Press "Enter" to skip to content

Shad Olson Show Idly Threatens to Sue “Hate-Speech” Snitches over Blocked Facebook Accounts

As further evidence that you can’t believe anything you read on Facebook, The Shad Olson Show posts this unintelligent threat on Facebook (I insert numbers for commentary below):

"Quixote Shad Olson Beowulf" Facebook profile pic and intro, screen capped 2019.07.29.
“Quixote Shad Olson Beowulf” Facebook profile pic and intro, screen capped 2019.07.29.
Can I flag ridiculous screen names?
Can I flag ridiculous screen names?

Greetings, trolls.

Just a friendly notification that holds for both this account and specifically, my primary facebook account which is perpetually the target of the cowardly defecations of idiot SJW flash mob “reports” of “hate speech” and the usual jackbooted fascist instincts of children who never learned how to fistfight (1) or cultivate rhetorical skills. Yes, you, neckbeard (2).

A few things.

I am presently involved in litigation with this platform to defend both free speech rights and intellectual property rights of the things I produce, which have attachable forensic economic value as a result of being professional product and not simply pajama ramblings of millennial twits (3) who observably abuse their version of the English language in ways that make my eyes bleed.

Since the arbitrary facebook enforcement of subjective and punitive “community standards” (4) are wholly dependent on the s[***]-for-brains geopolitical stupidity of the dumbest generation of political toddlers in the history of the United States, our legal strategy is simply to seek injunctive relief on basis of tortuous interference with commerce and simple harassment. (5)

On that basis and by rules of evidentiary discovery, the details of accounting regarding “reports” for bad conduct are open record and are discoverable in full flourish by me and my legal team. Roughly translated, that means that I have open access to the identities of anyone and everyone “reporting” (bless your corpulent, odiferous, mentally incapacitated little souls) my account content simply to silence my writing.

My plan is simple.

I will be launching tortuous interference litigation against every single person who has ever made a report against my facebook presence and specifically against those who have made multiple, repeated and harassing pattern of “facebook standards” reports against my accounts. (5) I already have access to that list…and let me tell you, the downright obsession exhibited by some of you would be an embarrassing thing, I believe.

153 reports of my content in a single month? And you run a daycare? When do you find the time, you pathetic woman?

My attorneys believe it is eminently provable common sense (6) that the people involved in those reports carry no offense whatsoever for content and are simply using the platform reporting option to win arguments that would otherwise find them looking dumber than the idiot grifters in the 2020 Democrat Presidential field.

So…before you push the button, please know that your illusion of anonymity is completely gone based on the granting of discovery in this matter (7) and that I will pursue with great vigor and entertainment the transfer of a butthurt social media tantrum moment into an arena where the contents of your wallet are up for grabs on the basis of your intentional interference with avenues of intellectual expression and media distribution with a discernible monetary value. (8) I do pray the big words haven’t been too much for you to navigate.

I’ll spell it in Play-Do next time [“Quixote Shad Olson Beowulf,” Facebook post, 2019.07.27].

Among the statements here that are not worthy of a first-rate intellect:

  1. Teaching children to fistfight is not a sign of moral probity.
  2. Nor is attacking personal appearance. (See also, Walt Whitman.)
  3. Oh, the ego, thinking one’s speech is better and more worthy of legal protection than others’.
  4. Arbitrary standards… would those be just like the arbitrary standards that a radio call-in program is entitled to use to screen callers?
  5. Ah, the meat of the bogusness of this complaint. No one has a right to post on Facebook. No one has a right not to be reported for objectionable content on Facebook. The privilege of speaking on Facebook is held entirely in the hands of Facebook’s management, not the courts. If an individual chooses to use the service Facebook offers for free, that individual takes the chance that Facebook will decide, based on comments of other users, that it prefers not to grant that individual continuing access to the platform. If lots of users say that a particular user is creating an unpleasant experience for them, they may be whiney crybabies, but they aren’t breaking any law by whining and crying, and Facebook isn’t breaking any law by suspending the inspirer of such whining and crying. Facebook can coddle whichever snowflake it wants, liberal, conservative, or otherwise.
  6. Common sense doesn’t win court cases. Legal citations do. When the first thing your attorneys cite for winning in court is common sense, go get new attorneys.
  7. There has been no discovery. This is an empty threat against people who misunderstand the nature of anonymity and liability online.
  8. Again, horsehockey. Material placed on Facebook for free has no actionable, recoverable financial value. If Facebook were to shut down tomorrow, none of us could sue for damages or for recovery of our treasured posts. We enjoy free publicity on Facebook at the whim of Facebook.

Not that I support flagging The Shad Olson Show or other right-wing screamers to try to kick them off the Internet. I usually prefer to simply ignore them while they talk to themselves. On the rare occasions when their comments warrant attention, we simply hold them to the light and watch them erupt in the flames of their own ridiculousness.


  1. Porter Lansing 2019-07-29 08:11

    That meth is going to make your teeth fall out, Shadrock.

  2. Dana P 2019-07-29 08:55

    Sigh. Shad, your ‘freedom of speech’ only applies if the gov’t is trying to squelch it. Facebook? They can do whatever they like.

    Gosh, if you don’t like Facebook, you are welcome to leave the platform.

  3. mike from iowa 2019-07-29 10:39

    I’ll spell it in Play-Do next time [“Quixote Shad Olson Beowulf,”

    Maybe he will be hearing from Hasbro’s legal team for misappropriating their Play-Doh.”

  4. mike from iowa 2019-07-29 10:42

    I’ll spell it in Play-Do next time [“Quixote Shad Olson Beowulf,”

    Maybe he will be hearing from Hasbro’s legal team for misappropriating their Play-Doh.”

    (3) who observably abuse their version of the English language in ways that make my eyes bleed. Mine, too. Something about glass houses and throwing stones.

  5. bearcreekbat 2019-07-29 11:06

    Of course there is no actual First Amendment foundation to any of Shad’s claims since, as Dana P points out, the First Amendment is not implicated absent government action.

    While it is not all that clear from Shad’s ramblings exactly what other theories he and his legal counsel might be relying upon, some possibilities include tortuous inderence with contract rights or business relationships – see e.g.,

    or possibly some sort of business defamation or slander claim – see e/g/,

    I base such speculation on his assertion that he will be defending

    . . . intellectual property rights of the things I produce, which have attachable forensic economic value as a result of being professional product. . . .

    That is not to say, imply or suggest in any way that such claims might have merit in his case nor survive a motion to dismiss before any type of discovery is permitted. It is just to point out that there are remedies beyond First Amendment claims for speech that causes harm to others.

  6. bearcreekbat 2019-07-29 11:24

    I should add that if the First Amendment were implicated inone of Shad’d claims, it likely would be as a shield not a sword – it would support the defense rather than the prosecution of one of these tort claims.

  7. Certain Inflatable Recreational Devices 2019-07-29 12:54

    Shad Olson is perhaps the stupidest, most myopic, most hypocritical, and most incompetent simian I have ever had the misfortune to have met. And he achieved this distinction against serious competition.

  8. JW 2019-07-29 13:15

    I recall a conversation with this psychotic human airhorn wherein he was going to sue the State of Colorado for impeding and over-regulating his oil and gas exploration on land he supposedly owns in Colorado. I told him to knock himself out. I blocked the flaming jackass a couple of years ago because he’s an insult and embarrassment to decent people throughout the world.

  9. John Dale 2019-07-29 13:28

    1 – Fist fighting is fun unless one person is way drunker than the other. Then a fight becomes an honor-less attack on a handicapped person.

    2 – Learning to street fight is not as fun as fighting in a ring with gloves and someone who can stop the fight.

    3 – The country’s laws do not allow you to spray an attacker in the mouth with bear spray until dead. This needs to change.

    4 – Shad Olson has an unhealthy obsession with Michael Obama’s penis.

    5 – Conservatives are having their speech rights taken away to tilt democracy in favor of the people who shot Seth Rich in the back before leaving him dead on the ground with his watch and wallet intact (DC police said it was a robbery).

    This was a fun type as I’m waiting for a database table to finish rebuilding. Go table go!

    It’s complicated.

  10. Roger Cornelius 2019-07-29 13:29

    Shad Olsen has a radio show? I’ll be darn, I didn’t know that.

  11. jerry 2019-07-29 14:15

    John Dale, please take your meds. You’re frothing at the mouth once again.

  12. John Dale 2019-07-29 14:30

    Jerry – the CIA circa 1999 called, they want their false discrediting accusation back.

  13. jerry 2019-07-29 14:35

    Call ahead for quick pick up (605) 642-0650
    Walgreens, Phone

  14. jerry 2019-07-29 17:24

    Shad is still a bait fish, correct? The kind of hate speech just got made this little white boy a killer of children. Yep, another white boy 19 years old just shot and killed a little 6 year old and a 13 year old in Gilroy, California. The hate that Olson and his irk prattle out there for young ears to hear, is a clear and present danger to a civilized society. Thankfully, the police shot him dead so we won’t need to hear about how he was radicalized by hate radio that you can tune into right here. He should be ashamed of himself for what he is doing, but the money baby, always the money.

    “Santino Legan allegedly told an eyewitness he was “really angry” and ranted in white supremacist fashion on Instagram from the event.”

  15. John Dale 2019-07-29 17:35

    jerry – and you think I need the happy pills? Egads, man. Stereotype, much?

    He was white. He was angry. He was racist. His gun hated black people. Were his victims black? Did he say “down with the white man”?

    Jumping to pin something like that on Trump supporters (you haven’t done that, exactly, yet, but I’m not sure how long that will last) would be deplorable.

    I bet he was on SSRIs.

    In the “too soon” category:
    I mean, how do you know the guy wasn’t sent there by his local vampire chapter?

  16. Porter Lansing 2019-07-29 17:49

    Bad Shad (sounds like carp bait) blocked me just for sending his new name a friend request. lol But, look who his mutual friends are with Cory. Maybe he and Stace share magazines.

  17. Debbo 2019-07-29 19:32

    CIRD, this is one of the funniest things I’ve read lately, especially the last line:
    “Shad Olson is perhaps the stupidest, most myopic, most hypocritical, and most incompetent simian I have ever had the misfortune to have met. And he achieved this distinction against serious competition.”

  18. Debbo 2019-07-29 19:38

    And Shadlike seemed fairly sane back in the day on tv. Boy, he sure fooled me!

  19. jerry 2019-07-29 23:15

    Are you describing the bait fish, shad? Getting kind of creepy, take more meds.

  20. Dan Daly 2019-07-30 22:16

    I unfriended him several years ago not for his politics, but for bad writing. Some things you just can’t forgive. Please tell he’s not making a living at this.

  21. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-07-31 05:45

    Dan, I do not have copies of Shad’s tax return, so I can’t tell if he’s making a living at his program or not.

    I have always wondered if there might be some secret conservative funders of all these ugly outcroppings of noisy right-wing extremism… but guys like Shad and Gordon Howie may just be able to sustain their propaganda mills on their pure delusional passion.

  22. Shad Olson 2019-08-01 21:50


    Except fascists are those who anonymously report “hate speech” (anything they cannot refute, handle, dispute or Socratically dispatch) in order to have a bully organization censor and silence their opponent so that they fell suitably affirmed in their toddling diaper idiocy of emotionally prepubescent delusion.

    Goose stepping little fascist, Cory Heidleberger wouldn’t know “truth” if it caressed him gently like a special friend at a cultural enrichment seminar on DMT.

    But then, we’re used to that.

    Dedicate 3,000 words to disavowing the hatred, violence and domestic insurrection of Willem Van Spronsen, Cory and I might find you a shade more credible than Der Sturmer.


  23. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-08-01 22:35

    The only goose-stepping in view here is the goose chase Shad wants me to go on, as if I’m obliged to go rodeo his hobbyhorses to make the actual point here.

  24. jerry 2019-08-01 23:09

    Oh carp!!

  25. jerry 2019-08-01 23:55

    What’s the difference between a carp and a shad? Nothing, both bottom feeders.

  26. JW 2019-08-02 13:09

    Did Shad actually say something relevant or was that just the usual, political syrup of epicac that permanently stains concrete.

  27. JW 2019-08-06 10:23

    We’d better understand that Olson is a gun freak and based on his rhetorical vitriol and historical superiority complex, I’d say his frustration level has a flashpoint that makes him eligible to be a white nationalist terrorist; even if its only temporary. In this old LE guys estimation, he needs to be on somebody’s watch list. His inability to maintain a job for any length of time in any one place coupled to his obvious unwillingness to play well (or reasonably with) others isn’t something to ignore. I’ve dealt with criminals with more humility.

  28. John Dale 2019-08-06 10:44

    JW – “white nationalist” is another term that has had its meaning overloaded. First, nobody really chooses skin color. Being white doesn’t matter. Second, nationalist means loving and respecting the language, borders, and laws (cultural norms) of a region. White nationalist doesn’t mean racist, but the MSM has tried to redefine it to move the meaning of the term over a group of people who happen to be white, but also happen to love the country in which they live. It exposes ignorance or malice to see the term weaponized. Stop it.

    Second, “gun freak” is defaming rhetoric.

    Third, “unwillingness to play well” – you seem to be the one on the attack, while Shad came here to defend his honor from people trolling and verbally attacking him.

    I don’t really agree with much of Shad’s tact, but I’ll be darned rather than stand by and let you get away with these three gross oversights of reason.

  29. JW 2019-08-06 10:47


  30. JW 2019-08-06 11:09

    Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism and white separatism.[7][4][6][8][9][10] White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacism, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and analysts.[8][11] White separatism is the pursuit of a “white-only state”; supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to nonwhites and should dominate them,[6][8][9] taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism.[12] White nationalists generally avoid the term “supremacy” because it has negative connotations.[13][14]

    Critics argue that the term “white nationalism” is simply a “rebranding” and ideas such as white pride exist solely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote racial violence.[15]

    Versus white, black, red or yellow patriotism. I won’t quit understanding the common meaning of the term nor will I take recommendation from somebody that blames the MSM for everything and anything.

    As a gunsmith, gun owner, gun collector, hunter, LEO, military ordinance officer, firearms safety instructor, range officer and a few other qualifications, I’ll use the language of the industry any time I choose. I’m a gun freak at times. The only difference is I don’t go on tilt f

    Defend his honor……. What honor? He’s a Sesquipedalian with no honor that just trolls reasoned discussion with intent to intimidate rather than inform or engage is honest forensic debate. As I said before, “Did he say anything meaninful or relevant in any of his rant?” Cory’s response is a bullseye…… Your welcome to defend the theories of his trolling all you want. I’m not convinced. I have a policy……. I never accept criticism from somebody I would never seek advice from.

  31. bearcreekbat 2019-08-06 11:24

    Objectively (i.e. factually), JW’s definition of “white nationalism” seems more accurate and consistent than John Dale’s homemade, self-appeasing, definition of “nationalist.”

    An accepted definition of “nationalist” (i.e. what “nationalist means” to use Dale’s words) is:

    a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
    “he was a staunch nationalist during his 22 years in power”

    This comes from the definition of “nationalism.”

    loyalty and devotion to a nation
    especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

    Adding “white” to the definition would indicate “placing primary emphasis on promotion of [white] culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” And the inclusion of “other nations and supranatural groups” would suggest the even more approriate definition of “white nationalist” to be “placing primary emphasis on promotion of [white] culture and interests as opposed to [other races and immigrants, i.e., people born outside the favored country].”

  32. John Dale 2019-08-06 11:44

    JW – “Analysts” – which analysists? Wikipedia?

    What is “wrong” with being “white” or “black” or “red” or some other color?

    It is impossible to combat racism by being racist, which is funny and awkward since there is really only one race; human.

    Here is the definition of nationalism to which I subscribe: “The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals”

    Honestly, adding “white” shouldn’t matter. Making a big deal about someone qualifying a description of themselves only ads fuel to racial tension. I am white. Get over it (I have).

    — The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

  33. John Dale 2019-08-06 11:47

    JW – “far-right extremists” and “far-left extremists” are both shooting off the target. The term “white nationalist” is a composition of adjectives whose meaning has been overloaded for political expediency by the radical left. The extreme beliefs of the radical right has been superimposed onto a larger group whose beliefs are not racially motivated, but who are white and nationalist (as I have defined it).

  34. JW 2019-08-06 12:12

    And you’re not any more special or privileged than the rest of us nor qualified to assert one interpretation over another or be complicit with the substitution of nationalism for the greater valued definition of patriotism. If you were privy to any of Olson’s historical diatribes, he holds himself out to be the consummate patriot and all others, particularly those with some facts and opinions that aggravate his confusion are second class citizens without intellectual capacity. He holds himself out to be something he’s not, no differently than Limbaugh, Hannity, or other political, cheap entertainment channels. I honestly don’t care whether you are white or black, or chartreuse, the distortions of nationalism come in all colors and servile definitions. They still are no inferred substitute for genuine patriotic belief and expression. Do you always parse peoples words? But we’re not talking about you or I. We’re addressing a Sesquipedalian troll (that happens to be caucasian) that is, under any reasoned circumstances of political or social interaction; irrelevant. When we see evidence of Black Nationalism, Yellow Nationalism, Brown Nationalism or Grape Nationalism, I’ll make sure to screen it for racist content.

  35. Porter Lansing 2019-08-06 13:24

    Hear, hear JW. Well analyzed and asserted. Bravo.

  36. John Dale 2019-08-06 13:25

    “you’re not any more special or privileged” — but I am qualified. Did you research the assertion that I present a qualified and reliable opinion? :D

    Of course, when you find-out, because we have differing opinions, will you just go to great pains to devalue my qualifications even if it means cutting off your own nose to spite your face (as grandma used to say)?

  37. Roger Cornelius 2019-08-06 13:35

    Damn straight, JW. Excellent.

  38. JW 2019-08-06 20:07

    John Dale: Moving the goal posts every time you take the field doesn’t constitute a differing opinion. It’s a logical fallacy….. Your grandmother was wise; but somehow, when you sat on her lap, I don’t think you learned relevancy.

  39. John Dale 2019-08-06 20:20

    JW – “Moving the goal posts” How and when? Do you have a quote? That is always helpful.

Comments are closed.