If my effort at satire in the earlier post seems tacky, perhaps it's getting harder and harder for me to make fun of ad hominem attacks, outbreaks of trollish agent provocateurism, and bad logic -- all while keeping a straight face. . .

But honest, folks, I'm trying to be funny! God forbid I might allow myself to have feelings of repugnance at anything another blogger said. This is all just good clean fun, right? We're all just having fun stating our opinions, because that's what the blogosphere is here for!

And if I didn't know he was a fun-loving guy, I'd almost be willing to swear that Glenn Greenwald considers his former representation of Nazi sympathizers as something to be worn as a badge of pride.

Even (gasp!) moral authority:

As is true for many lawyers who have defended First Amendment free speech rights, I have represented several groups and individuals with extremist and even despicable viewpoints (in general, and for obvious reasons, it is only groups and individuals who espouse ideas considered repugnant by the majority which have their free speech rights threatened). Included among this group were several White Supremacist groups and their leaders, including one such group -- the World Church of the Creator -- whose individual members had periodically engaged in violence against those whom they considered to be the enemy (comprised of racial and religious minorities along with the "race traitors" who were perceived to defend them).

As I've had controversial clients myself, I have no problem with any lawyer representing any client, however vigorously (within the bounds of legal ethics, of course), because I recognize the importance of the adversary system, the presumption of innocence, etc. Matthew Hale was Greenwald's most famous client, and it goes without saying that Mr. Greenwald had just as much of a duty to represent him as would any other attorney.

Still, the account of this shooting spree which was allegedly committed by Hale's followers raises questions which go beyond Mr. Greenwald's free speech formulation:

Elevating the profile of last July's racially-motivated shooting spree to still a higher level, the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights has filed suit against the white supremacist group it claims is responsible for the two-state tear that left two dead and nine wounded.

In a federal lawsuit filed here Tuesday, lawyers for a Decatur pastor wounded during the spree allege World Church of the Creator leader Matthew F. Hale not only encouraged, but conspired with shooter Benjamin Nathaniel Smith to "commit wholesale acts of genocidal violence in furtherance of their self-proclaimed 'racial holy war' against any and all African-Americans, Jews, Asians and other ethnic groups."

Filed on the anniversary of the assassination of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the suit seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages from Hale, Smith's estate and the World Church of the Creator for the Rev. Stephen Anderson, a pastor of Greater Faith Temple Church who suffered three gunshot wounds July 3, 1999, while standing in the driveway of his home in Decatur.

Lawyers are suing under the Illinois Hate Crimes Act and the historic Anti-Klan Act, enacted in the 1870s to financially damage white supremacist organizations engaging in acts of terror, intimidation and violence.

Hale's lawyer, New York attorney Glenn Greenwald, took a similar tact in responding to the suit. "It's all just guilt by association," said Greenwald, who isn't sure yet whether he will be representing Hale on this latest federal action.

He did, however, seem interested in taking the case on. He compared it to the first suit, which alleged Hale ordered Smith to target minorities.

"All they can say Matt Hale did is express the view that Jews and blacks are inferior, he said. "There's just no question that expressing those views is a core First Amendment activity."

Further, Greenwald said, "I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me."

Huh?

Who might they be? Reverend Stephen Anderson, who seems to have done nothing more odious or repugnant than standing in his driveway?

I realize that when Greenwald said this, he was being a lawyer, and not a big leftie blogger, but still. . .

Since when is it odious and repugnant to be standing in your driveway only to be shot by Nazi sympathizers?

There's more:

The first suit, filed in state court by Chicago attorney Michael Ian Bender on behalf of two Orthodox Jewish teens shot at in Rogers Park, is pending, though a circuit judge in Chicago threw out allegations that Smith's parents were somehow responsible for the shootings.

In addition to the Center for Constitutional Rights, Chicago's Latham & Watkins and the People's Law Office represent the Rev. Anderson.

"We signed onto this because we felt strongly about this case and this cause of action [for the Rev. Anderson] as a victim of a hate crime," said Mary Rose Alexander, the Latham & Watkins partner handling the case. "We feel justice should be served." The case is Rev. Stephen Tracy Anderson v. Matthew F. Hale, The World Church of the Creator, etc., and the Estate of Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, No. 00C2021.

Let's assume the latter firm was the odious and repugnant one. It's a left-wing activist outfit, which seems to focus on things like Guantanamo. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't like their political agenda, but is that the point now, and was it then? I mean, if they were acting as attorneys in good faith for a man who was shot for being black and standing in his driveway, how is that odious and repugnant? How was representing Orthodox Jewish teens odious and repugnant?

I don't trust Glenn Greenwald's repugnance -- then or now.

It just smells, well, funny.

(Like I said, I'm trying. . .)

UPDATE (07/16/06): More on Greenwald and his prevarications here. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)