In their December (Florida) Sun-Sentinel op/ed, Lenny and Veronique Pozner claim that James Tracy had harassed them with a registered letter demanding proof that their alleged son, Noah, had ever lived. That is a misrepresentation of Tracy’s letter, which actually requested Lenny to produce proof of his claim of copyright over Noah’s images.
Mere days after Sun-Sentinel‘s publication of Pozners’ op/ed, Florida Atlantic University (FAU) moved to fire Tracy, a tenured professor.
Since then, the Pozners’ accusation has been repeated in countless media reports and vicious comments by readers of those news articles. An expert on tenure and academic freedom interviewed by NBC even said on camera that FAU’s termination of Tracy’s employment is justified by Tracy’s (alleged) “harassment” of the Pozners, which trumps tenure and First Amendment right of free speech.
This important post by Tony Mead demonstrates that it is Lenny Pozner and his cronies who have been doing the harassing, character assassination, and other machinations. My blog, Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM), is one of the WordPress blogs targeted by Lenny, who was successful at getting WordPress unilaterally to take down images of Noah over which Lenny claims — but has not proved — copyright. WordPress even threatened to shut down FOTM if we ever post images of Noah again. I also know of at least one blogger, a college kid Timothy Hunter, whom Lenny successfully hounded and, as a result, is no longer blogging. Curiously, while he relentlessly goes after YouTubers and bloggers for supposed copyright infringement, Lenny continues to be incurious about how and why an image of Noah was included among the posters of those massacred at the Army Public School in Deshawar, Pakistan, on Dec. 16, 2014.
Mr. Mead also raises an important and fascinating question: Just who/what is bankrolling Lenny and his HONR Network? This post by Mr. Mead deserves to be widely disseminated. Please help the cause of truth by spreading this post via email and on social media.
To read Tony Mead’s post, go here.
UPDATE (Feb. 10, 2016):
This morning, at 10:30 a.m., Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM) received an email from Lenny Pozner – HONR Network, demanding that this post be taken down on the grounds that this post:
- Contains “false information concerning the Pozner family”;
- Was published “without authorization”;
- The intent of which is “for the sole purpose of harassment”.
This is Fellowship of the Minds‘ response:
- Pozner’s accusation that FOTM published “false information concerning the Pozner family” is vague, overly general, and unspecific.
In reblogging Tony Mead’s post from Memory Hole Blog, FOTM is simply exercising and conforming to the free speech and free press rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, for which FOTM requires neither “authorization” nor permission from Lenny or anyone else. Lenny Pozner is not the owner of FOTM, has never had a relationship with FOTM, and has no legal claim over FOTM.
According to Law.com, the legal definition of “harassment” is:
“the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone anxious or fearful. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail (“I’ll stop bothering you if you’ll go to bed with me”). The victim may file a petition for a “stay away” (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.”
Nothing in the legal definition of “harassment” applies in FOTM‘s re-blogging of Mr. Mead’s post for the simple reason that FOTM does not have a relationship with Lenny Pozner, nor is the reblog addressed to Mr. Pozner. Specifically:
- FOTM has issued no demands or threats at Mr. Pozner. Ironically, it is Mr. Pozner who has issued demands and threats at FOTM.
- Nor has FOTM forced Mr. Pozner to quit his job or grant sexual favors.
- Nor has FOTM applied pressure to collect a bill from Mr. Pozner.
- Nor has FOTM attempted to induce anxiety or fear, or intended to do so, or derived sadistic pleasure in so doing.
- Nor has FOTM discriminated against Mr. Pozner’s race or sex.
- Nor has FOTM blackmailed Mr. Pozner.
- Nor is FOTM the employer of Mr. Pozner.
The purpose of FOTM‘s re-blogging of Tony Mead’s post is expressly and solely to inform — a purpose that is stated in FOTM‘s “About” page, specifically our Fair Use Disclaimer:
“In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes.”
UPDATE (October 14, 2017):
Today, at 11:15 am, FOTM received another email from Lenny Pozner, demanding that FOTM take down this and several other posts on the grounds of “harassment.” In this latest email, Mr. Pozner threatens that he will file a “police report” if this and the other posts are not removed.
Once again, FOTM repeats what was stated a year and 8 months ago:
- This and other posts on FOTM conform to the free speech and free press rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, for which FOTM requires neither “authorization” nor permission from Lenny or anyone else.
- Neither this nor any other post on FOTM constitutes “harassment” against Mr. Pozner according to the legal definition of “harassment” in Law.com, which any police jurisdiction recognizes.
On the contrary, it is Mr. Pozner’s repeated demands and threats that conform to the legal definition of “harassment”. If he continues, FOTM will consider legal action.