Congratulations to Daryl Huff, who walked away from one side of the news biz on Friday with two awards in the Hawaii SPJ’s annual journalism competition, as well as a good final story on the air.
Daryl, we’re really going to miss your reporting. There aren’t many left with a real nose for the stories and the skill to dig into them.
In any case, the SPJ Hawaii web site has a nice photo and, perhaps more important, the list of winners in this year’s contest.
Daryl’s last story was a follow-up on the feud between campaign consultant Keith Rollman and conservative GOP activist Eric Ryan.
Former Hannemann Aide Admits Anonymous Attacks
Keith Rollman Defends Using Fictitious Names During Rail Debate
Huff’s story, based on a letter from the city prosecutor’s office to HPD concerning their investigation of Rollman’s complaint about internet harassment, included an exclusive interview with Rollman. The story was co-reported by Civil Beat, which included a copy of the letter and additional details.
Rollman has been responding from his own perspective on his Atomic Monkey Blog which, by the way, provides high-quality satire with a biting edge. Definitely worth checking from time to time, even if you don’t agree with him.
A check of comments left on this blog found a half-dozen using Rollman’s fictitious alter ego, two early last year from a city computer.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Aloha to a great reporter, Daryl Huff.
Rollman deserves all of our thanks for his role in creating the anti-Abercrombie flyer which highlighted Mufi’s approach to politics better than anything short of a Mufi rant caught on film. Perhaps it was unconsciously satirical as well.
Ian, buried in the story is the fact that my complaint back in 2008 was valid, and the forged email and raunchy web site were not mine, and the real culprit was identified.
Sure, I admitted that I use screen names, as do most people (90% on the StarAdvertiser), but my comments have always been pretty much PG rated at worst.
Funny how Rollman used to challenge other posters here for using anonymous names. After watching Matt Damon/Whitacre in the movie The Informant, I guess Rollman could be bipolar.
Yobo, I have always been 100% supportive of the constitutional protection of anonymous free speech, including the use of fictitious screen names.
Oh please, Rollman. A quick search of your postings here easily proves otherwise. You often ridiculed, criticised, and dismissed people who didn’t post under their real names – all the while you were up to your shenanigans.
Then again, perhaps your denial of facts even when painfully obvious to everyone (like Archer Daniel Midland’s Mark Whitacre in the movie) is further proof of your bipolar condition.
This guy is a loose cannon who did Mufi no favors by his behavior.
Yobo, you may have confused my defense of Atomic Monkey’s right to publish anonymously, and my criticism of certain anonymous bloggers attacking that position as ‘hypocritical’ . Have Ian explain the difference to you.
Wailau, you should direct your criticism of any campaign advertising to the agency, or the direct mail companies that produced them. Check the campaign spending reports, I had no professional responsibilities in 2010.
Lopaka43, you can call me whatever you want from the safety of your anonymous screen name…which I am 100% in support of your right to have.
No confusion on my part at all. You criticise and dismiss people who post with screen names, but you were doing it many times over and under several different screen names, pretending to be different people, during your weird battles with Ryan, among others. Stop making excuses.
Additionally, I have never been diagnosed bi-polar, but thanks for your concern.
I gotta side with Keith Rollman in this, more or less. While he and Eric Ryan both engaged in anonymous, online attacks, Eric’s were much more dishonest and possibly criminal. I love this spot in the Civil Beat article:
The investigation also determined that both suspect Ryan and complainant Rollman “engaged in harassment by impersonation.” Van Marter concludes:
“The only legal difference between their methods of operation was that Rollman impersonated a fictitious person and Ryan impersonated an actual person (Rollman).”
Seems like a pretty significant difference to me. But then I am impersonating a “Kolea,” an otherwise inoffensive critter.
I can understand why the prosecutor and some of the reporters may not have much sympathy when Keith cries “foul,” but setting aside my distaste for Keith’s campaign activities. Eric has (repeatedly) gone too far and deserves sanction.
Keith’s activities during recent campaigns were part of a larger pattern whereby people obviously attached to the Hannemann campaign operation went online and posted mean-spirited attacks on opponents of the mayor. I think “the fish rots from the head,” so I saaw these tactics as reflecting on the character of the Mayor himself. I doubt Keith can be held accountable for the nasty tone which emanated from the Mufi campaign. More likely, his hiring by the Mayor was symptomatic of the Mayor’s own nastiness.
Keith has claimed repeatedly he had nothing to do with the “compare” mailer. I suspect that is technically true. He just engaged in and encouraged the negative climate within Mufi’s circle which also expressed itself in that mailer. Keith has also claimed the mailer was not as nasty as people say. That requires readers interpret the mailer’s meaning in the most positive way. But by the time the flyer came out, the press, the voters and everyone was tired of the poisonous atmosphere which Keith had helped create and could only interpret the mailer in the most negative way possible. So the blame still rests with Keith and Mufi.
See Keith? I came to your defense!
I think I agree with Kolea here.
If I understand the prosecutor’s finding here, they equated Rollman’s use of a pseudonym with Ryan’s impersonating Rollman online, which can be seen as a form of identity theft.
The reasoning sounds more than a little half-baked.
I found the whole “impersonation of a fictitious person” being comparable to criminal identity theft from a real person to be most alarming. Especially, since it referred to the simple use of a screen name.
Another consideration in all this is that it all took place a Prosecutor’s Office being influenced by mayoral aspirations, and the “political” staffers of the existing administration were already targeted for removal.
One slight correction for Ian. Ryan didn’t just impersonate me on blogs, he sent a mass email out, which would make it similar to mail fraud.
Kolea, stop impersonating Kolea. The real Kolea would never stick up for me 🙂
Thanks for the clarification. I did a small edit on my comment to reflect your clarification.
1. HRS_0711-1106_0006.htm ?Context: House Bill [§711-1106.6] Harassment by impersonation. (1) A person commits the offense …of harassment by impersonation if that person poses as another person, without electronic means, with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm any person. (2) Harassment by impersonation is a misdemeanor. (3) Act 133, Session Laws 2008, added this section, creating the misdemeanor offense of harassment by impersonation. Conference Committee Report No. 27-08.
My reading of “person poses as another person.” means the act can only be committed by imersonating an actual living person, not by the assumption of a pseudonym, which is a word, not a human being. Further, “in order to harass, annoy, or alarm any person” likewise requires a real person to be victimized. Since Ryan did assume the identity of a real person, and all the recipients of the forged email were meant to be “alarmed” by this fraud, each instance of someone receiving the forged email constituted a seperate infraction of this law.
Conversley, Van Marter’s invocation of “impersonation of a ficticious person” has no legal standing, and simply referres to the act of publishing under a pseudonym or screen name. This is a guaranteed contitutional right of anonymous free speech that has been upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Van Marter’s statement in his July 6, 2010 letter stating the flawed assumption that “both the suspect, Eric Ryan, and the complaintant, Keith Rollman, engaged in harassment by impersonation is patently false.
Wait just a minute…has anyone seen Keith and Kolea in the room at the same time?
I kid, I kid.
Let’s not forget that KITV is among the news organizations that begs people to post comments to their online news stories,
and that many of the comments tend to be vicious, racist or plain moronic rants,
and that practically all of them are posted under screen names that KITV never attempts to verify and never objects to,
and that some of the more or less comprehensible comments are even repeated during news broadcasts, apparently after no attempt to verify the author’s identity or screen name.
Anyone else see some hypocrisy here?
Huff’s story was a year late and badly distorted. By the way, who leaked him the prosecutor’s report? Does he even know? If he does, but won’t disclose, isn’t he protecting what amounts to anonymous commentary by the leaker who instigated this story via the leak? Did the leaker frame the whole story for him? If so, that’s even worse.
Atomic Monkey should ask Huff for an on-camera interview and get to the bottom of it.
Rollman is desperately counting on/hoping no one reads the Civil Beat article, which though not perfect doesreprint the prosecutor’s report. This is not a strategy for winning, it’s at best a strategy for minimizing losses with puffery.
If anyone wants to know what I’m thinking …just ask me. I don’t know who Yobo is, but I can assure you they are not privy to my inner thoughts.