allow us to defend our positions, when it is our work that was attacked? Is there any way to get it up now? It'd take ten minutes max.
If not, when does "a few days" happen, specifically? And is this about letting Mr. Kopel prepare a reply -- a courtesy we never received.
--AS
SHE RESPONDED WITH YET
ANOTHER ASSURANCE THAT SHE WOULD RUN OUR REPLY:
From: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
To: <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Date sent: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 20:14:11 -0400
Mr. Shamaya,
Mr. Kopel has not seen your response. We have been updating software, among other things, and publishing letters this week simply has not happened.
Your response will appear next week. That's how it works in our schedule, given all our current concerns. I'm sorry you are forced to see movie reviews and "rehashed argument" articles in the meantime; they are not there to offend you or your reply. Kathryn Lopez
WE ADDRESSED HER
SUGGESTIONS:
From: "Angel Shamaya" <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
To: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
Date sent: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:24:39 -0700
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Priority: normal
Kathryn,
I don't mean to suggest, in any way, that NRO's content is offensive. Other than Mr. Kopel's attack, we've been promoting NRO's content for nearly four years, very consistently. In fact, we promoted his attack, too.
But you can't imagine how much time, energy and money [vital fundraising for
the lawsuit] his article has cost us. If it was all true, we wouldn't even ask for a rebuttal, Kathryn. This may be and probably is the very first time in four years we've asked to reply to someone's criticism -- and we get plenty of negative comments made about our work, from both sides of the gun debates. It's because the criticism was wrought with false information, disinformation and downright personal attacks, and because it's been nearly three weeks, that we feel it very fair to ask to get our cut-and-paste reply published.
Can you please just get it up there tomorrow, Kathryn? We've invested every penny we have in this lawsuit, and it's so far beyond what Mr. Kopel says it is it's not even in the same universe. Please, just get it up tomorrow. It'll take ten
minutes or less. Cut, paste, stick the link on the home page.
--AS
SHE REPLIED WITH YET
ANOTHER ASSURANCE THAT THEY WOULD RUN OUR REPLY:
From: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
To: <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Date sent: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 21:00:49 -0400
Mr. Shamaya, As I said earlier, I have every intention of posting your reply next week. Unfortunately we cannot do it before then. I understand your legitimate desire to get this published;
as I said, we definitely will be, sorry it cannot be on your timetable or immediately, but
it will be as soon as we can--which is next week. Thank you for patience. Kathryn Lopez
WE RESPONDED YET AGAIN,
ACCEPTING THEIR STALL:
From: "Angel Shamaya" <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
To: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
Date sent: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:07:39 -0700
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Priority: normal
OK. I have no choice but to accept your timeframe. Any idea what day it will happen? And do you have a policy of notifying us? Please do not take my communications as intentionally offensive, ma'am. If I offended you, I did not mean to. OK?
SHE RESPONDED SAYING
THE PIECE WAS SLATED TO BE PUBLISHED MONDAY:
From: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
To: "'Director@KeepAndBearArms.com'" <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Date sent: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 21:09:53 -0400
Mr. Shamaya, My goal is to have it posted Monday. I will not guarantee that, but that is the fairly certain plan. Kathryn Lopez
WE RESPONDED WITH
APPRECIATION:
From: "Angel Shamaya" <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
To: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
Date sent: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:14:15 -0700
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Priority: normal
Thank you kindly for letting me know. I hope the rest of your evening is peaceful and productive.
MONDAY CAME AND WENT.
TUESDAY CAME AND WENT. WE WROTE TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING:
From: "Angel Shamaya" <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
To: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
Date sent: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:15:48 -0700
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Priority: urgent
Kathryn,
Last Thursday, you said it was a "fairly certain plan" that our reply would be up this past Monday. I bet you forgot that Monday was a holiday. So had I.
But it's Wednesday now -- over three weeks since the lawsuit upon which we've staked our resources and reputations was attacked by your writer. Here is our attorney's reply, again:
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Kopel.asp
You more definitively said our reply would be up "next week," which is now this week. Will you please follow through and give us the space to defend our work from your writer? His attack was wrought with misinformation, not just differences of opinion. We've been trying to simply defend ourselves and our work. It's a simple cut and paste task. Please respond.
Angel Shamaya
KeepAndBearArms.com
(928) 522-8833
SHE RESPONDED TODAY,
SAYING, AGAIN, THAT IT WOULD BE RUNNING:
From: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
To: <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Date sent: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:35:28 -0400
It will be running today.
WE RESPONDED WITH
APPRECIATION:
From: "Angel Shamaya" <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
To: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
Date sent: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:26:23 -0700
Subject: RE: REBUTTAL TO NRO ATTACK ARTICLE
Priority: normal
Wonderful. Thanks. We'll keep checking your home page for it.
THEN, AFTER SAYING
REPEATEDLY OVER THE COURSE OF NINE DAYS THAT SHE WOULD RUN OUR REBUTTAL, SHE
WENT BACK ON HER WORD WITH THE FLIMSIEST OF EXCUSES:
From: Kathryn Jean Lopez <klopez@nationalreview.com>
To: <Director@KeepAndBearArms.com>
Subject: Lucas piece
Date sent: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:35:14 -0400
Dear Mr. Shamaya,
I regret to write that I spoke too soon this morning--and last week. Having only now had the chance to read the full length of the Mr. Lucas response to Mr. Kopel's articles, I am afraid it is not something we can run on NRO. Though I understand your group invested money in the case,
you or Mr. Lucas were not named in the piece, so we do not feel obliged to run the response. This is our final editorial decision. I regret I prematurely told you we would publish it.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Lopez
Editor, National Review Online
For the record, here is the Reply
NRO's editor repeatedly said they would publish:
KOPEL
CLUELESS:
Silveira Lawsuit Attacker is Shooting Blanks
by Roy Lucas
October 15, 2003
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Kopel.asp
|
