"asinine posturing dimwitted fool"
Love that "posturing" part! It really rings a loud bell!
Firstly, a written defamation would be libel--not slander. Secondly, a libel requires that a material fact be asserted and that such fact can be proven to be a false assertion. In this regard, note that expressions of contempt are not allegations of material facts--true or otherwise. 'So and so' murdered his wife could be considered libel if it was not true and had been written in a context and setting that seemed to assert it as an actual event. But, 'So and so' is a scum sucking, dumb ass, dimwitted piece of carrion is simply contemptuous opinion and has nothing to do with libel.
Again, context is everything. How is figurative and hyperbolic language used in the blog? Is it a 'no-holds barred' type of atmosphere? What are the audience expectations? Are the audience members willing participants? What has been the tone and tenor of the interchanges between participants? What is the level of contempt and calumny expressed? Is there a general tone of rancor and ridicule? To what extent has the supposedly aggrieved party participated in and indeed initiated and led deliberate raids of opprobrium and character assassination? The expectation of retaliatory contempt makes the contemplation of libel as foolish as the idea that donkeys talk and snakes walk!
The fact that someone feels insulted by an epithet or thousands of epithets is irrelevant. Expressions of contempt and dislike do not need to be true. It is just a good feeling when they are, though! "Asinine posturing dimwitted fool". Love that line!
Finally, after years of having ones dirty little secrets exposed and recorded by very competent private investigators to inform the court proceedings, the so-called victim would then need to prove not only that the original statement was presented as material fact and that the alleged fact was absolutely without merit...but he or she would also need to prove the extent of his/her suffering and thus the damages incurred. Did someone get fired because their boss identified them on a blog and believed they had a sexually transmittable disease? Could happen? Then the victim could start another law suit! But did the plaintiff ever have an STD? Does he or she still have the bacterium for syphilis? For herpes? A skin rash? A flu virus?
They would need to do this while defending themselves against a score of simultaneous actions brought against them for their own alleged libels! Nobody on this thread would claim defamation without the defendant launching a countersuit the next morning. GUARANTEED! And no court would entertain such gratuitous and self-serving pretentiousness. In the end, it would be the sort of useless waste of life that only people with psychological issues and those with skin as thin as tissue paper would be likely to waste a life on!
|
