Gunk

Gunk (pronounced guhngk) 

(1) Any sticky or greasy residue or accumulation.

(2) A sub-culture of twenty-first century US males, combining elements of the modern gothic culture with punk rock.

(3) In mereology, any whole, the parts of which have further proper parts.

1949:  An Americanism, used to describe (usually dirty or unwanted) viscous substances, derived from Gunk, the trademark for a degreasing solvent, a thick liquid soap patented in 1932 by the AF Curran Company of Malden, Massachusetts.  Origin of the name is wholly speculative, the most likely offerings being (grime + funk) or (grime + junk).  Disgusting gunk has many synonyms:  quagmire, goo, silt, slime, muck, sludge, gunk, waste, debris, trash, powder, mud, mucus, grease, sediment, residue, grit, smoke, ash, dirt, oily, filth.

Gunk in Mereology

Gunk Engine Degreasant.

In mathematical logic and philosophy, mereology is the study of parts and the wholes they form.  Unlike set theory, the basis of which is the relation between a set and its elements, mereology is about the meronomic (part-whole relationships).  In mereology, gunk is any whole, the parts of which have parts and because parts are intrinsically transitive, any part of gunk must also be gunk, the implication of which is that gunk cannot contain any (indivisible) single-point parts.  So, for it to operate as it does, the known universe depends on gunky stuff like time.  Immediately controversial because of its challenges to nihilism, the term was first applied by Princeton philosopher David Lewis (1941-2001) in his 1991 publication, Parts of Classes.  Lewis claimed traces of the ideas could be found in writings from antiquity, through René Descartes (1596–1650) to Bertrand Russell (1872-1970); others found this lineage “arguable”.  Lewis’ mind worked in abstract space.  His construct of realism was (1) possible worlds exist, (2) every possible world does exist, (3) any possible world is wholly separate from any other and (4), our world is one of the possible worlds.

Herbie gunking Lindsay Lohan in Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005).

Butterfly

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Defame

Defame (pronounced dih-feym)

(1) To attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; still in some jurisdictions classified as slander (in speech or by gesture) or libel (something permanent in some sense including writing, images & broadcasting); calumniate.

(2) To disgrace; to bring dishonor upon (dating from the fifteenth century and now archaic).

(3) To indict or accuse (dating from the fourteenth century and long obsolete).

1275–1325: From the Middle English defamen, from the Old French & Anglo-French defamer (verb) & defame (noun) or directly from the Medieval Latin dēfāmāre, a variant of the Medieval & Classical Latin diffāmāre (related to the Classical Latin dēfāmātus (infamous)) (to spread the news of; to spread by unfavorable report; to slander), the construct being dif- (an alternative form of dis- (the prefix form dif- appearing only when the prefix dis- was added to a word beginning with f, as in difficilis (difficult) from facilis (easy), or diffiteor (deny) from fateor (acknowledge)) + -fāmāre (verbal derivative of fāma (news, rumor, slander)),  It replaced the Middle English diffamen, from the Anglo-French & Old French diffamer or directly from Medieval Latin, source the Latin diffāmō, from fāma (fame; rumor; reputation).  The verb defame (speak evil of, maliciously speak or write what injures the reputation of) dates from circa 1300, from the Old French defamer (which in the thirteenth century became the Modern French diffamer).

The construct in English is de- + fame.  The de- prefix was from the Latin dē-, from the preposition dē (of, from (the Old English æf- was a similar prefix).  It imparted the sense of (1) reversal, undoing, removing, (2) intensification and (3) from, off.  Fame was from the Middle English fame, from the Old French fame (celebrity, renown), from the Latin fāma (talk, rumor, report, reputation), from the primitive Indo-European beh-meh from beh (to speak, say, tell).  It was cognate with the Ancient Greek φήμη (phḗmē) (talk) and related to the Old English bōian (to boast), bēn (prayer, request) & bannan (to summon, command, proclaim).  It displaced the Old English hlīsa.  Defame and its derivatives are defined in law but in general use the vaguely synonymous terms include backbite, besmirch, denigrate, derogate, discredit, disgrace, disparage, malign, revile, scandalize, smear, vilify, asperse, belie, blacken, blister, calumniate, detract, dishonor, knock, pan, roast & scorch.  Defame is a noun and verb, defaming is a verbs, defamer & defamation are nouns, defamingly is an adverb, defamed is a verb & adjective and defamatory is an adjective.

Google LLC v Defteros, Case # M86/2021 on appeal from Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (17 June 2021, VSCA 167).

The High Court of Australia (HCA) recently ruled that in certain circumstances, Google (and presumably every other search engine) is not a publisher, the critical point in this case being that a hyperlink generated in an organic search is “merely a tool which enables a person to navigate to another webpage”.  The case before the country’s highest court was an appeal from Victoria’s court of appeal which in 2021 declined to overturn a defamation finding in favor of a lawyer known for representing underworld figures and others associated with organized crime.  The state courts had found Google was the publisher of a defamatory 2004 newspaper article on the basis its search results were instrumental in communicating the content to readers.  Google had argued providing a hyperlink to content did not constitute publication and therefore it could not be liable for any defamatory material in the piece.  Apart from a discussion of the legal principles, counsel for Google also informed the HCA that were the decision of the lower court to be confirmed, it would have a “devastating” impact on the way the internet operates because it would compel search engines individually to see legal opinion on the billions of results to which hyperlinks are daily generated.  Google maintained it acted on the internet only as a navigator responding to users’ requests for directions and it was (and given the volumes had to be) wholly disinterested in the content of that to which its hyperlinks referenced, the operator of the hyperlinked link being the one which communicates (and thus publishes) the content to the user.

The facts of the case were also interesting in that they played out on a time-scale very different to that of most defamation matters.  Google was notified of the article in February 2016, some eleven years after it was published in the newspaper but it was not until December that year that the link was removed from search.  Interestingly, the “removal request form” submitted in 2016 had alleged the original article was defamatory and that proceedings brought against the newspaper in 2007 had resulted in a settlement at mediation which included the deletion of the article.  There was however no such settlement and proceedings against the newspaper had never commenced.  In 2020, the Supreme Count on Victoria (VSC) ruled the article implied the lawyer’s relationship with certain figures in organized crime had gone beyond a professional relationship to the point of being a confidant and friend and he had thus been defamed.  He was awarded damages of Aus$40,000.

In a 5-2 judgment, the HCA ruled in Google’s favor, finding that search engine’s results “merely facilitated access” to the material and that did not reach the threshold required to amount to publication in a legal sense, the point being that Google “…had not participated in the writing or disseminating of the defamatory matter”.  The other side of the HCA’s judgment was that it rejected the claim that search results “enticed” the person searching to open the provided hyperlink and thus proceed to the material on the basis that the person would already be looking for particular information before the result was received.  That was interesting but a wrinkle was added by one judge who differentiated between an organic hyperlink and a sponsored link in which each click generated advertising revenue which accrued to Google.  That matter however did not come before the lower courts and is thus not considered part of the substantive judgment (the ratio decidendi (reason (or rationale) for the decision) but is a piece of obiter dictum (by the way) which, left hanging in the legal air, might in the future be re-visited and, because it involves the core component of the search engines’ business model, interest will be greater still.  There certainly may be more to explore because the court, having found there was no basis for finding publication because Google had not participated in the writing or disseminating of the defamatory matter, noted that "…there being no publication”, the majority found it unnecessary to consider the defenses raised by the appellant.  That was a shame because it might have been an interesting discussion given Google filed, inter alia, defenses of innocent dissemination and qualified privilege.

There were however dissenting opinions, the most interesting of which at length discussed the actual mechanics of Google’s search engine, the succession of algorithms which interact with its indexes to generate the results seen by users.  In the view of one judge, what these components did constituted an “active and voluntary participation in the process that is in fact directed to making matter available for comprehension by a third party” and was thus an act of publication and that moreover neither the defense of innocent dissemination and qualified privilege, nor the defense of statutory qualified privilege available under Victoria’s Defamation Act 2005 were sustained.  The judge also hinted that a distinction between the results generated by organic search and those of sponsored content was not of necessity clear because of the commercial benefits which Google anyway gained through the operation of the search engine.  The other dissenting judge substantially agreed, adding that the matter of publication before the court would have been impossible without the operation of Google’s algorithms which “intentionally assisted in the process of conveying the words bearing defamatory meaning to a third party” and that publication would not have occurred but for Google’s facilitation.

So, the HCA has issued what is (for now) a definitive ruling on a search engine’s liability for third-party publications to which it has directed users, finding there is none, rejecting even the analogy cited by the lower court of a librarian handing someone a book with a certain page marked, preferring the example of someone in the street being asked for direction to a bookshop which turned out to have on its shelves a book containing a defamatory passage.  It seems inevitable that at least some of the matters raised in Google LLC v Defteros will again be litigated and analogies similes and metaphors will return to the battle.  Whether long-established legal principles can be reconciled with a public policy which would seem to suggest the algorithms of the search engines are acknowledged now to be an essential part of modern life, remains to be seen.

Meet our spokesperson.  With experience in civil litigation and other legal matters, Lindsay Lohan was a good choice to be lawyer.com's spokesperson.

Noted litigant Lindsay Lohan hasn’t enjoyed great success in her defamation suits, even when pursued on the basis of commercial rights.  In 2015, a defamation case against Fox News was dismissed, the judge ruling (perhaps unfairly given the nature of the evidence), "truth is a defense" (and in the US it is an absolute defense).  The case concerned Ms Lohan and her mother and according to their filing, Fox News “falsely, inappropriately, and shockingly” stated, unequivocally and as a “matter of fact” stated “Lindsay Lohan’s mother is doing cocaine with her”.  The judge noted Ms Lohan’s mother is a public figure and that the statements made on Fox News were not made maliciously (in US law two vital points used to determine whether or not something is at law, considered defamatory).  Interestingly Fox News had formally apologized for what they called an “oversight” in airing the piece, noting the evidence later introduced couldn’t verify the claim and that the material had been removed from their archives.

Just a little removed from defamation law was a writ she filed in 2010 against E-Trade in 2010 for using her name in one of their television advertisements without her permission. The commercial, which was played during the Super Bowl, featured a "milkaholic" baby named Lindsay and the basis for the suit was the claim E-Trade as mocking her drug and alcohol-related problems.  In response to the US$100 million claim, E-Trade responded with little more than an explanation that there are in the world, many Lindsays.  After some six months, the lawsuit was withdrawn, the terms of the settlement subject to a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

Lindsay Lohan returned to court in 2011, suing hip hop artist Pitbull over the lyrics in his song Give Me Everything, which included the line: So, I’m toptoein’, to keep flowin’, I got it locked up, like Lindsay Lohan.  Ms Lohan cited the lyric as a violation of her publicity and publicity rights which caused her emotional distress, claiming the lyrics “includes an unwarranted, unauthorized, and unfavorable mention of [her] name and personality, and allusions to her physical and mental character.”  The judge dismissed on technical grounds the claim made under New York Civil Rights law, adding that the First Amendment anyway affords full protection.  What was more interesting was the discussion of the argument the song was commercial rather than expressive in nature, the judge ruling that even if the work was created for the purpose of “making a profit”, that does not mean her name was “used for advertising or purposes of trade within the meaning of the New York law“ and that, on the facts of this case, even if that were proved, the “isolated nature of the use of her name” (just one line in the song) would “prove fatal” to the claims.  Putbull’s counsel indicated they wished to have the court sanction Ms Lohan for filing a frivolous lawsuit (an abuse of process) but the judge, noting the paucity of case law in this field, said the lack of precedent meant there was no clear indication the case would be doomed and the claim was therefore not so frivolous as to warrant the imposition of a sanction.  Lindsay Lohan thus remained free to litigate, which she did.

Sabot & Clog

Sabot (pronounced sab-oh or sa-boh (French)

(1) A shoe made of a single block of wood hollowed out, worn especially by farmers and workers in the Netherlands, France, Belgium etc.

(2) A shoe with a thick wooden sole and sides and a top of coarse leather.

(3) In military ordinance, a wooden or metal disk formerly attached to a projectile in a muzzle-loading cannon.

(4) In firearm design, a lightweight sleeve in which a sub-caliber round is enclosed in order to make it fit the rifling of a firearm; after firing the sabot drops away.

(5) In nautical use, a small sailing boat with a shortened bow (Australia).

1600–1610: From the French sabot, from the Old French çabot, a blend of savate (old shoe), of uncertain origin and influenced by bot (boot).  The mysterious French savate (old shoe), despite much research by etymologists, remains of unknown origin.  It may be from the Tatar чабата (çabata) (overshoes), ultimately either from the Ottoman Turkish چاپوت‎ (çaput or çapıt) (patchwork, tatters), or from the Ottoman Turkish چاپمق‎ (çapmak) (to slap on), or of Iranian origin, cognate with the modern Persian چپت‎ (čapat) (a kind of traditional leather shoe).  It was akin to the Old Provençal sabata, the Italian ciabatta (old shoe), the Spanish zapato, the Norman chavette and the Portuguese sapato.  The plural is sabots.

Young women in clogs, smoking cigarettes.

Sabot is the ultimate source of sabotage & saboteur.  English picked up sabotage from the French saboter (deliberately to damage, wreck or botch), used originally to refer to the tactic used in industrial disputes by workers wearing the wooden shoes called sabots who disrupted production in various ways.  The persistent myth is that the origin of the term lies in the practice of workers throwing the wooden sabots into factory machinery to interrupt production but the tale appears apocryphal, one account even suggesting sabot-clad workers were simply considered less productive than others who had switched to leather shoes, roughly equating the term sabotage with inefficiency.

Vintage Dutch sabots.

The words saboter and saboteur appear first to have appeared in French dictionaries in 1808 (Dictionnaire du Bas-Langage ou manières de parler usitées parmi le peuple of d'Hautel) suggesting there must have been some use of the words in printed materials some time prior to then.  The literal definition provided was “to make noise with sabots” and “bungle, jostle, hustle, haste” but with no suggestion of the shoes being used in the “spanner in the works” sense suggested by the myth.  Sabotage would not appear in dictionaries for some decades, noted first in the Dictionnaire de la langue française of Émile Littré (1801-1881) published between 1873-1874 and curiously, it’s defined as referencing that specialty of cobbling “the making of sabots; sabot maker”.  It wouldn’t be until 1897 that the use to describe malicious damage in pursuit of industrial or political aims was recorded, anarcho-syndicalist Émile Pouget (1860-1931) publishing Action de saboter un travail (Sabotaging or bungling at work) in Le Père Peinard, which he helpfully expanded in 1911 in the user manual Le Sabotage.  In neither work however was there mention of using sabots as a means of damaging or halting machinery, the sense was always of things done by those wearing sabots, the word a synecdoche for the industrial proletariat.  Contemporary English-language sources confirm this.  In its January 1907 edition, The Liberty Review noted sabotage was a means of “scamping work… a device… adopted by certain French workpeople as a substitute for striking.  The workman, in other words, purposes to remain on and to do his work badly, so as to annoy his employer's customers and cause loss to his employer”.

Clog promotion, H&M catalog 2011.

Clog (pronounced klog or klawg)

(1) To hinder or obstruct with thick or sticky matter; choke up.

(2) To crowd excessively, especially so that movement is impeded; overfill.

(3) To encumber; hamper; hinder.

(4) To become clogged, encumbered, or choked up.

(5) A shoe or sandal with a thick sole of wood, cork, rubber, or the like; a similar but lighter shoe worn in the clog dance.

(6) A heavy block, as of wood, fastened to a person or beast to impede movement.

(7) As clog dance, a type of dance which specifically demands the wearing of clogs.

(8) In British dialectal use, a thick piece of wood (now rare).

(9) In the slang of association football (soccer), to foul an opponent (now rare).

(10) A heavy block, especially of wood, fastened to the leg of a person or animal to impede motion.

(11) To use a mobile phone to take a photograph of (someone) and upload it without their knowledge or consent, the construct being c(amera) + log, a briefly used term from the early days of camera-equipped phones on the which never caught on.

1300s: Of unknown origin, most likely from the Middle English clogge (weight attached to the leg of an animal to impede movement) or from a North Germanic form such as klugu & klogo (knotty tree log) from the Old Norse, the Dutch klomp or the Norwegian klugu (knotty log of wood).  The word was also used in Middle English to describe big pieces of jewelry and large testicles.  The meaning "anything that impedes action" is from the 1520s, via the notion of "block or mass constituting an encumbrance” although it became nuanced, by 1755 builders were distinguishing between things clogged with whatever naturally belonged then and becoming “choked up with extraneous matter”, a distinction doubtlessly of great significance to plumbers.  The sense of the "wooden-soled shoe" is attested from the late fourteenth century, used as overshoes until the introduction of rubber soles circa 1840.  Related forms include the adjective cloggy, the noun clogginess, the verbs clogged & clog·ging and the adverb cloggily.  A frequently used adjectival derivative is anticlogging, often as a modifier of agent and, unsurprisingly, the verb unclog, first noted circa 1600, is also common.

Lindsay Lohan in Gucci Black Patent Leather Hysteria Platform Clogs with wooden soles, Los Angeles, 2009.  The car is a 2009 (fifth generation) Maserati Quattroporte leased by her father.

Clogs were originally made entirely of wood (hence the name), the more familiar modern form with leather uppers covering the front being noted first in the late sixteenth century but may have been worn earlier.  Long popular with men working in kitchens (always with a rubber covering on the sole), the first revival as a fashion item occurred circa 1970, primarily for women and clog-dancing, a form "which required the wearing of clogs" is attested from 1863.  There are now a variety of variations on the clog sole including the Tengu geta, having a single tooth in the centre and the Albarcas which features extensions something like a three-legged stool.  None look very comfortable but their users appear content.

Lindsay Lohan's promotion for the collaboration between German fashion house MCM & Crocs, introducing the "pragmatic" Mega Crush Clog.  Not that there was ever much doubt but now we know clogs can be "pragmatic".