Response Part XII

Section C.2 is the last part of the report proper, although there is interesting material in the first Appendix that is well worth reading.  It’s mostly a rehash of previous statements, although the bit on “attitudes” is moderately entertaining.

2. Threats of nuisance litigation

Mr. Beale has repeatedly threatened to harass SFWA through nuisance litigation. Mr. Beale has made explicit his intention to sue both in the SFWA online forums (in a post later removed by moderators): “A lifetime membership in SFWA is presently valued at $5,000.00. Although the bylaws presently contain a formula that is intended to deprive a lifetime member of the greater part of that officially established value, that particular section is highly unlikely to hold up if challenged in any court of law. I’m sure you will understand that the SFWA cannot simply steal property worth $5,000.00 from its members regardless of what the bylaws state or how unanimous the opinion of its board members may be.” (Ibid.)

and also on his own blog: “The board can make that determination [whetheror not to expel him] and hope that it will stand up in court.” (See Fig C.7)

He has also suggested that his intent is to harass SFWA through nuisance litigation:

“Once the lawyers get their hooks in, they’re very, very good at keeping the billable hours going.” (See Fig C.8)

“My lawyer broke his leg a few weeks ago. He’s bored.” (See Fig C.9)

Intentions and attitudes towards SFWA

Mr. Beale has made his attitude towards the organization clear through his blog posts. On the most obvious level, he frequently refers to SFWA through derogatory plays on the meaning of the acronym, such as “Seriously Fascist Women’s Association” (see Fig C.10), “Spitefully Fascist Writers of America (Fig C.11) and “Seriously Fat Women Authors” (see Fig C.12).

More significantly, he has made clear that he sees little value in SFWA or membership in the organization: “SFWA is already sunk so far deep into the mire that it’s hardly possible to bring it further into disrepute.” (See Fig C.13)

Commenter: VD, any value with the SFWA?
Beale: “Considerable entertainment value, but other than that, not so much.” (See Fig C.14) “The appeal [of membership] is the mere fact of my membership infuriates all the right people.” (See Fig C.15)

He has also stated openly that he not willing to compromise, avoid conflict with the organization of other members, or accept sanctions if they are imposed:

“In rejecting NK Jemisin’s call for reconciliation within the SFWA, I declared that there can be no reconciliation between the observant and the delusional.” (See Fig C.16)

“I’ll never back down to them.” (See Fig C.17)

Finally, Beale’s attitude may be summed up in this exchange where he explains his motivations for seeking conflict with SFWA:

Commenter A: The point isn’t to win, the point is to carry out the threat, and to make the threat if it’s warranted. Even if it was to come to Vox’s expulsion from SWFA, then a lawsuit, Vox wins as long as he doesn’t back down. (See Fig C.18)

Commenter B: How is that a win? (See Fig C.19)

Beale: It all depends upon what the objective is. If, for example, I wished to set up a rival organization, it might be more effective to encourage the existing one to burn itself down first. Or perhaps I’m deeply wounded, emotionally, and I’m simply lashing out in the only way I know how. Or it could be the objective is to win three Nebula prizes running as part of a settlement. Or perhaps I think this is the way to become president of the organization since I couldn’t win in a free election. Or it could simply be an instinctive desire to sow chaos. (See Fig C.20)

Once more, Matthew Johnson freely admits that he violated discussion forum confidentiality, and again, I have no intention of nuisance litigation.  I merely intend to stand upon my legal rights according to state law and the organizational bylaws.

As for the idea that I have a bad attitude about the organization, well, I’ve spent the last eight years being publicly attacked by some of the most influential people in the organization as well as by two presidents of the organization, a vice-president, and various and sundry Board members.  Then I’ve had a witch hunt launched against me for something that literally hundreds of members have done and been repeatedly accused of doing things I simply haven’t done.  I’ve read the author of this report tell one lie after another, even as numerous members of the organization publicly claim I am things I simply am not.

To paraphrase Brad Torgenson, this is the organization that is supposedly helping my writing career?  That is supposedly defending my interests?

It is totally false to claim I will not accept sanctions if imposed.  I already have.  My blog was removed from the @sfwaauthors Twitter feed and I publicly acknowledged that was a correct and fitting sanction. However, I will admit that I do not have a particularly positive attitude about the
SFWA.  And I will also admit that I would be vastly amused to see the
Board expel a member for possessing a low opinion of SFWA.

Response Part XI 

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of