In the comment section of the post I wrote about Kathryn Dunn's bias and the decision to print an ad libeling a good man, but not a letter exposing a professor who is a supporter of terrorism, Ms. Dunn alleges that I had no right to use her photograph from when she met Bill Clinton. (She curiously is not upset that I mentioned that she is a political liberal, something I also found out from her open Facebook account.)
Dunn contends that I am in violation of Facebook's privacy settings, even though her Facebook settings were open to public viewing. (How else could I have found that out? We had only one shared "friend" at the time and are not friends either in Facebook or in real life.)
I responded in the comment section as follows:
Dear Ms. Dunn,
You are in fact, mistaken. You are a public figure by virtue of you editing a newspaper and by virtue of the public outcry the publication of that scurrilous ad garnered. The letter, which I addressed to you as editor of the Claremont Courier, is also true. Every word of it. The photo was taken from what was then your open Facebook settings. (I understand that you have since changed your settings.)
I take it that you are threatening me with legal action. As such, I will also be making public all of the email correspondence between the two of us the moment I am contacted by your "representatives." (I sincerely hope that you are not threatening me with anything more than that, as I am not sure what a representative is.)
Until then, I will also be writing on your decision to try to intimidate me and contacting the publisher of the Claremont Courier.
(Note: I've sent a copy of this blog post to Peter Weinberger, the former editor and I presume still publisher of the Claremont Courier.)
I'm not sure as to why she feels the need to threaten me, but rest assured, I am confident I'll win. (Most likely, and here I am inferring, her "representatives" are attorneys and they will tell her she has no case.) Nevertheless, I am making copies of all of the internal emails she and I have sent one another and sending them to my counsel.
In any event, I think that the town of Claremont, which is her beat, should know that she is apparently trying to intimidate a member of the community.
Maybe a more fitting approach would be to own her bias and work to correcting it?