Ted Rall has raised the money to sue Ann Coulter for libel

Ted Rall has the pledge money to file suit against Ann Coulter

While no official lawsuit has been filed, Ted has stopped his pledge drive to raise money for this libel/slander suit against Ann Coulter saying that he now has enough. The proposed libel/slander suit is the result of comments she made that Ted had entered the Iranian Holocaust Cartoon contest - a claim he denies.

He’s now meeting with lawyers on the details of such a suit.

"Thanks to hundreds of generous pledgers we now have enough money committed to launching a slander and libel suit against Coulter for her remarks falsely claiming that I had entered Iran’s Holocaust cartoon contest."

The Daily Cartoonist

this should have been done along time ago....

One can only hope...

As much as I hate Ann Coulter - this isn't open and shut, as the intent was clearly "humorous." Granted Ann Coulter is not that good at being funny (sort of the opposite really) but still good to see.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

a humorist, or a political commentator. . .and judging from her appearances on "news" programs, she isn't brought in to be a humorist.

I'd expect that one to hold up just fine!

I would love to see more of these lawsuits brought against every single one of those lying asshats!! :bounce:

for labeling all liberals traitors. F'ckin' b'tch.

I still don't understand how she got away with that one.

There's more than enough material there for slander, and it's all on video/audio tape.

"Happy days are here again".


More publicity for this piece of dog shit. I would have had her arrestd for making terrorist threats instead.

He calls Sheehan "Loony" like it is a psychiatrist-verified fact.

Slander and Libel have to be proved when the offending person KNOWS for a fact what they said is false, O'Lielly is a pathological liar, in other words, he doesn't care and probably doesn't even know he spouts falsehoods. That's what Al Franken's lawyer told him when he asked about that one 9/11 family member that was on the Factor and then, in later shows, O'Rielly misrepresented what he said, lied about him, slandered him, etc.

She would set herself on fire if she thought it would get her another minute or two on TV.

If for no other reason than it forces Annthrax to waste time defending herself - more time spent NOT slandering other Americans.

No doubt she'll get beaucoup sympathy from her knuckle-dragger fans, but they're a statistically small but vocal group.

"I was only joking." would get her out of this.

Republican columnist Ann Coulter spoke earlier today to the Conservative Political Action Committee, where the audience included 1000 right-wingers including Vice President Dick Cheney. There, among other things, she is reported to have said the following:

“Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions.”

Any comment which can be shown to cause damages (financial or otherwise, i.e. damage to reputation, etc.) can rise to the level of libel.

"Just joking" or not, libel is still libel.

The defense would show that this sort of talk is just part of their business.

If he could prove that he lost a book deal, or advertising, or a paid interview...then maybe.

Other examples would be any offer in the works for other outlets for his cartoons that cancelled after her comments, etc.

There are many types of damages, and many easily provable ones.

"I was just joking" isn't a defense.

If Coulter had actual malice, punitive damages might be in order. :)

Hey, it was all in fun!

Yeah, but when you play with fire, Ann....

damages, an "obvious joke" is indeed libelous. Especially when it can shown to be part of a continuing pattern of such comments as is the case with Coulter.


Read here for some good information:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

I think that Coulter can definitely be proven to have made the statements out of malice, as outlined in the article above. Unlike the Sharon v. Time case discussed in the article, Coulter has a long background of making malicious and defamatory statements.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that jokes are protected under the exception for satire. Satire is not libelous, no matter how offensive or false, because it is not presented as fact. Ask Jerry Falwell. :)

then, under the law, it can be construed as libelous.

It has to be found that a reasonable person would believe that Ted Rall(and Gary Trudeau and the NYT) had entered or would enter the Iraninan cartoon contest making fun of the Holocaust.

The type of person that hang on Coulter's every word, would indeed be likely to believe such a statement to be realistic.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but that isn't the case. I'm an attorney, and have written articles on media law. Under NY Times v. Sullivan, a Plaintiff who is a "public figure" must show that the statement was made with "actual malice" in order to win a libel claim. This doesn't mean that the Defendant maliciously made a statement, it means instead that Defendant made a statement w/knowledge of its falsity, or recklessness as to its falsity.

However, for that standard to even apply, the Plaintiff must first show that the statement was intended to be a statement of fact. Under Falwell v. Hustler, satirical expressions are not considered libelous, no matter how false or offensive, because they are presenting opinions, not facts. So, for example, nobody could sue Ted Rall because of the Pat Tillman cartoon, even though the characterization may be untrue, because it was Rall's own satirical expression. If something is satire, it doesn't matter how damaging, hurtful or untrue the statements are. It's not libelous. That the price we pay for living in a free society. If that exception did not exist, celebrities could sue Leno & Letterman for most of the jokes they make.

To win this lawsuit, Rall would have to prove that Coulter's statement was intended to be a statement of fact, not a satirical joke. And that's basically impossible because Coulter's statement would not be perceived as fact by any reasonable person. If he takes this case to court, he will lose, IMO. In fact, I doubt it would even go to trial.

was false and didn't make the statement with recklessness as to its falsity?

Also, the satire defense is only applicable if it is obvious satire or in other words, if a reasonable person would believe it to be true. With the Hustler case, it was very obviously unbelievable by any reasonable human being. That is not necessarily the case with the issue at hand.

so it doesn't matter if it was false. Most jokes are "false" in some way. Letterman, for example, makes a joke about how Cheney shot a few people in Crawford, then tried to put them in a shallow grave. He said this perfectly seriously, but it got a laugh. That's because the audience recognized that the statement was a joke, not one that they should take as fact. Letterman's joke was clearly "false" - Cheney hasn't been digging graves (that we know of), but the statement is not libelous because a reasonable person would recognize it as satire. Same thing here. Coulter made a "joke" about Rall & the NY Times submitting entries to the Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest. A reasonable person would know this is a joke, and would not take this to be a factual statement. And if there's any doubt, all the Defense has to do is play the tape. If Coulter's statement got a laugh, the case is over.

in a joke about Cheney. IF (and that's a word I've used often in this thread) Rall can prove actual damages, he has a case.

First, you need to prove there was libel. If libel exists, then you can receive damages. This case fails on the first prong - there's no libel. If the statement isn't legally libelous, it doesn't matter how much he was damaged by it. You're placing the remedy before the legal culpability. And even so, I don't see any actual damages here. How has Rall suffered financially because of Coulter's off-hand statement? Cheney actually arguably is more damaged by a joke by a comedian on national TV than Rall is by a joke Coulter makes during some speech. The bottom line is - there's no libel, there's no damages, there's no case.

You are using dissimilar cases and attempting to use them as the foundation for your statements. It doesn't work that way.

If a reasonable person could potentially believe her statement (if any of her readers can be considered reasonable that is), then your conclusion is flawed. It's that simple.

leave it there, then, as the other attorney did. You have a right to your opinion, I just believe it is incorrect.

ETA: Ack, you edited on me! :) It's true that if a reasonable person could believe Coulter's statement was fact, he would have a chance of success. However, this is not determined by a jury, or Coulter's readers, but by a judge. The judge uses the set "reasonable person" standard to determine if a hypothetical "reas. person" would believe this statement was factual. The answer to that, IMO, is clearly no. A "reas. person" would not believe Coulter's joke was true. That is why Rall's case will probably quickly be dismissed before it ever reaches a jury.

IIRC, in the recent evolution vs. ID case, the judge constructed a "reasonable person" model of a hypothetical high school student, and found merit in the notion that such a person would construe the ID curriculum as advancing a religious agenda.

What would be the "reasonable person" applied here? One who reads opinion columns with discernment?

(not saying Rall has a case -- just wondering what degree of leeway a judge has in standardizing reason)

In most cases, judges do not use a target audience, or a focus group, or any other method to determine what a "reasonable person" is. Instead, the judge simply hypothetically imagines what a prudent, reasonable, person would think about this issue. It's vague & non-specific. The "reasonable person" does not take into account race, gender, or education levels. The only variation is for age. So, judges will construct an age-appropriate "reasonable child" standard in a case involving minors (like the ID case).

How people actually behave, or what people actually believe, is irrelevant. So, for example, everybody has driven above the speed limit at some point. However, the hypothetical "reasonable person" would never speed. Thus, a person who speeds & hits another car can be found negligent under the "reas. person" standard. Ann Coulter fans do believe stupid things, however, the hypothetical reasonable person would not take her joke as absolute fact, therefore the comment cannot be considered a statement of fact under the law. Judges don't have any leeway in constructing this model; the model is already constructed by the law. So in this case, I believe the standard would simply be a "prudent, reasonable" adult who heard Coulter's statement.

The NYT and Gary Trudeau were also included in the staement throwing even more water on your case that a reasonable person would believe her statement to be true.

mean that only one person was a victim?

. . .it only requires a preponderance of evidence that the statement was made with malice. In which case, in court (at least per a lawyer friend, who is admittedly liberal), it would put her and her lawyers in the position of defending how it could NOT be malicious. IOW, the plaintiff would suggest that there was no other way to take it, and proving she knew it was false merely requires asking for proof that she knew it were true. Since that doesn't exist, she's deadmeat there.

So, the only thing left is malice. And, being a professional cartoonist, even one as widely published doesn't necessarily make on a public figure. I've done guest lectures, i've written published articles, i post here on DU, but none of those make me a public figure. Same with Rall.
The Professor

I think it could be proven that he is simply because he is published and recognized fairly widely.

I agree 100% with the malice argument though.

The malice standard only applies if someone is a public figure. If Rall is not a public figure, the "actual malice" standard does not apply at all, and the case instead reverts to a common-law libel standard. Public figures have less protection from libel, and therefore, they are held to a higher standard if they want to sue for defamation. In a common-law defamation case, the plaintiff simply has to prove that the statement was false. But a public figure has to prove two things - that the statement was false, & that it was made with "actual malice". As people have stated above, the "actual malice" standard actually has nothing to do w/malice - it simply means that the person who made the statement of fact had to have known (or should have known) that it was false. Thus, if Rall is a public figure, he will have to prove "actual malice" in a defamation case.

But all of this is moot. It doesn't matter if Rall is a public figure or not. Because for a libel case to proceed at all, the Plaintiff must first show that the Defendant made a factual statement. Opinions, jokes, cartoons, etc. are not considered factual statements, therefore, they cannot be libelous. Period. If the statement is considered opinion or satire, the libel case is dismissed. If the judge determines that it was a factual statement, then the libel case proceeds. If the plaintiff is a private citizen, he must then prove the statement was false; or, if the plaintiff is a public figure, he must prove it was false & made with "actual malice." But none of that matters here because the joke was not a factual statement. Therefore, Rall's lawsuit will be dismissed immediately for failing to make a "prima facie" defamation case. Rall's status as a public figure, the "maliciousness" of the statement, & the standard of proof are all irrelevant. The relevant issue for this case is simply - was it a fact? If the answer is no, the case is dismissed.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3

Rall is an idiot for even considering this, and he will lose. Probably on an initial motion to dismiss.

Political humor (even BAD humor) is one of the most sacrosanct elements of the freedom of speech.

Consider Falwell v. Larry Flynt. Flynt ran an ad about Falwell's "first time," which was a parody of real ads, in which he stated his "first time" was with his mother, in an outhouse. Flynt claimed he was just joking and that no rational person would think he was actually stating a fact.

Coulter will do the same thing. And she'll win, and she SHOULD win. Woe unto us if she loses, because the next round of lawsuits will be against US for criticizing figures on the Right.

Plus, I honestly don't think Rall has any damages. Has he been fired from a job? Have his cartoons/columns been canceled from syndication? Does he have a single element of damages?

I think not.

Bake

that being that a rational person could indeed believe the statements made by Coulter.

That is not at all true with the Hustler satire, as it was in no way conceivably true. Coulter's audience could easily perceive her statement regarding Rall as being true.

And Coulter will win. You think a reasonable person could/would believe it was intended as a statement of fact because you want very badly for that to be the case. Try looking at it dispassionately. It was a flip, offhand remark (even if clearly premeditated) -- it was intended to be taken as a flip, offhand remark.

Beyond that, the damages issue is just the icing on the cake. I don't think he's got a single shred of damages. If anything, his notoriety has increased.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Coulter tried the old "his reputation was already so bad that I couldn't have made it any worse" defense.

Bake, Esq.

Intent isn't necessarily a limiting factor on a case for libel.

If she tried that defense, she would simply add fuel to his allegations that her intent was to defame him.

You're still wrong, at least about this case.

So Ted, if you're listening, please file this lawsuit and settle this debate. Let's see how fast it gets dismissed.

Bake, Esq.

I'm sure you'll be screaming about the miscarriage of justice.

Mmmmmm hmmmmmmm indeed.

I hate to say it, but my money's on Coulter in this one.

Bake, Esq.

Assuming of course that he files the suit.

I believe he has a valid cause of action.

(which I don't think he does here), there are other factors that go into a decision of whether to file a lawsuit.

Assuming, arguendo, that he DID make it past a motion to dismiss on the various defenses discussed here, Rall is NOT the plaintiff you want to bring this lawsuit. Frankly, a jury of average people is going to despise him, and think this is just a pissing contest between two pundits (which it IS), and they're going to take it out on Ted for wasting THEIR time.

And if I were Coulter's lawyer (which I'd never do), I'd make damn sure the jury saw some of Rall's other work, which a lot of folks (even folks HERE) find offensive.

Bottom line, even if he gets to a jury (which he won't), Rall loses. And then we all have to listen to mAnnthrax gloat.

And as I stated elsewhere in this thread, woe be unto all of us if Rall wins, because the chill on speech will be palpable.

Bake

a cause of action, then you think he shouldn't utilize it? If not him who? Trudeau?

Or is it your intent that people shouldn't be held responsible for making false or damaging statements?

You don't file lawsuits you are sure to lose. You don't file lawsuits where there is clearly a valid defense. Unless you want to waste your time and money, the court's time, and risk sanctions.

Of course I want to see people like Coulter held responsible for their ridiculous statements. But frankly, Rall is not much better than Coulter. He just happens to be on our side (most of the time). That doesn't make him a saint, and it sure doesn't make him the person to take on the Right ON THESE FACTS.

Lawsuits aren't always the answer. When I first got out of law school, I thought all you had to do was file a lawsuit and people would start throwing money at you. I quickly learned that they don't -- you have to chase them down, beat them up (figuratively speaking), and tear the money out of their hands kicking and screaming.

And you know what? I really don't mean to be condescending, but since you keep prolonging this I will: If you were a lawyer, you'd KNOW that what I said in this discussion is true.

Bake, Esq.

You are not the type of attorney I would pay to handle even the smallest case. I wouldn't trust someone who brings their personal biases (such as yours against Rall) along with them.

You should set your personal bias against Rall aside, it's really unbecoming.

but he is probably right about this. Sorry, I wish we could stop Ann Coulter too, but this probably isn't the best way to do it. And actually, she's going down w/the ship anyway as the Bush Admin. keeps falling. Those conservative pundits are becoming less & less popular everyday. A lawsuit could actually bring more publicity & rally conservatives around her, instead of letting her notoriety slowly fade away.

I like some of his work. Some of it, I don't.

If you want a lawyer who tells you only what you want to hear and bills you out the wazoo for it, and then apologizes when your case gets thrown out of court (but still cashes your check) then yes, you probably want somebody besides me.

I'm just calling it like I see it, and frankly, I've got the credentials to back it up. I don't see the credentials with an 8-year paralegal who resorts to ad hominem when the facts fail.

Bake, Esq.

I wasn't saying you're biased (I'd have no way of knowing), I was just saying you're right.

You were agreeing with me.

Bake, Esq.

sane person, but I have to agree with Baker on this one.

Do we really want to go down that road and set a precedent that will undoubtedly come back to bite us in the ass, just to get a rise out of someone we already know is insane and a piece of trash?

I dont think so.

How does one qualify as a public figure?

He writes some cartoons, but he's not a politician.

I agree with you about damages though. I guess nominal damages is not available for a slander plaintiff.

merely that you be well known by the public.

well known?

I forget the exact legal definition, but basically anyone who has a recognizable name would qualify, someone who is in the public eye regularly.

I'm taking my 28 years as an attorney and betting that if he files he loses. Knowing what I do about Coulter, my guess is that her speech was full of exagerations and was not intended to be, nor could it reasonably be taken as, serious. The fact that she included the Times and Trudeau makes it all the more likely a judge will look at this as an obvious piece of satirical overstatement.

onenote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

For a guy who made fun of 9/11 widows, he sure has a thin skin.

Just as in Sharon v. Time, there was no proveable malice, although the jury did find that Time had printed non-factual information.

A joke can rise to libel if there are proveable damages, and, in the case of public personalities, proveable malice.

Also, in the Falwell case (for example), there is nothing in the original printed matter that was "reasonably believable" this is not the case with the remarks made by Coulter, as those could easily be construed as believable by your average man on the street.

"not only that the publication contained a "false statement of fact" (that is, a statement that a reasonable reader would believe to be true), but also that the satirist acted with "actual malice" (that is, "with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true")."

So, as I said, a reasonable man, could very likely find Coulter's statements to be believable, and Coulter has a history of making maliscious statements, so the only evidence lacking is that of actual damages which Rall may very well be able to prove.

a reasonable person would believe that Ted Rall would enter a cartoon contest making fun of the Holocaust? Along with Gary Trudeau and the New York Times?

So what are Ted's proveable damages? I've only seen statements that his reputation was damaged but if a reasonable person would believe that Ted would enter such a contest what rep did he have in the first place?

undoubtedly work to finding other defenses such as the "reasonable man" defense. . . it would seem to me that you've already accepted the fact that there is indeed a legitimate cause of action.

As to damages, even a single cancelled appearance as a result of her comment would qualify. Although harder to prove, there are other types of damages as well, such as future loss of earnings (i.e. if a potential syndicated outlet for his work fell through as a result, etc.).

I've seen cases not entirely dissimilar to this be decided for the plaintiff on several occasions. None were of a national scope, they involved local personalities and public statements in towns I lived in in California.

No, I am simply following the various paths of thought.

For one to think Ted Rall could have done what she said one would have to have an already established low opinion of Rall wouldn't they?

Most think Ted Rall is Satan's own House Cartoonist. I've no doubt there are many righties who genuinely believe Coulter's bullshit statement. She knows it, too. She knows she's playing to the ignorant, that's her whole schtick. And now someone is finally holding her accountable. Aw. Poor Ann!

believe such a statement.

Cause if you are, you may want to consider getting a refresher course. The fact that someone suffers damage from a statement is not the key question. The hurdle Rall faces, and almost certainly won't be able to overcome, is that Coulter's statement was clearly an attempt at humorous hyperbole and as such would not be any more actionable than Leno's jokes about the Runaway Bride or Michael Jackson etc. The problem with Coulter's history is that it is not a history of making "malicious" statements, its a history of playing the role of right wing clown, offering up outrageous hyperbolic statements (see the titles of her books) to entertain, rather than inform, her right wing audience.

ET **claims** to be a paralegal. Apparently NOT one who works in the area of defamation.

Bake, Esq.

I'll probably be flamed for this, but honestly I think those two deserve each other.

Heck of a party .....

Unfortunately.

The case is a LOSER. What part of that don't you get?

Frankly, I agree with whoever it was who said that Rall sure has thin skin. And he's not going to be the most sympathetic figure to a jury, if they see some of his other work.

Hey Ted, if you can't stand the heat, stay the hell outta the kitchen.

Bake

How can he possibly be so offended by this? He's made a living out of offending people, and has also included some half-truths in many of his cartoons. Rall knows that the law protects his political cartoons. So why is he suddenly so eager to use a lawsuit to punish Coulter for an offensive joke? Doesn't he realize the ramifications for his own work? This has made me lose any & all sympathy for Rall.

otherwise I don't think you'd get so worked up over this news item.

I'm just engaging in the discussion and it's a slow day here.

Don't assume that just because I think Rall's case is a loser and that he has a thin skin, I am biased against him. As I stated elsewhere, I do like some of his work. Some, I don't.

And as much as I detest Coulter and her ilk, in this case I have to call it as I see it. And I've said this same thing since the first Rall/Coulter thread appeared on DU some time back.

Bake, Esq.

Nah, you're not biased at all.

I mean you couldn't possibly be displaying bias in wishing this lawsuit to go forth, indeed arguing its a winnable case.

And what's wrong with calling Ted out for being a hypocrite? He makes his money being a nasty piece of shit and prides himself on it.

Am I biased against Coulter? That's irrelevant. She made public statements that, to my mind, were libelous. Rall was one of the targets of these statements.

My personal feelings towards Coulter are irrelevant, as are my feelings about Rall (which are, in all honesty, somewhat indifferent).

Of course, I'm not the one calling either one of them names and using that as a basis for my argument.

Why are Baker's and my feelings about Rall relevant?

"Of course, I'm not the one calling either one of them names and using that as a basis for my argument."

LOL...yeah citing case law is irrelevant, I showed my distaste for Rall therefore my argument is moot.

That's why I haven't called anyone names or anything of the sort.

BTW, using case law which pertains to different subject matters is not exactly a good foundation for an argument. Especially when you use cases that involve material whose intended audience would never suspect there was any fact whatsoever to the material.

The fact is that I am not using my opinion of either party to color my argument which is not the case with you or him.

Bye Bye.

...approaching a cogent reply, otherwise I don't think you'd resort to the "why are you getting so worked up?" response.

Just to harass Coulter and drag her into court and make her run up big legal bills.

Yeah, but she's a lawyer.

Oops...is that libelous?

slap him with a counter-suit for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

she could just file a motion seeking redress of her legal bills etc.

,...as a satirist.

Nobody could read that and reasonably conclude that she meant it.

And I'm sure she knew that when she put it out there. Coulter is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.

conclude. Understand that they think differently than you do, on a completely different frequency.

Much of her adoring audience would take it as fact, much like they'd take it as fact if O'Reilly told them his show had no spin.

But it's a real stretch.

Not here. She doesn't have to be a "satirist." She is a pundit, one who commonly uses hyperbole and sometimes humor (just like Don Rickles did his insult routine, although here I use that term very loosely) to make her "point."

If this lawsuit gets file, mAnnthrax wins. And if she doesn't, I'll probably get sued for calling her "mAnnthrax." And God forbid anybody here should call her "Ann the Man," because that's arguably reckless disregard for the truth (snicker, snicker).

Bake, Esq.

Sorry, but I think a suit like that is going to go nowhere fast.

money if he decides not to proceed, or is quickly shut down in summary judgment? Worse, what if he wins? (which he won't). He's promised to distribute his winning back to his donors in proportion to the amount they donated. That seems to possibly violate rules against selling shares in a lawsuit. It's just a bad idea all the way around.

sue the stupid bitch

legal expenses (she's a lawyer and can afford some pretty good help), after which Rall will look like a whiny bitch. What she said wasn't funny at all, but it was clearly typical of her style of "humor" - and if you can find her liable here you can also go after all late-night talk show hosts.

Worse still, after Rall loses, Coulter will gloat and have reason to, and we'll have even more of that bitch in our face than we have now. Anyone should be able see Coulter was passing this off as what she calls humor, and Rall will look like a crying loser for even trying this, no matter how tasteless Coulter is. When he loses, she'll point out that he couldn't even afford his own suit, blabbled about it for months and still got shelled. Do we really want to give that festering **** a free win like this?

Ted, if you're reading this, don't do it. Please. The only thing worse than a brownshirt **** is a GLOATING brownshirt ****.

sure beats the "let's just bend over and take it" attitude that so many here seem to subscribe to.

Not "bending over." Not "keeping our powder dry."

Rational, logical conclusion that on the FACTS OF THIS "CASE," Rall's lawsuit is a loser. And yes, he IS a whiny bitch who can dish it out but can't take it (and I guarantee that's how a jury will see it).

Anybody want to put money on the outcome?

What I'd really like to see is for pieces of excrement like Coulter to be laughed out of the marketplace of ideas and relegated to the dustbin of history.

Bake, Esq.

i think anyone who has even a glancing acquaintance w. libel/slander knows that you are correct, dbaker41

this lawsuit is a loser

rall would have been better served by a frank-talking lawyer instead of someone just looking to pocket some fees

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Asking you when you took your last ethics course in continuing education is a personal attack? Loser leaves DU? BUAHAHA. What are you 12?

Here's a little hint for you, offering to take bets, as you did, is, as you well know, not ethical behavior, especially since such wagers are, like it or not, prohibited by law.

If you don't like me, don't like me, I really don't give a shit.

Actually, I never said he'd win a judgment, I said he had a valid cause of action. Your rants and raves don't change that. I also said IF he can prove damages. I said that several times, your rants and raves don't change that.

Tell you what, if you don't like me, why don't you use that nifty little ignore feature, that's what I plan on doing with you as soon as I hit submit on this post.

How long you've been on DU is completely irrelevant, as you well know.

You might want to refresh your memory:

"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground."

Or maybe:

"Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult."

Note: Asking when you last took a continuing education class in ethics is not an insult, it's a question.


Bye bye.

I am confident enough that Rall has no chance of success that I promise to donate $50 to DU in the event I'm wrong. You can choose to make your own pledge or not.


onenote

"he IS a whiny bitch who can dish it out but can't take it"

You just don't like him. Whose the whiny bitch?

That's an empirical observation. He dishes it out, in spades, but when Coulter fired back, he threatens a bogus lawsuit. A lawsuit, might I add, which HE doesn't risk his own money to pursue, but which he's happy to pursue with other people's money.

I'd say that makes him a whiny bitch, just based on those facts.

Do I like/dislike him? Neither, in particular. I like some of his work, but some of it is pretty lame. Some is downright offensive.

Based on some of his irrational defenders here, though, I'm STARTING to dislike him. Why do I say irrational? Because (1) you ignore clear precedent in the case law; (2) anybody who disagrees with you is just biased against Rall. Come to think of it, maybe YOU fall into the "whiny bitch" category.

Bake, Esq.

but there are always people like you around here attacking those who are willing to say what needs to be said.

All I have said in this thread, and I'll say it one more time, is that he does NOT have a viable lawsuit against Coulter, and that if he pursues it (a) he'll lose, and (b) in losing, he'll give Coulter a victory to gloat over. I also pointed out that he seems willing to sue as long as somebody else pays for it.

Now, ALL OF THAT needs to be said, because it is the TRUTH.

I contend that Rall ought to defend himself IN PRINT, in the marketplace of ideas, fight fire with fire and take no prisoners.

Bake, Esq.

you interspersed it with plenty of personal epithets

Although I can't take credit for the "whiny bitch" part, somebody else came up with that and I agreed. I did say I find some of his work offensive (which is not an epithet but rather my own personal take on the pieces in question), but I also said I like some of his work. That seems pretty fair.

And those, in all fairness, are conclusions based on the facts of the matter, not just out of thin air.

IF all that makes me biased, then PLEASE DEAR GOD JUST SHOOT ME NOW!

Bake, Esq.

be attacking me so viciously for pointing it out.

Ah well, I'm blessedly free of seeing it anymore.

Let's see -- if I refuse to ignore existing case law, and point out the monumental flaws in the case, it must be a personal bias? That's about as logical as the rest of your argument, ET.

Ah well, you're blessedly free of "seeing it anymore." Seems to me that you're also blessedly free of having to deal with the legal reality as well. Just for the record, tell us how many states in which YOU'RE admitted to practice law?

It actually IS a personal bias I have -- against reckless disregard for the truth.

Bake, Esq.

only rall can make this decision for himself but it seems to me that ultimately it just gives more publicity to a stupid joke and a stupid woman who gets too much media time already

You nailed it.

Bake, Esq.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't care for some of the thing Ted's done but I support him a thousand percent on this. Is there anyway that we can file a class action libel lawsuit against her?

For more reasons that there is bandwidth here to print. No. No class action (and yes, I have practiced in the area of class actions).

Bake, Esq.

With rare exceptions, that wouldn't apply here, the law doesn't permit actions for "group libel". Its not clear what the group that would be claiming libel would be. DUers? Not sure what if anything Mann C has said about DU. Democrats or liberals in general? Way too broad a group for a libel case to go forward.

onenote

but it should not be used if it will misfire. Remember what we have to do is rule through making our enemies fear us!

Many people try hopeless lawsuits, & I usually don't care. What bothers me the most about this case is this image - Ann Coulter, gloating triumphantly on Hannity & Colmes as she bashes the loser liberals who thought they could sue her, tosses in a few more Ted Rall jokes, & promotes her next speaking tour. Spare us, please.

After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.