Friday, February 17, 2006


Ann Coulter: Slanderer and Libeler

Ted Rall's lawyer has advised him that he has a case against Ann Coulter for her statement to the Conservative Political Action Committee:

"Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions."
Now he has even more of a case. She's repeated the accusation in her column, which makes it not just slander but also libel. Coulter will claim, as she always does, that it was a "joke". But accusing someone of being a Holocaust denier is no joking matter. As Rall explains in his blog,
Insults, vitriol and snotty comments are all part of free speech. Deliberately misrepresenting a person's opinions in order to shut them up is not. What we're witnessing here is no less than a return to the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy during the 1950s "Red Scare"—which shouldn't be surprising considering that Ann Coulter wrote an entire book whose thesis was that McCarthy was a great guy who ought to be loved and respected.
It's long past time Ann Coulter experienced some consequences for her smear campaign against anybody who doesn't share her authoritarian beliefs. Ted Rall will be acting for all of us if he files a lawsuit against her. That's if, not when, because lawsuits cost money. A lot of money. And liberal cartoonists just don't make that much money. But if everybody who agrees with Rall's decision to defend himself against slander and libel would pledge a few bucks toward paying for the lawsuit, Ann Coulter will finally get a little bit of what bullies like her deserve. You can make your pledge by sending email to Do it today.
I have been reading some nay saying about the suit, not the real right way to be a nice liberal to go around suing people who tell lies about you.

I've come to the conclusion that outright lies shouldn't be protected, lies are too damaging to democracy, lies told by media whores are too powerful to be countered by "more speech".

"More Speech" seems to be the favored tactic of most columnists, since they already have "more speech" than most people it's easy for them to say.
"I've come to the conclusion that outright lies shouldn't be protected"

And they're not. That's why we have laws against slander and libel.

Some of naysaying -- and Rall makes this point in his blog -- [deliberately] confuses the issue by claiming that Coulter's lies are merely rowdy political discourse, not merely acceptable but necessary for democracy to flourish. Of course, the same people who fabricate this defense for Coulter call it "treason" when liberals use strong language to express the truth.
My pledge is in the mail. Agree that falsely accusing people of Holocaust denial needs a response. Ted Rall et al. are not the only ones harmed by this. It diminishes the memory of those who died in the Holocaust. It even helps the real deniers by making it seem as if the Holocaust has no reality, that it is just one more epithet to be thrown around casually.

By the way, MEC, just wanted you to know you have been credited in comments below (This Post Intentionally Left Blank) with the discovery of anti-truth.
In other news, it looks like Coulter's efforts to use the Sergeant Schultz Defense against the evidence of her felony fraudulent voting practices has just been shot down in flames.
mec, it was the "free speech" absolutist orthodoxy I was thinking of about, not the law. The idea that liberals shouldn't sue for slander or libel is an invitation to the kinds of lies that are constantly being told throughout the media.

The idea that "speech" is the be all and end all of freedom is a fad that has gotten way out of hand.

Charles has credited you with the discovery of anti-truth. It's a key to understanding the current disfunctional public discourse.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder