| My web site has attracted considerable criticism.
Many people say that it violates Dennis Prager's privacy.
They have a point. My writings do, at times, invade Prager's privacy.
But only to the extent that Prager has violated his own privacy
in public. I have written virtually nothing about his personal life
that he hasn't said in front of dozens of strangers or published.
And I have usually sent questionable material to him and his
media rep in advance to give them the opportunity to ask for a rephrasing.
Check this link.
I wrote to Prager's media rep:
Subj: Luke
Date: 03/29/98
To: zimattpp
Hi Laurie:
Perhaps we should have a chat one of these days. It would save
Dennis a lot of time and hassle, if you would communicate to me
what specific parts of my dennisprager.net HE objects to...
I promise to not take such reproval as endorsement... :) LOL
And perhaps we could let bygones be bygones...
...................................
Prager's personal assistant and media representative, Laurie
Zimmett, replied to me:
Subj: Re: Luke
Date: 98-03-30 01:09:41 EST
From: ZIMatTPP
To: Luzdedos1
Luke,
I will provide you with only one example, one of many in which
you have caused potential harm to Dennis. You put on the Prager
List where he, and his children, can be found every Saturday. You
gave the name, location and time. You had the information as one
who came to pray, not prey. You put this information on line - very
different from it appearing in any Jewish newsletters or Jewish
newspapers. You put this on line for many to see - people who like
Dennis, people who DON'T. You didn't take into consideration those
who might like to harm him. At public events, I always arrange security
for Dennis, but not at SSW. You have changed that. It was his shabbat,
his one day of peace. No matter how you try to imagine what this
did to him, you won't even come close. You will never know. I know
that you will probably try to justify your actions as you always
do, and as always, you will be wrong.
I will not go over your unauthorized biography on Dennis with you,
nor your unauthorized web site.
Please don't write to me again.
Laurie Zimmet
....................................
I, Luke Ford, followed up with this post to the Prager List:
Subj: Prager-L: Privacy - Dennis Prager
Date: 98-03-30 02:44:11 EST
From: lukeisback@gmail.com (Luzdedos1)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
I have been vigorously attacked both publicly and privately for
diminishing Dennis Prager's privacy. One example was when I mentioned
that DP attended, at times, Stephen S. Wise synagogue.
After receiving another blast on this matter this Sunday evening
3-30-98, I ran a quick search on Electric library and found numerous
publications from the LA TIMES to the Jerusalem Report, to whom
Prager had told that he attends Stephen S. Wise. For instance, Jerusalem
(10-2-95) REPORT:
"Radio commentator and author Dennis Prager, like Milken a
Stephen Wise Temple congregant, scored some valid points by noting
that," If one member of a philanthropic family does wrong,
and if that invalidates the family name, then clearly the Kennedy
Center, Stanford University and the Carnegie Foundation should all
change their names."
The Jerusalem Report is online and attracts thousands of visitors
every week from around the world.
This Prager-List has 70 subscribers?
This is an example of the larger issue that Sharon raised in her
thoughtful post last week. IMHO, when a person reveals something
to thousands of strangers, whether through a radio show, a newspaper
interview or the like, the person loses the right to privacy on
such a matter, if he ever possessed that right in the first place.
Most of us remember the debacle over DP's wife's miscarriages.
I was roundly condemned for reporting it. It was declared that I
had lied. Then it turned out that DP had published the information
in his own journal, for tens of thousands of readers.
DP makes his living by revealing his life. Personal revelation
is key to DP's appeal. He constantly gives examples from his own
life. As both a public figure and as one who constantly dishes out
private information on himself, DP has even fewer rights to privacy
than most folks, IMHO.
In short, I feel frustrated that despite my best efforts to
reconcile these problems, I can't.
...........................
Laurie writes to me:
To Luke Ford:
This is a good example of how you do harm to Dennis. You either
wish to hurt him or are a fool who does not consider the consequences
of what he does.
URL: dennisprager.net
Link: Index
Sub-Link: Is Prager anti-Mexican?
Reply to Luke Ford:
You exaggerate the reporting of Dennis affiliation with SSW. That
you do not see a difference between this one blurb - within an article
- in the Jerusalem Report and your posting on a news-group on-line:
for those who would like to meet Prager here is the name, address,
day of the week and hours he can be found at his synagogue......
is scary. Also, you have no idea what our response was to such information
being disseminated in the J.R..
You are not a child. You should not need to be guided through your
endeavors. Our office cannot guide you every time you choose to
write a line on Dennis. You are obsessed with him. You write everyday,
throughout the day. We would have to employ another person to take
that kind of time to work with you. Either you are pretending your
ignorance or, worse, you do not possess the capability of discerning
that which is fit to print and that which is not. Either way, I
do not have the time, nor the inclination, to be an editor of your
projects. Instead, we have enlisted the support of legal services.
Your unauthorized web site and unauthorized biography on Dennis
will not receive the assistance of myself nor anyone else in Dennis’
employ.
You have already harmed Dennis, you continue to harm him, one whom
you say you love. Your actions prove otherwise.
Subj: Prager-L: Privacy - Dennis Prager
Date: 98-03-31 00:26:28 EST
From: ChrisDnld@aol.com (ChrisDnld)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
In a message dated 3/30/98 12:44:11 AM, you wrote:
<<I have been vigorously attacked both publicly and privately
for diminishing Dennis Prager's privacy. One example was when I
mentioned that DP attended, at times, S>>
And you remain a dick for continuing to re-publish it, time and
again. 1. It does you no good, and 2. it poses a needlessly increased
threat to DP's safety and privacy. Once risked is bad, twice is
worse, thrice is worse yet. They are not all equal.
He has a right to pose limited risks to his own family.
You, a self-imposed aquaintence, do not at any level. Sorry.
Chris
Subj: Re: Prager-L: Privacy - Dennis Prager
Date: 98-03-31 00:45:31 EST
From: tiger@cybertime.net (Sharon)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
At 02:41 AM 3/30/98 EST, you wrote:
>This is an example of the larger issue that Sharon raised in
her thoughtful post last week.
Your flattery is appreciated as such; however...
>Most of us remember the debacle over DP's wife's miscarriages.
I was roundly >condemned for reporting it. It was declared that
I had lied. Then it turned >out that DP had published the information
in his own journal, for tens of >thousands of readers.
Earlier in this post you indicated that there were roughly 300
subscribers.
This particular question struck me hard, as a woman. There is one
person that most of us seem to keep forgetting in the public exposure:
Mrs. Prager. When I read the description of this item on your page,
I cringed and felt profound shame, empathetically. It is probably
difficult for most men to begin to understand this, but I think
that there is ingrained in almost every woman a sense that procreation
is strongly tied to her sense of self-worth. I can not begin to
tell you how many times work that I have done has been minimalized
with the phrase, "Well, you've never had children." Feminists
from the 60's and 70's began to worry about their biological clock
in the 80's and 90's. I do not know what Mrs. Prager's response
was to Mr. Prager after discovering that this information had been
revealed. My own immediate reaction on reading about it here was
that that was none of my business and I wish I hadn't read it. Realizing
that it was on an internet page where who knows how many people
could read it, made me cringe.
Perhaps an analogy in a possibly comparable male scenario might
help.
Suppose, Mr. Ford, that you were married. Suppose that you were
impotent for several years before receiving treatment. Suppose that
your wife taught at a university with 300-400 students in a class.
Suppose that after your treatment, your wife used your impotence
and treatment as an example in her class about new medical advances.
Suppose that a decade later you heard an account of your impotence
and subsequent treatment on 60 minutes. They could claim that it
was public knowledge because it had been revealed in the class.
How would you feel? How would you feel if because of a mistake that
your wife made years ago, everyone you met after that asked, "Luke
Ford? Aren't you the guy that........"?
>DP has even fewer rights to privacy than most folks, IMHO.
Again, I think that there's a problem with separating the work
from the man. Everyone has a right to privacy - whether a public
figure or an anonymous hermit. But, more importantly, his family
has a right to privacy. The account by Mr. Prager of your conversing
with his son and then using the information attained for web site,
felt really scary.
Families are off limits.
People are entitled to personal boundaries, whether DP or Clinton
or John Doe. We can give permission to others to enter those boundaries
(come to our homes, babysit the kids, listen to our problems) but
simple courtesy and respect for others dictates that we respect
those boundaries unless invited to cross over. In Mr. Prager's response
to you he said very clearly that he would like for you to desist
invading his privacy. If you respect Mr. Prager and his family,
it seems that this would be the appropriate response to his request.
Attempting to cross those boundaries through his children feels
really scary to me and feels an awful lot like pre-stalking type
behavior.
>Then again, I could be completely wrong.
I've lost some papers that I got on the net regarding Judaic laws
on speech; however, aren't there basic rules about spreading information,
even if true, which could be embarrassing or even humiliating for
the person described?
Subj: Re: Prager-L: Privacy - Dennis Prager
Date: 98-03-31 00:57:22 EST
From: lukeisback@gmail.com (Luzdedos1) [Luke Ford]
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
In a message dated 98-03-31 00:45:31 EST, you write:
> Your flattery is appreciated as such; however...
Do you truly doubt that my appreciation was genuine? I find the
term "flatter" an ungracious way of accepting a compliment.
> >Most of us remember the debacle over DP's wife's miscarriages.
> Earlier in this post you indicated that there were roughly
300 subscribers.
Dennis Prager published the information in his journal which has
about 9000 subscribers and probably 100,000 readers.
This email list has somewhere between 50-300 subscribers. So fewer
than 1/20th as many folks found out about this miscarriage stuff
from me, compared to Prager's own hand. So give me a break!
>Realizing that it was on an internet page where who knows how
many people could read it, made me cringe.
But when Prager published the information to the world, how did
you feel?
> Perhaps an analogy in a possibly comparable male scenario
might help.
I don't know how I would feel, but I wouldn't whine about the media
invading my privacy.
>But, more importantly, his family has a right to> privacy.
The account by Mr. Prager of your conversing with his son...
Oh give me a break. I simply wrote that David Prager plans to pursue
a career in film, something that DP has said in effect over the
air to hundreds of thousands of people.
>In Mr. Prager's response to you he said very > clearly that
he would like for you to desist invading his privacy.
Prager invades his own privacy every day on the radio, to hundreds
of thousands of people. It has yet to be shown where I have revealed
anything that he hasn't said to thousands.
If DP were so hyper sensitive about the privacy of himself and
his family, he would stop talking about them on the air and in speeches
and in his journal.
His wife Fran is a former actress, not a profession for folks obsessed
with privacy. David Prager wants to enter the media.
Give me a break!
Though I think Sharon, that your concerns are ably articulated,
you come from a good place, you mean well, and you provide good
challenges. I have deep respect for you. Be well.
> I've lost some papers that I got on the net regarding Judaic
laws on > speech;
There are thousands of Jewish laws and these are important ones.
But they cannot be taken out of context with the other hundreds
and thousands. DP breaks Jewish law every day by reading the LA
TIMES. Jewish Law would not allow reading a publication with bra
ads. Modesty is another important Jewish law and value.
Subj: Re: Prager-L: Privacy - Dennis Prager
Date: 98-03-31 13:08:25 EST
From: mikedang@juno.com (Mike Dang)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:50:05 -0800 Sharon <tiger@cybertime.net>
writes:
// It is probably difficult for most men to begin to understand
this, but I think that there is ingrained >in almost every woman
a sense that procreation is strongly tied to her >sense of self-worth....>>
MIKE: Assuming the above scenario, if someone met me said, "Aren't
you the guy that [was impotent for several years before receiving
treatment]?" I'd say, "I sure am. And boy do I regret
not getting treatment earlier. So many wonderful pleasures I've
missed out on. If I could tell every American w/this problem one
thing, it'd be, "Get it fixed now. Time's wasting and there
are so many beautiful pleasures you're missing out on every day.
Go fix it now."
But why should I feel bad or embarrassed? If God or nature dealt
me that hand then that's the hand I have to play. I'll make the
best of the hand God dealt me, perhaps draw another card, e.g.,
try to correct it, but I see no value in being embarrassed over
the hand God dealt me. I love Eleanor Roosevelt's (?) statement,
"No one can make you feel inferior w/o your consent."
So this is not something I can justifiably give my consent to about
being embarrassed or feeling inferior.
From: ChrisDnld@aol.com (ChrisDnld)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
In a message dated 3/31/98 10:41:24 AM, Luzdedos wrote:
<<There would be four-fifteen readers for every subscriber,
that is the way this type of thing works. Let us suppose 8,000 subscribers.
Multiply that by 10, equals 80,000 readers.>>
More made-up nonsense. Says whom?
Statistically, for each issue published, 2-10 non-subscribers may
read SOMETHING out of it. Maybe 1% of those non-subscribers will
read the entire issue. Most *subscribers* don't even read *every
single article*. Many will never finish a single article in any
given issue.
I'd say a total of 6,000 people read that particular, entire article.
And YOU were the only one of them to take such special note of that
sensitive personal info - enough so as to recall it 7 years later,
and then to reprint it at will several times...despite DP's (easily
presumable) unhappiness over it.
....................................
On Wednesday, April First, 1998, I, Luke Ford, received this.
I don't think it is an April Fool's joke.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
Suite 1800
2029 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
Michael F. Perlis
310-556-5821
310-556-5959 Fax
March 27, 1998
Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Luke Ford
264 S. La Cienega Blvd, #1417
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Re: Dennis Prager
Dear Mr. Ford:
Our law firm represents Dennis Prager. It has come to our attention
that you attempted to have the domain name for Mr. Prager's web
site on the Internet, dennisprager.com., transferred to you. Mr.
Prager's Internet server informed us that they believe you attempted
to transfer the domain name by sending a written request to Internic
on fraudulent Dennis Prager letterhead. Internic halted the attempted
transfer after it was informed that you were not authorized to transfer
the domain name for Mr. Prager's web site or control the web site.
These activities are violations of both civil and criminal laws
in this state.
In addition, your publication of Mr. Prager's essays, other writings
and speeches on your website, dennisprager.net, without Mr. Prager's
permission, violates his copyrights and other legal rights in such
materials. In light of your misappropriation of Mr. Prager's materials,
such materials will no longer be sold to you or sent to your addresses.
Accordingly, you must immediately stop all efforts to transfer
the domain name for Mr. Prager's web site or to control his web
site in any other manner, and all publication of Mr. Prager's essays,
other writings and speeches on your website. If you persist in such
behavior, we will have no choice but to pursue all legal rights
and remedies.
Moreover, we believe that other behavior by you toward Mr. Prager
and his family may violate California law, including this state's
stalking laws. Accordingly, you must discontinue all inappropriate
behavior directed to Mr. Prager, his family or colleagues. Mr. Prager
in no way seeks to infringe on your abilility to exercise your consitutionally
protected rights. However, your behavior, in turn, must afford Mr.
Prager and his family the legal rights and protections to which
they are entitled.
I do not intend to engage in any debate with you on these matters.
I would urge you, rather, to take this letter seriously and conform
your behavior to the requirements of law. Should you continue your
inappropriate and unlawful behavior, we will have no choice but
to bring you into compliance with applicable law.
Very truly yours,
Michael F. Perlis
...............................
Luke: Wow, what a mess I have gotten myself into! Intentions
don't count for much sometimes. I try to take Dennis and his
values to the world and I end up alienating myself from him and
some of my closest friends.
I found this letter hurtful. Why use this approach to work
out a problem? Why this unnecessary hostility? Why these hurtful
words and threats and false accusations? That line about stalking
his family was particularly untrue and unkind. I have made three
dozen overtures to Dennis and his assistant to work out any problems
they have with my writing on Dennis, but we can't seem to communicate.
Dennis is a tzaddik, a truly righteous man. Laurie is also a
noble person as is Chris. Can't we reach an understanding about
where good people can disagree?
Let me now review the attorney's letter.
<It has come to our attention that you attempted to have the
domain name for Mr. Prager's web site on the Internet, dennisprager.com.,
transferred to you.>
LUKE: This is not true. I explained clearly and twice several weeks
ago that my server confused dennisprager.com with dennisprager.net,
but dennisprager.com was never threatened by their mistake. I never
sent a written letter to Internic to switch dennisprager.com, and
certainly no letter on Dennis Prager letterhead. This is a lie.
I challenge Laurie Zimmett, who is behind these charges, to produce
the evidence. To switch an internet site to a new server requires
documentation. There will be no documentation found that will show
that I, Luke Ford, tried to mess with Prager's site as alleged.
<In addition, your publication of Mr. Prager's essays, other
writings and speeches on your website, dennisprager.net, without
Mr. Prager's permission, violates his copyrights and other legal
rights in such materials.>
This is true. I did wrong by Dennis republishing some of his
materials without his permission. I will bring my site dennisprager.net
within the boundaries of Fair Use.
<Moreover, we believe that other behavior by you toward Mr.
Prager and his family may violate California, including this state's
stalking laws.>
This is a particularly disgusting charge. I challenge the attorney
and Laurie to come up with evidence for this. I have generally stayed
away from Dennis and his family since January 20, 1998, because
of the hostile attitude towards me largely created by Laurie. I
have only seen Dennis twice since then and we only had brief interaction
on one occassion.
<Should you continue your inappropriate and unlawful behavior,
we will have no choice but to bring you into compliance with applicable
law.>
These legal threats are disgusting for many reasons.
One, I told Dennis well ahead of time, days and weeks depending
on the situation, of what I intended to do. I told him what essays
of his I would like to place on my site (only those ones already
easily available on the internet). I told him that I would pay him
for those and share with him any revenue I made off my site.
Two. These sorts of disputes should be handled human to human.
Dennis knows my phone number. He should've called me if he had a
problem with my writings, not hidden behind a lawyer and an assistant's
anger.
Three. A Jew does not resort to secular law. He tries to settle
things first of all human to human. Then he seeks help from mutual
friends. Then he seeks help from rabbis, or at last resort, a court
of JEWISH law. Prager is always poking fun of American's propensities
to sue, yet here for trivial reasons, he pulls out here his big
legal guns.
How much money did this stupid letter cost? Probably a couple of
hours of an attorney's time, at $300 an hour?
In 1991, Prager launched the Micah Center to great hoopla. After
twenty years of exciting audiences with his brilliant speaking and
writing, it appeared that he was finally going to harness the tremendous
enthusiasm and talent of his fans.
Seven years later it appears another dashed hope. Why?
It must have something to do with his inability to manage people.
He said on the radio the other day that he was a terrible businessperson.
The primary talent required for a successful businessperson is to
be able to harness the enthusiasm of others. Prager has not and
may not be able to do that.
Dennis attracts the passionate attention of highly intelligent,
ethical, ambitious folks like myself but instead of harnessing our
talents he alienates us with stupid things like the letter I got
from his lawyer.
Remember Thoughtmasters out of Orange County? A group of Dennis
Prager fans that basicly died out? Why? They felt no support from
their leader?
Prager's administrative skills are lacking.
DP often says how lonely he feels in Jewish life. That's partly
because he hasn't built anything.
What does it say that Prager only hires women? I suspect that they
are more docile and less challenging than ambitous men.
A shame.
While Prager's radio show is far deeper than the competition, it
is not nearly as entertaining. This is largely because DP has hardly
developed as a talkshow host. His thinking is clear, but his talkshow
host skills are almost nonexistent. He must refuse to listen to
folks who could help him. He must refuse to hire and nurture creative
and independent talent. He settles for mediocrity, because it is
less challenging and more comfortable. He doesn't have to make the
hard decisions of someone who actually builds something. Rather,
he can just sit back and analyze.
I've had a stinking rotten cold all week and this all makes me
feel even more ill. So go hug someone you love and tell them how
much you appreciate them.
Passover is almost upon us. Time for spiritual cleansing as well
as spatial cleansing of chametz (leaven) from our lives. XXX suggests
one way that we can go about this is to understand the strengths
that go with many of our enemies' flaws. If I think Laurie is sharp,
that is just the flip side of her loyalty and devotion to Dennis
Prager, for instance.
.....................................
April 24, 1998
Strook & Strook & Lavan LLP
Dear Mr. Ford:
Your publication of Mr. Prager's essays, other writings, audiotapes
and taped lectures and speeches on your websites, dennisprager.net
and lukeford.com and elsewhere infringes Mr. Prager's copyright
rights in such materials and violates the copyright laws of the
United States, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. Accordingly, your publication
of Mr. Prager's copyrighted materials exposes you to an injunction
to prevent such publication and an award by you for compensatory
damages to Mr. Prager, profits you earn from publishing his copyrighted
materials, and attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, willful copyright
infringement can consitute a criminal act.
Moreoever, your unauthorized use of Mr. Prager's name on your websites
and elsewhere for your commercial purposes violates California Civil
Code Section 3344, rendering you liable for compensatory damages
to Mr. Prager, profits from your unauthorized use of his name, punitive
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
Unless you immediately (i) remove all of Mr. Prager's writings
and any transcripts of his audiotapes or taped lectures from your
websites and any other place where you have published his materials,
and refrain from publishing Mr. Prager's writings, audiotapes and
taped lectures in the future, and (ii) cease to use Mr. Prager's
name for any commercial purpose, including, but not limited to,
using his name in the domain name for your dennisprager.net website,
we will pursue all legal rights and remedies Mr. Prager has, including
bringing an action against you for violating his copyright rights
and unauthorized use of his name for commercial purposes.
Sincerely,
Michael F. Perlis
Luke: This is such a lousy way for Prager to handle this matter.
My site on him is a labor of love to generally further the values
he believes in. I have sent him far more money than I have made
off the site.
My site www.dennisprager.net is simply the name for the contents
of the site. It is about Dennis Prager. I have not used it to blackmail
him into buying it off me. I told him what I was going to do days
and weeks before I did it. He had every opportunity to talk to me
about it. Instead he hides behind his lawyers and others. Disappointing.
I only included those Prager essays on my site which were widely
and freely available on the net for free. I told him of my wish
to do this months ago. Now, I guess he has spoken. So, I will bring
my site into conformance with fair use provisions.
Most of the threats above are blather, just like most of the first
letter I received from his sharks. Calling my site Dennisprager.net
does not violate California Civil Code Section 3344. My excerpts
from his speeches, radio shows and writings falls under the general
rubric of covering the news.
I emailed Prager again on this stuff upon receipt of this latest
letter. I gave him every chance to do the decent thing. He chooses
to let others do his dirty work on this matter. So be it. Great
men have great flaws.
|