Affiants Unclear On The Concept

The New York Times has an article about a nutty blogger who was arrested for violation of a court order and resisting arrest, and has others claiming his imprisonment raises First Amendment concerns.  As described in the article, the court rulings seem questionable, even though the blogger is clearly a nut. 

My main interest in the article is this paragraph, which describes one Liberty Duke's efforts to deny the nutjob blogger's claim she had been impregnated by some dude:

His allegations are frequently salacious, including a recent assertion that a federal judge had appeared in a gay pornographic magazine and a theory that several suicides were actually a string of politically motivated murders. Starting in January 2013, Mr. Shuler, citing unidentified sources, began writing that Robert Riley Jr., the son of the former governor, had impregnated a lobbyist named Liberty Duke and secretly paid for an abortion. Both denied it, and Ms. Duke swore in an affidavit that they had never even been alone in the same room.

Someone explain the facts of life to Ms. Duke.

On the whole, the article doesn't reflect too well on bloggers.

In addition to the aforementioned nut, the article also references the National Bloggers Club, another dubious organization with a Jon Nicosia-like leader. (The article doesn't mention the leader's criminal history.)  A casual reader of the article might get the impression that all bloggers are dishonest, anti-social obsessives when, in reality, that only describes wingnut bloggers.