Threatened with a libel lawsuit on a sports blog

[Cuckoo Clock]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oklahoma

OK, so here's the story:

I stumbled across an article, via Google search results, on a site known as BleacherReport.com (a free blogging site for sports-related topics). Anyhow, said article was basically a criticism of a certain pro-wrestler, and after reading it, I felt the need to register and respond to what I felt was nothing but pure idiocy on the part of the author.

It wasn't so much the article itself that prompted me to respond, but the author's reply to other members' comments. I realize this is going to sound petty (and I feel ridiculous even wasting you guys' time over this), but the author of the article I commented on has transformed into a raving lunatic of sorts, and is claming he can sue me for insulting him.

In the article, he questioned a pro-wrestler's fashion sense (e.g.. implied that the wrestler dresses like a homosexual), and in later comments, suggested that said wrestler has a small penis, takes steroids, that women do not find his style of dress attractive & a few other nonsense ramblings. I decided to register and put his butt on the chopping block. LOL

So, in my initial comment, I basically told him that he is jealous and/or suppressing hidden homosexual urges (because he keeps staring at this wrestler's jeans, and wondering why they are so tight), that he is ugly and I wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole, no woman would ever have him unless she was really hard-up for money, and that he knows nothing about what women find attractive.

After a couple of days, he responded. It was a very long-winded essay, in which he called me a tramp & sl*t, and made other remarks of which I cannot fully recall. I was, of course, unphased by this, as I've been on the internet a long time and have heard every insult in the book. I always view these types of confrontations as a contest, so I immediately shot back at him with more barbs aimed at his physical appearance, and then I called his wife (whom I was unaware of until he mentioned her in his first response to me) a prostitute (well, sort of).

My comments regarding his wife was in response to his bashing of my being single. My exact words were: "A full-time prostitute in bride's clothing". This was intended as a shot at the institute of marriage, and not a literal statement. Anyhow, he came completely unglued after reading it, and pumped out his first of many lawsuit threats.

The arguing continued back and forth for a while, until somebody (whom I suppose is the admin of the site) stepped in and deleted all comments (both mine & his). There is still arguing going on, as to whether he can actually sue me for libel or not. Both he & I have exchanged notes on each other's profile, regarding this matter.

So, his claim is basically this: He can sue me for libel because I insulted him & his wife. He is saying all kinds of crazy things about how I caused serious damage to his reputation & emotional well-being. LOL He claims that, because he is a semi-well-known comedian (I've never heard of him) that I did major harm to his reputation.

A few more details: He doesn't live in the same state as me; I'm not 100%, but I think he resides in Pennsylvania. He posts under his real name (allegedly) and has a photo of himself in his profile. He seems to be under the impression that because he is using his real name and photo, and I am not, that he has a rock-solid libel case against me. He is also claiming that he can sue Bleacher Report.

Oh, and did I mention that I have a net worth of about $500? LOL

Anyhow, is this guy a few eggs short of an Easter basket, or can he really sue me? I am about 95% sure that he is pulling my leg (and holding out for a public apology, which he alluded to), but I'd like to know for sure.

 

[quincy]

Yes, he can sue you for defamation. Anyone can sue. And certainly anyone can threaten to sue.

I doubt he will sue, however, and, if he did, I doubt he would win, at least based upon what you have posted here. He does not have, in other words, a "rock-solid libel case" against you.

Your "insults" did cross a line from opinion to defamation, but there was a give-and-take there, where his comments crossed the line, as well. Because so many defamatory comments were tossed back and forth, none of the comments would be taken seriously by the average person reading the exchange. If no one believes what is said, there is no reputational injury that can be demonstrated and, therefore, no defamation action worth pursuing.

The wife may have more of an action against you than the blogger would, as she was not a party to the exchange at all but her moral character was called into question during the exchange, and the wrestler could potentially sue the sports blogger for the comments he made alluding to his sexual orientation.

Defamation actions are extremely expensive - often running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on how earnestly one sets about winning a suit. It is a lot of money to invest in a potentially, and probably, loseable lawsuit.

If I were you, I would stop visiting this particular site and, certainly, I would stop making defamatory comments about others. There are far too many litigious people in this world, and you never know who will sue and who won't. If this sports blogger does sue, you should hire an attorney.

 

[Cuckoo Clock]

OK, thanks for the info. I'd like to add a few more bits of information, though.

The "offending comments" were deleted many, many days ago. This guy is not only threatening to sue me, but the blogging site as well. He seems very ignorant of the law, as I know for a fact that they are certainly not liable.

I cannot afford an attorney, am currently unemployed & have some quite limiting mental problems that tends to affect my behavior. Let's just say that my mild scitzophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder & obsessive compulsive disorder tends to cloud my judgement. However, I still feel that this guy is over-reacting.

I did not insult his wife until he called me a "tramp & "sl*t", so I feel justified by my rebuttal. But, he is saying that, because I am not posting under my real name (as he is), that he can basically say whatever he wants to say about me.

Regarding the statements made about the wrestler: He did not outright call him a "homosexual". He stated that "only gay men or emo teenage boys wear their jeans that tight".

Also, while we were arguing back and forth, some of his buddies on the site chimed in; one of which accused me of having an STD.

Oh, and his wife did post once, under his account name.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oklahoma

OK, so here's the story:

I stumbled across an article, via Google search results, on a site known as BleacherReport.com (a free blogging site for sports-related topics). Anyhow, said article was basically a criticism of a certain pro-wrestler, and after reading it, I felt the need to register and respond to what I felt was nothing but pure idiocy on the part of the author.

It wasn't so much the article itself that prompted me to respond, but the author's reply to other members' comments. I realize this is going to sound petty (and I feel ridiculous even wasting you guys' time over this), but the author of the article I commented on has transformed into a raving lunatic of sorts, and is claming he can sue me for insulting him.

In the article, he questioned a pro-wrestler's fashion sense (e.g.. implied that the wrestler dresses like a homosexual), and in later comments, suggested that said wrestler has a small penis, takes steroids, that women do not find his style of dress attractive & a few other nonsense ramblings. I decided to register and put his butt on the chopping block. LOL

So, in my initial comment, I basically told him that he is jealous and/or suppressing hidden homosexual urges (because he keeps staring at this wrestler's jeans, and wondering why they are so tight), that he is ugly and I wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole, no woman would ever have him unless she was really hard-up for money, and that he knows nothing about what women find attractive.

After a couple of days, he responded. It was a very long-winded essay, in which he called me a tramp & sl*t, and made other remarks of which I cannot fully recall. I was, of course, unphased by this, as I've been on the internet a long time and have heard every insult in the book. I always view these types of confrontations as a contest, so I immediately shot back at him with more barbs aimed at his physical appearance, and then I called his wife (whom I was unaware of until he mentioned her in his first response to me) a prostitute (well, sort of).

My comments regarding his wife was in response to his bashing of my being single. My exact words were: "A full-time prostitute in bride's clothing". This was intended as a shot at the institute of marriage, and not a literal statement. Anyhow, he came completely unglued after reading it, and pumped out his first of many lawsuit threats.

The arguing continued back and forth for a while, until somebody (whom I suppose is the admin of the site) stepped in and deleted all comments (both mine & his). There is still arguing going on, as to whether he can actually sue me for libel or not. Both he & I have exchanged notes on each other's profile, regarding this matter.

So, his claim is basically this: He can sue me for libel because I insulted him & his wife. He is saying all kinds of crazy things about how I caused serious damage to his reputation & emotional well-being. LOL He claims that, because he is a semi-well-known comedian (I've never heard of him) that I did major harm to his reputation.

A few more details: He doesn't live in the same state as me; I'm not 100%, but I think he resides in Pennsylvania. He posts under his real name (allegedly) and has a photo of himself in his profile. He seems to be under the impression that because he is using his real name and photo, and I am not, that he has a rock-solid libel case against me. He is also claiming that he can sue Bleacher Report.

Oh, and did I mention that I have a net worth of about $500? LOL

Anyhow, is this guy a few eggs short of an Easter basket, or can he really sue me? I am about 95% sure that he is pulling my leg (and holding out for a public apology, which he alluded to), but I'd like to know for sure.

One of you sure does seem to be...

 

[Cuckoo Clock]

Well, I wont deny that I am. LOL

But then, I'm not the one running around screaming "lawsuit" at everyone who offends me. You know?

 

[quincy]

The blogger does make a legitimate point about identification.

If your identity is unknown, and there is NO ONE who can identify you from what you or the blogger have posted, then this blogger can pretty much say whatever he wants to about you without injuring anything but your anonymous online reputation.

If he is posting under his real name, on the other hand, with his photo posted as well, he is much more likely to suffer real reputational injury from defamatory comments made about him by you or anyone else.

How much weight a court would give to the defamatory rantings of an anonymous poster, however, is a question. Because of the context in which your comments were made, and because of the defamatory and inflammatory content of the blogger's material, I doubt if the blogger would have great odds of winning any lawsuit.

It's possible, but not probable.

His wife, once again, would have a much better chance of winning a defamation action.

And, as a note, it does not really matter if you have only $500 and have no job and suffer from an illness and cannot afford an attorney. Being poor or ill is not a legitimate defense to defamation (well...sometimes illness is, but rarely). If this blogger decides to sue, wins the suit, and is awarded damages, he can collect his judgment by attaching any and all assets you have, he can garnishee your current or future earnings. . . and, in general, he can make you sincerely regret ever saying any bad things about anyone.

BUT, again, I doubt if this psedo-comedian/blogger will go to the expense of a defamation action. If he does, check out free legal aid clinics in your area for legal assistance.

 

[Cuckoo Clock]

Well, I disagree in regard to the illness. I'm not talking about physical problems. Mine are pretty much entirely mental, and quite often, I have a very hard time expressing myself in what is considered an "appropriate" fashion. Sometimes I experience overwhelming hostility on the internet (I feel it in real life too, but it really seems to surface online).

I am in no way dangerous, but just very confrontational when something or someone I like is insulted. I have a few obsessions. It's very difficult for me to stop arguing, once I get started. I was prescribed medication but it makes me ill, plus, it is against my beliefs to take psychiatric meds. I made an effort because I thought it would help, but the side effects are just too horrible.

About this guy using his real name & photo: Isn't that his choice? I mean, if somebody intentionally exposes their identity on the internet, doesn't that mean he is opening himself up to scrutiny? Nobody forced him to reveal himself. I have seen people make all kinds of comments about others' apearences on forums and such. Nobody ever threatened to sue them. This whole thing is very strange.

 

[quincy]

You could certainly attempt to use your illness as an excuse for defaming the blogger, should he decide to sue. . . but it would be an unusual and, probably, unsuccessful defense to a defamation action.

As for this blogger using his real name and photo on the site - yes, it is his choice. But, just because he chooses to identify himself online, it does not mean people are then allowed to defame him freely.

Just because Sears advertises online, it does not mean I can make false claims about the company and their lawnmowers.

Just because someone on Facebook uses their real name and a real photo, it does not mean I can say scurrilous and false things about that person.

There is a real misunderstanding about free speech and what can and cannot be said online and off. Try saying "I have a bomb" in an airport, for instance, and you will see that some things just cannot be said without major legal repercussions.

As for defamation, the best advice is the advice mothers give their children: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

 

[Cuckoo Clock]

Hello, I'm back.

According to what I've been reading, it's all about context. If insulting someone's apearence on the internet is illegal, I think pretty much 95% of web sufers are guilty. LOL That is an opinion, and it cannot be proved true or false, therefore it is exempt.

The guy is a crackpot (maybe even crazier than me?) and he has not blogged in a while. I was told that his intention was to run me off of the site, so I'm thinking he is full of it.

Oh, and he didn't have anything nice to say about that wrestler, so what he got from me, he had coming. I didn't write the article, he did. He basically bent over and asked for it.

People argue on the internet all the time, and many times, personal attacks are involved. I've yet to see or hear about anyone getting sued for it. That butthead is bluffing.

 

[quincy]

Insulting someone's appearance, in fact insults in general, are usually protected free speech. But insults, which may hurt a person's feelings, and defamation, which hurts a person's reputation, are two entirely different beasts.

I also doubt if this fellow, or his wife, will sue you - but not because there might not be the possibility of a legitimate action here. Most defamation actions are just not worth the time or effort or money to pursue.

Unlike you, I hear about a LOT of lawsuits filed over material posted on the Internet. Most of them will settle out of court (in fact, over 90% of ALL lawsuits will settle out of court), but the lawsuits are plentiful. YouTube, Facebook, LiveJournal, MySpace - all of them have had numerous suits originating over defamatory material that appears, or over material that infringes on a property or publicity right, or over material that invades another's privacy. Internet lawsuits are not uncommon suits, by any means.

But, again, I doubt if this guy will sue, so I doubt if you have to worry. It doesn't appear that you are doing much of that, anyway.

 

[Cuckoo Clock]

Oh, I almost forgot to mention some of the funnier stuff that he said.

First of all, everything he said was totally nutty. The post which he claimed had "damaged" him in some way, was removed not more than THREE DAYS after I posted it.

Now, according to him, he suffered "emotional distress", somehow lost money or couldn't work, and had suffered reputational damage. All of this from a singular post that was only up for three days, and contained nothing more than garden variety mud-slinging.

Cherry on the cake: One of his buddies said some crap to me (I don't remember what it was), and then I told him to throw himself in front of a bus. Then, the dude who wanted to sue me said that I could be suid for that too! LOLOL He compared it to that case where the woman drove the teen girl to suicide in instant messages.

Anyhow, a couple of other people registered at the site and was giving him a hard time. He thought they were all my accounts, but they are not. I think he caved under all the pressure, and he has seemingly dropped off the planet.