I’d like to thank TheFrisky.com for publishing a fabulous article called “Gallery: What Celebs Wear to Court” because today I was threatened with a lawsuit over a recent post on dating a douchebag.
You’ll see the comment from a certain Mr. WF below. Upon a small degree of research, he’s an obviously cranky middle aged man in Stamford, CT. Who can blame him, though? Stamford is where all the fun happens (barf).
After speaking with my attorney, there’s really no case to be had… but, just in case Mr. WF decides to file (which he has no grounds to do so), or sponsor the case of Dr. Douchebag (case will be thrown out immediately), I’ll look to the likes of Kirsten, Rihanna, or Amy for fashion inspiration.
What to wear to court? I haven’t been in a while… but I like Nicole Ritchie’s style.
Oh, hey 1st amendment, thanks for getting my back 🙂
bring it, baby, bring it. what a giant douche.
It’s ain’t slander when it’s the TRUTH, RUTH!!!
Your lawyer is wrong. You made disparaging remarks on a public forum. Then there’s the intent thing. But no worries. He or she and your partners’ representatives will understand upon receipt of the documents. Done with communicating.
Hahahaha doctor douche has a pro-bono lawyer! How cute!! Douchebags unite!!!
Dear Win,
You are clearly a douche, too. Take your “unlimited funds” and spend them on a case that you will inevitably LOSE!
Douchebags: they come in all shapes and sizes.
Mr. Farnsworth,
My law firm represents The Mediation Room.com, which has a secured a trademark in the United States for the phrase “The Internet Ombudsman.” (www.TheInternetOmbudsman.com)
We believe your claim to be the “Ombudsman of the Internet” clearly infringes on the rights afforded to our client by the awarding of this trademark. Hence, we must insist that you cease and desist any further usage of this phrase or we will be forced to take appropriate legal action.
Sincerely,
You’ll find out who I am if you continue your unauthorized use of this phrase because then it will become legal and nasty
P.S. Slander is only an abuse if the words are spoken. Libel is only an abuse if the printed words are untrue. The letter in question meets neither of these criteria
Mr. Farnsworth… YOU ARE FIRED!
I guess your are fired… Mr. Farnsworth…. Go try sue Amtrak! or the Us postal service
Dana, I dig your game.
Oo my god.. SERIOUSLY!?!?
Some torts for you, Mr. Farnsworth:
New York Practice Series – New York Law of Torts
Database updated August 2009
Lee S. Kreindler, Blanca I. Rodriguez, David Beekman, David C. Cook
Chapter
1. Intentional Torts against Personal Rights
References
§ 1:41. Defamation
Defamation, another dignity tort, traces its roots back to the 16th century when the common law first recognized this tort as a means of allowing an individual to vindicate his good name and obtain redress for the harm caused by the publication of false and injurious, that is defamatory, statements. The term defamation “is defined as the making of a false statement which tends to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace or induces an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society.”[1]
Defamation occurs in the form of libel or slander.[2] Libel is a publication, expressed in printing, writing or by symbols or pictures, concerning a living person that is false and tends to injure his or her reputation thereby exposing him or her to public hatred, contempt, scorn, obloquy or shame. Slander is when malicious or scandalous words are stated about a live person which injure the person’s reputation or good name.[3] Defamatory statements also include statements that would likely arouse pity or sympathy in the minds of the public.[4]
Traditionally, the demarcation between libel and slander rested on whether the words were written or spoken. At the time the distinction arose, written defamations were considered far more serious because few persons could read or write, and therefore anything that was written would carry a louder ring of purported truth. A written defamation could also be disseminated more widely and carried a degree of permanence.[5]
The distinction between libel and slander has blurred somewhat with the advent of mass communication. New York courts have held that given the vast and far-flung audiences reached by the various media, spoken words transmitted through these media reach a wide audience and have a greater capacity for harm than a writing. Thus, spoken words transmitted in a motion picture[6] or via television or radio have become classified as libel, as opposed to slander.[7]
The tort of defamation is frequently at odds with the First Amendments of the United States and New York Constitutions and is now limited by them.[8] No longer can the common law impose strict liability whenever a defamatory statement is made innocently or negligently. While the law of defamation seeks to protect an individual’s historic right to vindicate harm to reputation, courts are cognizant that this should not be achieved by impairing “our cherished constitutional guarantee of free speech,” or by casting a pall over citizens’ ability to “engage in robust debate through print and broadcast media.”[9] New York, as a significant economic and cultural center of the nation, has traditionally provided a hospitable climate for the free exchange of ideas, and as recognized by the Court of Appeals in its seminal defamation decision, Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski,[10] the free speech provision of the New York Constitution is even broader than that of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and restricts the tort of defamation even more.[11]
BWA! Damn it sucks to be a sh*tty lawyer in some podunk town!! Brycie you could probably represent yourself and beat this douche in court. LOL. SUCKA.
And I dig yours!
Farnsworth Bentley? Diddys assistant?