WILL REP GIFFORDS SHOOTING LEAD TO INCARCERATION OF TIM BOLEN????

[David Brown]

In the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, debate has
focused on the possibility of changing gun laws, and expanding the
scope of laws penalizing threats against public officials. Discussion
has also turned to inappropriately violent imagery and language in
campaign ads, such as the use of the “bullseye” in ads against
Giffords sponsored by Sarah Palin. While inquiries by journalists and
law enforcement appear to rule out Palin's ads as a factor in the
shooting, instead indicating a fixation beginning years earlier, the
incident offers fair grounds for debating what is or should be
considered appropriate, in good taste or even legal in discussions of
public figures.

In the event of tougher standards, a good example of speech that might
be harshly condemned or even criminalized is a December “report” by
Tim (legal name Patrick Timothy) Bolen, a notorious “publicist” who
most recently has been trying to promote a suit by Doctor's Data, Inc.
against Stephen Barrett. Throughout his writings on the case, Bolen
has relied on threats about legal action by DDI against Barrett's
supporters, particularly bloggers (including the present author)
critical of the suit. In one of his most recent reports, his language
has become more ominous: “I suspect that the mailing list for the so-
called `Consumer Health Digest,' once subpoenaed, and made public, is
going to be a treasure trove containing key information on how the
quackbuster conspiracy works. People whose names, I think, are on this
list, will become TARGETS of health freedom groups for years to come -
and they should be. Any, and every, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, at any level,
on this list, should immediately be a highly focused-on TARGET.” (Caps
added.)

The language and context of this threat is strikingly MORE
objectionable than the much-criticized Palin ad. Palin's “bullseye”
ads, however distasteful they may seem, still unambiguously advocated
a nonviolent, lawful action: voting for Giffords' opponent. In
contrast, Bolen's “report” is strikingly UNspecific about just what
course of action he would wish to make subscribing public officials
“targets” of.

Further repercussions against Bolen may arise from his parallels to
the suspect, as someone who a) is obviously mentally ill, b) has an
obsession with harming at least one public figure, c) appears to have
served, briefly, in the military and c) is believed to own at least
one firearm. A history of mental illness and short-lived or abortive
military service are non-trivial common denominators for suspect Jared
Laughner and other serial or “spree” murder cases, such as Howard
Unruh, Leonard Lake, Charles Ng and John Mohammed. While there is
nothing to suggest that veterans are more likely to commit such crimes
than the general population, they can clearly do a disproportionate
amount of harm. A program for tracking mentally ill persons discharged
by the US military would be a very valuable service, and if it were
established, Bolen stands out as a “candidate” for inclusion.

In summary, this piece is to serve as a reminder to Bolen that, while
he has perseverated in his narcissistic delusion that he can keep
people from calling a malicious, unwinnable lawsuit malicious and
unwinnable by incessantly screaming “NEWDEFENDANTS!!NEWDEFENDANTS!!
NEWDEFENDANTS!!NEWDEFENDANTS!!NEWDEFENDANTS!!NEWDEFENDANTS!!
NEWDEFENDANTS!!NEWDEFENDANTS!!NEWDEFENDANTS!!NEWDEFENDANTS!!
NEWDEFENDANTS!!NEWDEFENDANTS!!”, events of genuine importance have
transpired which could make his behavior even more repellent to anyone
who happens to notice him than it already is. At worst, if he
persists in elliptical threats against public officials while more
laws are being put in place to protect said officials, he could wind
up in police custody. Therefore, he has yet another good reason to
remove all of his “reports” from circulation.