You wrote re D.S. >>If you are legitimate<<
If you don't know by now, Nick, you haven't done your DD.
Generally, until the rules of what's permissible as "fair comment" in this venue are more clearly defined, D.S. and his sleazy 666 dwarf-pack have the same 1st Amendment rights to shed their venomous droppings here on SI as bunch of nazi-skinheads passing out leaflets in front of a church.
I believe the line may be (may have been) crossed, however, when snide comments masqueraded as "literary license and parody" get too person/company/product specific, and are clearly intended for purposes other than mere entertainment.
Libel, slander, unfair competition & trade practices, along with the intentional infliction of personal and commercial injury, are still actionable torts when the facts are right. When someone repeatedly and intentionally publicly maligns and ridicules another in their business as a "crook, thief, criminal, incompetent. scam-artist" etc., etc. and denigrates their product/business as a "gizmo", "dohickee" "whatsis" "phony", etc., all with the unmitigated motive of harming the person/product/business to the perpetrator's financial advantage, often turning the truth inside out in the process, they may well have gone too far. We shall see.
All good wishes,
RMR
|
