Ginny Maziarka: All Rights Reserved

Within a day of being lambasted for appropriating other people's online content and failing to adequately indicate the original source/author, Ginny has slapped a copyright notice on her own blog (one at the very top, and one at the bottom of the left column).

Good thing she's now learned the importance of protecting her own intellectual property rights; hopefully she's also learned a lesson about giving proper attribution when she cuts & pastes from others' copyright protected material (see another past offense here).

(And, BTW, you don't need to put those notices on your site to gain copyright protections; they are automatic once you put your thoughts into material form.)

I hope Ginny has a good lawyer

The way Ginny Maziarka keeps shooting her mouth off, I hope she has a good lawyer.

I also hope she knows the meaning of defamation, especially the particular part of U.S. defamation law of defamation per se, where damages are presumed and do not have to be proven. In my estimation, Ginny has made numerous accusations that fall under "Allegations or imputations injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession" as well as "Allegations or imputations of moral turpitude".

Think back to when Ginny defamed Professor Mark Peterson, describing him as having a vendetta and "scrafic[ing] the innocent minds of children to further his own agenda."

Just a few days ago Ginny defamed Kristina Smithers, calling her "maniacal", suggesting she has escaped her "caretakers", and making other allusions to mental illness. [[ Update: Ginny again suggested Kristina needs medication in comment #22 here]]

Then, today, Ginny defames Paul & Hjordy Wagner, the authors of Ready or Not...They're Gay: Stories from a Midwestern Family, a book they wrote about raising two gay sons. Ginny accuses these parents of being little more than "pawns" in some larger conspiracy to "deceive the West Bend citizens." She also labels them as being gay ("Gay Authors..."), when they're not; they just happen to be parents of gay kids.

In each case, people's reputations are being defamed in such a way as to affect their trade, business, or profession (could the university retaliate against the professor? might Ms. Smithers' employer react to notions of her being maniacal? could the Wagner's lose future publishing contracts due to being cast in this light?)

Ginny, please think next time before you click the "Publish Post" button.

// I think we could also add the following to Ginny's legal worries:

• the privacy tort of "false light", seeing how she posted online what appears to be a private communication from Bob Deters, suggesting he "disagrees with organizations that help to protect children" (an accusation I don't see supported by the communication she posted)
  
• various examples of copyright violations, as described here and here
  

If Ginny Would Only Follow her Own Logic

Here, Ginny Maziarka complains about how Fireside Books has invited a couple who wrote a book about raising gay sons to come and speak at their store. There are a variety of problems with Ginny's post (shocking, I know), and much is discussed in the comment thread there.

Most notably, Ginny cut/pasted the announcement from another website, and included the tagline "POSTED BY gsaxpres" within her post. This gave the impression that gsaxpres actually wrote and posted that entry on Ginny's blog. Of course, she didn't.

So, during the discussion of this faux pas on Ginny's blog, Ginny took exception to the fact she should try to follow general blog netiquette, stating (emphasis added):

Blog etiquette is not mandatory. I choose to have the freedom to write my blog as I like, despite your dismay over my choice of style. I enjoy writing as I please and am not bound by any particular lines that others may draw.

I tend to agree with Ginny that one shouldn't be "bound by any particular lines that others may draw."

I just wish Ginny would apply that same logic when she attempts to bind the West Bend Library by the lines she draws.

(And by the way, Ginny has completely ignored my other requests for clarification in her blog post, such as how Fireside's invitation to these authors is an attempt to "deceive the West Bend citizens". Whatever.)

Do you want 3% of the population setting "community standards"?

Ginny Maziarka keeps going on about how the library isn't listening to "community standards." How do we know if Ginny is accurately representing the standards of West Bend?

Well, she brags here (comment #21) that she's turned in over 1,100 signatories to her petition. That sounds impressive, but let's do the math.

First, we must recognize that Ginny's petition was knowingly targeted to people outside the city of West Bend. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume she's already scrubbed those signatories from the list of names she submitted to the library board.

So, that's 1,100 people, out of a 2008 city population of 30,320. That comes to 3.6%.

Hmm......Ginny convinced 3.6% of the city to sign her petition. That means she must be accurately representing the "community standards", right?

XXX-Rated Library?

This is just ridiculous.

And hilarious.

And terrifiying.

West Bend Library Board Unanimously Rejects Censorship Attempts

Logic & reason prevailed:

The Library Board on Tuesday night unanimously rejected efforts by a local citizen group to restrict access of young adults to books depicting sex among teenagers or those describing teenage homosexual relationships.

Such books already are separated from children's books, either in a young adult fiction section on the first floor of the library or shelved as young adult non-fiction alongside similar adult texts on the second floor, board members said.

The nine-member board listened for 2½ hours as nearly 60 people discussed the appropriateness of the library providing such books to the public before the board voted to maintain current policies. (JSOnline)

Ginnny's position is amusing:

On Tuesday, Ginny Maziarka told the board that if they rejected her petition that she would not consider the library a safe place for children.

But look here:
Ginny seems to have a copy of Deal With It ....gasp.... right in her own kitchen!

Does that mean her own home is also not "a safe place for children"? I mean, if the entire library is unsafe for children just because that book is shelved in the "young adult" section, then I'm surely not going to allow my kids near Ginny's house. No ma'am.

(Note: No children were harmed in the making of this blog post)

// Go check out Emma-le's excellent summary of the night's proceedings.

If You Don't Agree with Ginny Maziarka, You Must Be Crazy

Ad hominem alert!

West Bend resident Kristina Smithers recently filed an ethics complaint against Alderman Terry Vrana over comments he made regarding the current library dispute. Much like myself, she appears to take issue with some of Vrana's comments at recent council meetings. According to the media report:

Smithers alleges statements Vrana made during an April 21 Common Council meeting during debate over the reappointment of four Library Board members demonstrated unethical behavior because: He did not act in an independent, impartial manner; His “conduct did not reenforce the public’s confidence in the integrity of the city government;” “(H)e used his aldermanic position to purport his personal philosophy not that of the city as a whole.” Vrana had expressed an opinion that pornographic books were in the library’s young adult section.

Whether you agree with Smithers or Vrana, her complaint seems to be based on a reasonable premise, and the Ethics Committee is determining if it merits further consideration. They might throw it out as frivolous, or they might investigate further. That's how the process works, and it is every citizen's right to raise what they feel are potential ethical concerns.

Ginny Maziarka has a different take on this. Ginny, of course, doesn't agree with Smithers. But instead of addressing the core issue in Smithers' complaint, Maziarka argues we "should be looking at the complainant."

In her comments at Boots & Sabers, Ginny wonders aloud about Smithers: "Does she have a caretaker? And do they know she is loose?" And in her own blog post she accuses Smithers of being "maniacal" and links to this music video that depicts mental illness in a very mocking and insensitive manner.

So, let's sum up: mere days after many members of the community reached out to Ginny with condolences about the loss of her grandson, Ginny attacks someone who disagrees with her by insinuating she is mentally ill.

Remind me where in my Christian Bible it tells us this is ok?

// While I wasn't able to convince Ginny on her blog that her ad hominem attacks against Kristina Smithers were out of line, a response by Kristina herself here (comment #24) seems to finally struck a chord with Ginny. She apologized in comment #25 (insulting me in the process), and deleted the offensive post.

Luckily, I've learned my lesson with Ginny trying to cover her trails, and took a screenshot or her libelous rant: