Posted on 03/14/2006 6:23:30 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
While no official lawsuit has been filed, Ted has stopped his pledge drive to raise money for this libel/slander suit against Ann Coulter saying that he now has enough. The proposed libel/slander suit is the result of comments she made that Ted had entered the Iranian Holocaust Cartoon contest - a claim he denies.
He’s now meeting with lawyers on the details of such a suit.
"Thanks to hundreds of generous pledgers we now have enough money committed to launching a slander and libel suit against Coulter for her remarks falsely claiming that I had entered Iran’s Holocaust cartoon contest."
Ping
I suspect that Ann was *Joking* and thus protected under the 1st.
Ted Rall's drawing are so bad even Iran would not accept them. I hate Ted Rall. I never heard of the putz before until he did the Pat Tillman cartoon. Now there is an offensive cartoonist.
--I suspect that Ann was *Joking*
Nah..ya think?
Money well wasted. Oh, wait! Donations? He'll take the money and run.
"Free speech for thee but not for me", eh Teddy?
Besides, I can think of a lot more accurate things that would sting a lot more than what Ms. Coulter "accused" you of, Mr. Gall.
We'll never know, will we? Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Ann will claim what the libs claim whenever they get caught making a stupid comments:
IT WAS SATIRE!
What did she say that isn't accurite? If any of it was, who cares, he is a public figure. Is there a different standard for cartoonists than for the president. If he could sue for inaccuacy we would have a reason for all the attorneys in America.
He has raised a whole $2,500 so far? Wow. We're talking mega bucks.....
If Ann needs a legal defense fund, she won't be underfunded.
A whole Twentyseven Hundred dollars. A lawyer wont even start the engine Of his BMW for that much.
And did the guy who draws "Doonsebury" want to sue?
Hahahah they would probably fatwa his @ss, thinking that he was making fun of em with his horrible scribbles, and nonsensical plots!
Of course, with that venal creep, it's true. Witness his suit against 'Dirty' Danny Hellman. Rall can dish it out in his crude scribbles and asinine rants. But he can't take it.
Personally speaking, I find Rall to be exceedingly offensive, even dangerous, and not for what he's saying but for the threat of attack implicit in all of his works.
He reminds me of this dog on my paper route when I was a kid ~ this guy curled his upper and lower lips back and away from his teeth to the point he was covering his eyes with skin. Then he'd growl.
And was that dog ever stupid ~ this always gave me time to pick up a large rock with which to threaten him. I'd "bark back" and he'd open his eyes, and start to lunge, see that big ol' rock, and he'd be a$$hole$ and elbow$ scurrying backwards through the screen door he'd broken out.
I'd see him growling at me going down the street.
Actually, I think I liked that dog much more than I like Ted Rall.
He better be careful where he files his lawsuit, because in states like California they have what are called SLAPP statutes that allow defendants who are wrongfully sued for talking to recover costs and attorneys fees from sue-happy plaintiffs.
BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA...ROTFLMAO!!!!
She's ruthless!
... which is all of them, essentially. :)
I understand that Ann is a pretty sharp lawyer in her own right.
Betcha she has her pistol ready for Ted.
Now where is that danged picture when I want to post it?
How stupid do you have to be to contribute hard-earned money for something as idiotic as this?
Does the name "Bev Harris" ring a bell...? :)
Does anybody have the direct quote from Coulter? It would be interesting to see what has Rall so upset.
It does now. What a loon! You type her name into Google, and it responds with an image hit for an actual loon.
Ted has "pledged" money from liberals? Oh, brother.
You can't post from his site (and quite rightly, I might add)... but: we're certainly allowed to mention the name, in the event that he actually makes the news wires.
It's not quite like posting a picture of The Moongod, you know. :)
They made a whole movie about Larry Flynt as regards this principle -- except the thing Flynt did was more offensive and was done to a non public person.
Can dish it out, but he can't take it.
Talk about an @$$hole who can't take what he dishes out.
Discovery. He'll have to answer a LOT of stuff under oath. It doesn't even have to be directly relevant to the case - just "calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." If he sues, it's open season on his past and his closet (where I'm sure a lot of skeletons reside that he doesn't want rattled.)
Where the hell did you get that?
I confess that I saw that cartoon pasted on Free Republic by a freeper and being that I recently learned how to paste cartoons via HTML, I wrote the HTML convention into my notebook for appropriate times.
George Soros REDUX baby!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
LOL!@ hilarious!
I must have missed the joke exception to libel.
"a 'whinging' pussy? Wow, is that the new term these days,,'whinging'/// What the...?
Sorry moderate in case you are watching, I was merely quoting the cartoon..
Why don't liberals send their extra dollars to Washington to fund their pet fiasco?
Ted Rall is only $10 away from suing Ann Coulter.
fine - then we can countersue him for his slander against the President, the soldiers, etc etc. Plus he needs to be sued for fraud - his editorial cartoons are certainly not "art".
You're kidding, right? - The supremes have ruled a long time ago that poking fun at public figures is not libel. When you are a public figure there is a much higher bar to jump; you have to prove malice, which in this case would be downright impossible. (And if that runt thinks that $2700 will do the job, he has a bunch to learn ;o)
Gary something or other??? - No, he was glad to have the publicity ;o)
At the risk of sounding pedantic, "cajones" means "chests" or "drawers." I think you wanted to say "cojones." That means "balls" or "testicles."
Guess you did.
"We must decide whether a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him, and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most. Respondent would have us find that a State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury, even when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. This we decline to do." Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell
Public figures have to prove ACTUAL MALICE. Ted Rall has interjected himself into the public sphere. He will lose. Worse for him, he will make himself into the parody figure that Ann desires most, the whiny, litigious liberal. And Ted will pay by the hour, while Ann may represent herself if it comes to that--though it is far more likely the ACLU will beg her to let them work for her, another dream come true for Ms. Coulter, I would reckon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.