You can't possibly honestly believe that. First off, the part of the sentence in which she referred to my name was speaking about men who commit a form of rape specifically, not about "men generally". Why the need for self delusion in this case? It's bizarre behavior. It's almost like you need so strongly for me to be in the wrong here that you can't read the words honestly. How does that work? I mean do you actually think it says something other than what it says, or do you know what it says and then look to see if you can come up with some tortured method to justify another interpretation no matter how absurd it is?
Oh, it's clear NOW that that was the intent of the comment...
It was clear at the time. The post by itself is sufficient. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't have said anything about it.
... but unfortunately for any case, it's also clear that the intent was satire.
You seem to be under the mistaken belief that simply declaring something to be satire after the fact actually makes it satire. Do you even know what satire is? Cause that's not it. It's not even remotely close.
But if actually taken to a court room based purely on that post, as others have said, the case would have been laughed out of the court room.
What "others"? A couple people with an ax to grind on an internet board is hardly the best source for an objective opinion. While I'm by no means an expert on defamation law, a quick interwebs education shows that as as private individual, the burden for me to prove defamation is not as strict as that for a public figure, and that an allegation of criminal offense, especially of a moral nature (like rape) is considered "defamation per se", meaning that I don't have to show damage. Damage is assumed by nature of the false statement itself.
The only actual legal considerations if there were to be a case are the following:
1. Does the statement lead a reasonable person to a believe that a "fact" about a person is being stated?
2. Is the claimed "fact" false?
3. Is the claimed "fact" defamatory?
Condition 1 is clearly true. Aside from a few biased internet posters, no reasonable person could read what she wrote and not conclude that she was attempting to assert a "fact" (as opposed to opinion) that I had "committed a form of rape". That fact is false, so 2 is met. And as I pointed out claims of a crime of that nature are defamatory per se, so no damages need to be shown.
On what basis do you assume that I don't have a case? From where I'm sitting, it's a slam dunk if I choose to pursue it. The only reason I'm not isn't because I'm not upset about it, but because I don't feel like punishing someone just because they were stupid while on the interwebs, no matter how harmful what they said was.
At no point in the chronology of events have you had anything resembling a case. I mean, enough to get in the court room with it, but never a chance to actually walk away the victor.
Again, I have to ask: Do you say this because you have some reason to actually think it's true, or do you say it because you disagree with me regularly and have "picked a side" and base your opinion on that instead of any sort of logic or facts? I'm thinking the latter, but you're free to come up with some rational explanation. Edited, Feb 8th 2011 10:51pm by gbaji