Posted on 03/14/2006 6:23:30 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I must have missed the joke exception to libel.
"a 'whinging' pussy? Wow, is that the new term these days,,'whinging'/// What the...?
Sorry moderate in case you are watching, I was merely quoting the cartoon..
Why don't liberals send their extra dollars to Washington to fund their pet fiasco?
Ted Rall is only $10 away from suing Ann Coulter.
fine - then we can countersue him for his slander against the President, the soldiers, etc etc. Plus he needs to be sued for fraud - his editorial cartoons are certainly not "art".
You're kidding, right? - The supremes have ruled a long time ago that poking fun at public figures is not libel. When you are a public figure there is a much higher bar to jump; you have to prove malice, which in this case would be downright impossible. (And if that runt thinks that $2700 will do the job, he has a bunch to learn ;o)
Gary something or other??? - No, he was glad to have the publicity ;o)
At the risk of sounding pedantic, "cajones" means "chests" or "drawers." I think you wanted to say "cojones." That means "balls" or "testicles."
Guess you did.
"We must decide whether a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him, and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most. Respondent would have us find that a State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury, even when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. This we decline to do." Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell
Public figures have to prove ACTUAL MALICE. Ted Rall has interjected himself into the public sphere. He will lose. Worse for him, he will make himself into the parody figure that Ann desires most, the whiny, litigious liberal. And Ted will pay by the hour, while Ann may represent herself if it comes to that--though it is far more likely the ACLU will beg her to let them work for her, another dream come true for Ms. Coulter, I would reckon.
I would argue Ted Rall is not a "public figure." Certainly not on the par that Jerry Falwell was in the 1980's.
Not at the same level, but he is at least a limited purpose public figure re: Iraq and Islamic nations with his Stan Watch posts. He has no shot at getting out of the public figure part of the libel law, I would reckon, especially since he is regularly interviewed and published. Sorry, but that huge steaming editorial site he posts to will work against him mightily. And I'm sure Coulter will peruse his work and if she cannot do it herself, bring in counterclaimants to make his lawyer's life hell.
He is proving to be quite the dumbass. She gets notoriety. He looks like no friend to the First Amendment rock he hides himself under, and exposes himself to vitriol from his own side of the aisle. Meanwhile Ann also becomes an instant defender of the right to free speech.
You would loose !!!!!!!!!
As a rule, I don't listen to people for legal counsel if they can't write correctly. The word is lose.
Ya finally won one! (on a technicality ;o)
There ya go !
Wonder why he dosen't have money for a lawyer ? Wonder if he'll return the money if he winds up not filing ? Bet he bought pot with the cash .
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Who does his hair, I wonder?
The little bangs in front are soooo cute.
It wasn't a joke, it was sarcasm. Check my tagline..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.