Comments: Lying Liars

Klein has no cause, but roadkill will surely object to the comparison. I mean, finding out that the light at the end of the tunnel had 18 wheels was supposed to be the worse thing that could happen to an armadillo and now you're comparing him/her to to Edward Klein.

Posted by Bryan at June 23, 2005 07:39 PM

Heh. That's true. I'll probably start getting huffy e-mails from roadkill around the world.

Posted by Anne at June 23, 2005 07:57 PM

"Edward Klein is a partisan hack with the morals and the integrity of roadkill."

It's not actionable. To be libel, it has to be factually false, and courts don't view insults as fact-based statements. If you said Klien took bribes from Karl Rove to write the book, and then Klien proved that he did not take bribes from Karl Rove, he'd win a case against you. At a stretch (which I doubt courts would accept) if you called Klein a cock-sucker and he could prove that he never sucked any cock, then he might have a case against you. But if you call Klein the scum of the earth, then the courts wouldn't be interested. It's clearly your opinion and not a fact.

At least, that is the law I learned in a basic law class on torts. However, these things vary by states. In some states, you can not be sued over things you say in private at a restaurant when you are out with friends, but in other states you can be (for "defaming" the person in question).

I'm not aware of any libel case that ever resulted from straight-forward insults.

Posted by Lawrence Krubner at July 7, 2005 09:56 AM

Amazing. Your web server won't let me post a comment with the word "s p e c i a l i s t" in it, because inside that word is the word "c i a l i s", but I'm allowed to post the words "cock-sucker".

It really is curious how these anti-spam filters work.

Posted by Lawrence Krubner at July 7, 2005 10:03 AM