re: #96 Khal Wimpo

Since this did not involve a public figure, there is no need for the case to rise to the level of Times v. Sullivan and its burden of proving “actual malice.”

That said, a lesser-known way of proving actual malice is to demonstrate “reckless disregard for the truth.” Thus, even were a judge to determine that Chuckles was making a good-faith effort to comment on a matter of deep public interest, he would be guilty of reckless disregard. The many mistakes that he has made in the past and the deep disregard for truth he has demonstrated in his tawdry career will be admissable, and will be assessed when figuring damages during the penalty phase, after the verdict is reached.

If he has any half-bright legal counsel, right now they are screaming at him to publish a retraction, act penitent and to shape the fuck up & stop being such an asshole. In those exact words.

In all seriousness, what do you think the chances are that Chuckles business plan included liability insurance against libel? A very brief read on the subject says that a blogger could be covered under homeowners / renters insurance, but once he starts to derive any income from the writing, then that particular coverage is no longer in-force.

This could get really expensive for him if it goes forward. I don’t feel bad at all.

RBS