Lew feels stalked

In an attempt to suppress the free expression of dissent and deny the second amendment rights of free citizens of Clark County, Lew waves a cyberstalking law.  Apparently, publicly pointing out when someone makes an absurd public statement constitutes cyber-stalking in Lew's world.  We fail to understand why Lew feels he has the right to throw criticism and libelous and scandalous insinuations around with impunity, but when someone calls him on it and holds his feet to the fire, suddenly it's cyber-stalking.  How does this law apply to Lew's previous public statements, where he called one reader a "shit-smearer" and publicly slandered a political hopeful by suggesting she sleeps around?

No one is trying to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass Lew.  We are simply answering his publicly inaccurate statements when he makes them.  He has made himself a public figure with his writing.  He has been quoted by the local news source, the Columbian. It's incumbent on the people to identify when someone makes an inaccurate statement and respond with the truth.  This is the stuff that political discourse is made of, to allow the public to see multiple viewpoints, the better to make their decisions.  When called on his inaccuracies, Lew has never once substantiated his libelous claims with facts or evidence, but instead has embarked on a scorched earth campaign to silence his critics at all costs.  This is just more of the same.

"lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act"

Oh, like calling a private citizen a "shit-smearer," (obscene) or suggesting a candidate sleeps around (lewd or lascivious)?  Seriously. People in glass houses. . . . We at Lew Waters watch have never publicly impugned Lew Waters personally, on the contrary, we have repeatedly acknowledged the valuable service he has done for the conservative community in the past and called for him to return to the fold.  There is a significant difference between an attack on an idea and an attack on the person. When you put your ideas into the public conversation, don't get offended when people publicly disagree with them and ridicule them if they deserve it.

We at Lew Waters Watch have never gone out of our way to infringe on the privacy of Mr. Waters.  We respect his privacy, and quite frankly, we have no interest in tormenting or harassing him.  We have always confined The Watch to responding to his public commentary, and we have done so publicly.  We have never sent private messages to Mr. Waters, or attempted to disrupt his private life, which we respect.

Lew Waters Watch has never threatened Lew Waters in any way, nor has it made public any private information about Mr. Waters that is not freely available from any number of public sources.  If Mr. Waters feels physically threatened, we at the Watch suggest that perhaps he realized that he has made some statements which would result in an immediate violent physical reaction in many face to face venues, and he fears his words may have landed him in hot water. If I were him, I would certainly fear a meeting with the husband of the candidate whom he slandered. We at Lew Waters watch do not condone or encourage violence of any sort.

No communication has been made directly to Lew Waters.  All commentary has been confined to comments on his public blog forum (which have for the most part been moderated and refused, since Lew doesn't like to debate on a level playing field), or in this public forum. As private citizens, we at Lew Waters watch have the right to publicly ridicule our government or any other public figure. Lew Waters has made himself a public figure with his public journal, and has no basis to claim immunity from criticism when he makes factually incorrect statements or slanders people who have done nothing to him but disagree.

If Lew can't take such criticism, if he can't debate a public position or defend a public statement on its merits, we at Lew Waters Watch suggest that another endeavor might be in order. To suggest that an invitation to justify his public statements amounts to cyberstalking is simply absurd. We at the Watch have no personal animosity towards Mr. Waters, and it would delight us to no end if he would stop making ill-informed public insinuations and slander under the guise of journalism which leave us no choice but to answer his commentary with the truth.