June 30, 2004
Two Glib Responses to Hitchens
Byron Crawford is easily my favorite blogger, an angry and whip-smart cuss whose analysis is uniformly cutting, and whose wildly offensive digressions into hilarious slander are still somehow insightful. While he currently holds down the grill station at White Castle, he will be famous in about three years (or will at the very least be a writer for the Daily Show). In a great post, he responds to Christopher Hitchens' scathing/babbling response to Fahrenheit 9/11 by both deconstructing his flaccid arguments and accusing him of redirecting at Moore the rage that resulted from a recent dissatisfying blowjob.
Similarly, Ollie Byrd uncovers the shocking truth - Jim Morrison is alive, and he's writing for Slate.
IANAL and I'm sure David will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Mr. Crawford would be engaging in libel, not slander. Of course, since his statements are clearly over the top and meant humorously, it's doubtful he could be successfully charged.
thanks for affirming my e-existence great nomadic council!
IANAL either. If I wasn't busy researching caselaw on the Texas Revised Limited Partnership Act, I would look into it. However, 1) I don't think SNW meant it in a legal way, 2) the Hustler/Jerry Falwell opinion is one of the funniest I have ever read on the topic, and 3) what do you mean by "charged"?
Internet acronyms are out of fucking control, people. Or, rather, IAAOOFCP.
I know he didn't mean it in a legal way. I was trying to be funny. As for "charged", I meant "convicted", but my brain ignored that error when I was previewing my comment.
And ollie, don't get too excited about us linking to you. We don't get much traffic either. :)
I guess your brain is still ignoring the difference between a civil and a criminal suit, huh?
Whatever. Like I said, "I'm sure David will correct me" and "IANAL".
Hey man, what's the use of a hundred thousand dollar education if I can't make fun of laypersons' silly mistakes? Don't tell my you won't be tempted to make fun of me if I mistakenly refer to anapestic heptameter as "Alexandrine."
I suppose so... still, please explain how the difference between a criminal and civil suit applies here. Is it due to the lower requirements of proof in a civil suit or is it something else? In other words, are you saying that in a civil suit, it's likely ollie might actually be found guilty of libel? Is libel strictly a civil offense? Please enlighten me.
Okay, ever heard of anyone going to jail for libel or slander? Of course not--these are civil "torts," not criminal offenses. Sometimes an act is one or the other, like here: plaintiff would sue (not charge--that is what the state does) defendant for libel. Something that is always criminal would be rape. A victim would not sue an attacker for rape; the state would charge the attacker with the offense (here, the state, or "the people" is the plaintiff). Other times, one act can lead to both a civil and criminal suit, like OJ. Murder was the criminal charge; wrongful death was the civil charge. Criminal convictions lead to imprisonment or fines (that inure to the state); civil convictions lead to either damages (money for the plaintiff) or equitable relief (e.g. injunctions, recissions, etc.)
Does that makes sense?
Sure. All things I had "learned", but obviously forgotten by now. As it relates to your comments then, you were commenting on my use of the word "charge" rather than "sue", were you not?
yes
Thanks for increasing my reply stats, guys.
No
problem.