Clark County, Nevada: “A man claims Simon & Schuster defamed him in the book “Hot Chicks with Douchebags.” The man says his photo was taken without proper consent, and that he is not, in fact, a you-know-what. (Courthouse News, Nov. 18 via Justin Levine, Patterico; The Smoking Gun). Earlier here (different suit) and, relatedly, here. More: On Point News (protected “opinion”?)
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 7 comments }
Assuming liability, do the various blogs increase plaintiff’s damages?
I’m surprised that a lawyer would even file this: surely whether someone is a douchebag is a matter of opinion and therefore not actionable.
Interesting combination of the Streisand Effect with the use of a “I am not a crook” FAIL Proclamation, doubly proving that maybe he really is a douchebag.
Only hope of winning would be use of his image without consent except he was in a public place. Maybe this is just a ruse by the author to try a get someone, anyone, to buy his pathetic book.
I would be interested to hear the findings of fact in this case.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
I’d go for truth as a defense and cite the lawsuit as evidence of truthfulness.
If he’s whining and suing because someone interprets his appearance or manners as a douchebag guess what… he IS a douchbag.
Comments on this entry are closed.