September 29, 2006

Michelle Malkin Bikini Lawsuit?
— Ace

This is libel, isn't it?

Is there any good reason Michelle shouldn't sue?

Don't give me that "blogger code" about letting crap like this slide. This wasn't presented as a parody; it was presented as fact, without even the most basic of fact-checking (or simple common sense).

It's libel.

Information wants to be free. So does defamation. But just because defamation wants to be free is no reason to give it free range.

Sue, Michelle. Sue like the wind.

I'm sick of Nick Denton's bullshit. The fact that this fucker has a blog called The Defamer is not going to help him in his argument that his blogs are absent of malice in their libel.

Not the hugest deal in the world. But it's time to cut him a little where it hurts.

And Ken Layne? Fuck you. You were a nobody even when you were a somebody. The only reason you (and many bloggers at that time) were read at all was because barely anyone at all was writing blogs.

You were talentless then, you're talentless now. The only reason people know your name is that Instapundit had a choice of eight people a day to link to. What a shock, he linked to you day after day.

He also linked to Oliver Willis, which should tell you something.

Hope you've got $20,000 to spare for a settlement, Pard.

Anyone know how... to cook up a quick poll/quiz on this?

Posted by: Ace at 11:08 AM | Comments (119)
Post contains 249 words, total size 1 kb.

1 she is probably a public figure which i believe would preclude her from being successful in such a lawsuit. reasoning- her "public figure" status gives her the opportunity to rebut the libelous material.

Posted by: anna at September 29, 2006 11:11 AM (fEnUg)

2 I don't think it would be good. I thought Schlussel threatening bloggers was bad, I'm not sure it would be fair to support Michelle doing it either. She should retaliate as bloggers do, either get nasty or rise above and ignore it unless it got real vulgar (this being the intarweb, you can use your imagination).

Posted by: Sinistar at September 29, 2006 11:16 AM (jhhLS)

3 It seems from her response, that Michelle is more than capable of defending herself.

The entire incident just makes them-- the fauxtoshoppers -- look like idiots.

Posted by: mesablue at September 29, 2006 11:19 AM (DzeyU)

4

Public figures can't be defamed by PARODIES (the Jerry Falwell case), but they can be defamed by false "facts" presented as accurate if those spreading the libel do not engage in minimum fact checking (their defense is a weak standard called absence of malice, but it is still a standard, and Ken Layne, Gawker, wonkette, and Nick Denton did not meet even that weak standard here).



Fuck 'em.


 


Posted by: ace at September 29, 2006 11:21 AM (4qddO)

5 She should sue because they didn't give her bigger hooters.

Plus, isn't it a little bit Talibanesque to argue that because a woman may have worn a bikini, she is a whore and has no right to criticize the over-sexualization of young girls?

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at September 29, 2006 11:23 AM (KeOQp)

6 Language, Ace. Language.

I doubt whether this rises to the state of libel (you have to prove it isn't satire, and that it caused you direct harm), and anyway, it's pointless to sue the poor. Any retraction would be grudging and wouldn't really be meant in good faith, so what's the point?

Michelle regularly gets the most abominable e-mail threats, and this stuff is positively tame compared some of the other hate-mail she's posted. It's a shame that people who claim to be the most tolerant and "progressive" among us attack her with the worst kind of sexual and racial slurs, but it's not surprising.

The world is full of small, bitter, hateful people. Our own experience with trolls tells us that. The only rational course of action is to a) ignore them, or b) hit them in the neck with a cactus.

Posted by: Monty at September 29, 2006 11:27 AM (UdJCa)

7 Sorry about repetition, but this is the more appropriate thread for my previous comment and I want any moonbat visitors just now joining us to see the evidence of photo fakery that will hold up in court.

Notice the LED date stamp in the lower right corner of the photo? It also appears in at least one other photo in the series.

That wasn't possible for a cheap camera back in 1992 to do that. There were no consumer digital cameras in 1992, so this photo had to have been on film (remember film? LOL!)

LED date stamping for film cameras wasn't even patented until 1991.

The moron who tried to smear Michelle made the same mistake that the Rathergate moron did. He/she is too young (or stupid) to remember anything before the computer age, and thus tripped himself/herself up with anachronisms.

Good going, Leftist morons. Hope you get your ass sued off.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at September 29, 2006 11:28 AM (rE+jU)

8

1, it did cause her harm.  It was used to damage her professional reputation, both in terms of how she presents herself and to suggest she is guilty of dishonesty/hypocrisy, which is damaging stuff for anyone, but particularly for a pundit.



1, "false light" defamation doesn't require actual harm anyway, I don't think.


 


Posted by: ace at September 29, 2006 11:30 AM (4qddO)

9 Ace, it's my understanding that as a public figure, Malkin would have to show "actual malice" that is, "knowledge of falsity" or "reckless disregard for truth or falsity." In the alternative, she would have to show that these folks entertained serious doubts about the truth of the matter.

Generally, this is pretty difficult to do. However, in this case if she can show that they knew (or maybe a reasonable person would know) the photos were fake then that would be enough to show actual malice.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at September 29, 2006 11:30 AM (lvww8)

10 Asses. Plural. More than one ass.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at September 29, 2006 11:31 AM (rE+jU)

11 She doesn't deny it is her.  It is listed on a Flickr site with other pictures of her in college, NINE years ago.  It IS her, so no suit.  She needs a boob job for that tight little ass. yum yum.  Probably not as hot now, after some kids, but she has always been pretty hot.  Me thinketh she thouht protest too much.

Posted by: kempermanx at September 29, 2006 11:31 AM (Wc54u)

12 I donno, I think she looks pretty good.

BTW take a look at Gleen Gruenwald's comment section today for a very interesting peek at how his left thinks. It's unreal how nasty, humorless, and offensive it all is. The topic is an interview with Mark Steyn by Hugh Hewitt.

I hate to give him the hits, but it's worth it.

Posted by: Gotta Know at September 29, 2006 11:32 AM (8YrhS)

13 As I told her in an email I sent to her earlier today, rise above these talentless fuckers. They obviously feel threatened by what she has to say. They resort to junior high level personal attacks. They can't refute anything she writes about, so they attack her personally. Typical liberal bullshit.

Posted by: Rob G at September 29, 2006 11:33 AM (MTu19)

14 1) I gotta admit, blogs have a problem with credibility and are regarded as partisan smear merchants. A trend of libel lawsuits, if you can pull em off, might help. Get rid of the rampantly dishonest sorts and improve the rep a bit.

2) I ought to sue this asshole for false advertising. I was promised Malkin in a bikini. This chick ain't as hot as Malkin. I demand bikini-clad Malkin!

Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2006 11:34 AM (m6c4H)

15 Who the hell is Ken Layne?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 29, 2006 11:34 AM (5HE2m)

16 I don't claim to understand the possible legal issues involved but my question is what was their (Gawker) point to begin with?

Assume for a moment the photo was real (which it's pretty clearly not) what's it prove? How does wearing a bikini and taking a photo in private precludes you from commenting on the public behavior of others? Some things are acceptable in private that are not in public. It doesn't even make you a hypocrite.

This is not news, I hope.

I think they should be sued for stupidity if nothing else.

Posted by: Drew at September 29, 2006 11:35 AM (Y2fNF)

17 Well when I posted earlier over at HotAir I told them she should sue, or at least have a lawyer seriously threaten.

I am always an advocate of a big dose of reality, and nothing says that like having to pay court costs and fines.

Posted by: Cary from Houston at September 29, 2006 11:35 AM (aJFeb)

18 I bought Ken Layne's CD, and like his music (although the only reason I enountered his music was due to his collaboration with Matt Welch).

But as a blogger, Layne's just another liberal crank.

Posted by: SWLiP at September 29, 2006 11:35 AM (WfQGW)

19 She doesn't deny it is her.

Yes she does.

Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2006 11:35 AM (m6c4H)

20 Gawker has had this disclaimer on their site since this morning:

UPDATE: Yes, of course it's fake! You idiots! Sure, that head looks way too tiny for the body, but then we don't want to make any assumptions about Malkin's head size. Enjoy her cyclonic indignation here.

Guess they didn't plan on such a quick backlash.

Posted by: mesablue at September 29, 2006 11:39 AM (DzeyU)

21

Not her, Moron.  The bikini was sold at target last year, and the head is obviously shopped in, AND she denies it.


And that digital timestamp is not a 14 year old feature.


And now Ken Layne claims he meant it as an "obvious" fake all along.


Laying the defense.  Lawyers have told them it will fly if it's a parody, but they're facing real liability if it was presented as real.

So now a bit of revisionist history transforms something presented as genuine as an "obvious" parody.


 


Posted by: ace at September 29, 2006 11:41 AM (4qddO)

22

#7


I am not sure you are right about date stamping.  I have lots of camera's from the 80's that did it.  Contax, Nikon, and Pentax made a cheap one that had it.  I still have that sucker somewhere, looking for it to give you date of manufacture.  Read MM's post she DOES NOT deny it could be her.  Gulity!!  So WHAT? A hot college kid does not disprove the post that the moonies are making, that MM is a hypocrite.  Wearing a Biki does not make you a slut, damn I wish it did.


 


Posted by: kempermanx at September 29, 2006 11:41 AM (Wc54u)

23 kempermanx

Can you not tell a bad photoshop? Are you like 75 or something?

And if you can read, you will note that she shows it is fake and shows you the original photo that the face was copied from.

Troll-tard!

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at September 29, 2006 11:42 AM (KeOQp)

24 Kempermanx: She doesn't deny it is her. It is listed on a Flickr site with other pictures of her in college, NINE years ago. It IS her, so no suit. She needs a boob job for that tight little ass. yum yum. Probably not as hot now, after some kids, but she has always been pretty hot. Me thinketh she thouht protest too much.


DIAF kemp. Michelle is just fine as god made her.


I dunno.

I still think even if its different, I argued against Schlussel, and it would be intellectually dishonest to argue for Michelle. I'm just not comfortable with the lawsuit thing, never have been, never will be.

Posted by: Sinistar at September 29, 2006 11:46 AM (jhhLS)

25

#21


My Apologies, I did not read MM's updated post read  it earlier today, BEFORE  she added the photo shop explaination.  Still think she looks HOT! even now!


Posted by: kempermanx at September 29, 2006 11:47 AM (Wc54u)

26 I am not sure you are right about date stamping. I have lots of camera's from the 80's that did it. Contax, Nikon, and Pentax made a cheap one that had it. I still have that sucker somewhere, looking for it to give you date of manufacture.

Brand and model, please. Otherwise, you're full of it.

Read MM's post she DOES NOT deny it could be her.

She say's the photo is a Photoshop, you imbecile.

The idiots are so blinded by hate they can't see a two-bit Photoshop from some hater's bogus Flickr site?

Now kindly fuck off.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at September 29, 2006 11:48 AM (rE+jU)

27 One good thing to come out of this, Charlotte Church grew up and got some boobies. NSFW

Posted by: mesablue at September 29, 2006 11:48 AM (DzeyU)

28 I have a Pentax film camera from early 1993 that could date/time stamp pictures.

It couldn't do the "my hed iz pastede on yay" effect very well, though.

Posted by: Alex at September 29, 2006 11:49 AM (fgyj8)

29 Go to pollhost*.com and you can whip up a quicky voting dealeo.
You can make it as long as you like and you can prohibit multiple votes from the same IP.

Although I'm sure it can be scammed.

Posted by: Retired Geezer at September 29, 2006 11:50 AM (IjfHa)

30

She should go after them, this sort of slander is damaging esp in the long run. No doubt loonies will bring this incident up years from now to repeat the slander as if it were truth (unless she slaps them with a lawsuit that is).


I mean, already people (trolls) are trying to reinforce the slander!


AS #16 Drew mentions, so what if it were real? What does that show? Nothing. For it to be a parody you'd have to have some sort of "point". This is just bigoted slander.


Posted by: 5Cats at September 29, 2006 11:52 AM (cVijR)

31 I have a Pentax film camera from early 1993 that could date/time stamp pictures.

Not a valid refutation. You need a 1992 snapshot camera that a college student would not worry about taking on spring break. It would also need to have an LED date stamp in the same resolution as that photo of faux-Michelle.

You can also tell that the date stamp itself has been Photoshopped. That's what tipped me off.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at September 29, 2006 11:55 AM (rE+jU)

32 #26 see #25.  Looking for camera, but it is Friday afternoon and I need to get to the club to drink, maybe in the AM I'll find it.  Damn moonies, making MM look hot, what the hell are they thinking?

Posted by: kempermanx at September 29, 2006 11:55 AM (Wc54u)

33 I wouldn't sue. I would have a lawyer send a cease and desist order saying the next step will be a law suit.

Any idiot can see that the picture is a fake within 2 seconds. Anybody with 3rd grade reading comprehension can see MM denies its her. And the fact that the morons who tried to use this to slam MM are now taking it in the teeth and it is their credibility that is being tarnished, well thats the true justice.

In the battle of ideas, you lose when you prove you have no honor and no credibility.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 29, 2006 11:57 AM (rnOZq)

34 Mesablue

Sorry I called you a Fireflyawuss last night when I was drinking.

Anybody that'd post a link to that curvy little Church chick (whoever she is) can't be too bad.

Sincerly,

Kasper

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at September 29, 2006 12:01 PM (KeOQp)

35 It's bizarre how anybody could even think these are real.
Her neck in that photo with the other women looks like the neck of a linebacker.

Posted by: pajama momma at September 29, 2006 12:04 PM (+Aq+d)

36 No problem Kasper, I'm still working on my geek creds so the comment helped as an endorsement.

I couldn't remember who Charlotte Church was and a quick search came up with mostly boobies -- she was that wierdly cute, but too young chick that sang all of the arias.

Posted by: mesablue at September 29, 2006 12:07 PM (DzeyU)

37

#26


I might be full of shit.  Found the old Pentax, serial number starts with 94, leads me to believe it was made in  1994.  Still looking for my Nikon date stamp back, I have about 30 cameras, and yes I am old enough to need reading glassess, color blind too, it never occurrs to me that moonies would go to the trouble of setting up a fake flickr site,etc.  They are some sick puppies, but what is the upside, MM is still hot! OPPS, it 5:00,  time to go to the Club for a cooling beverage. Bye now


Posted by: kempermanx at September 29, 2006 12:08 PM (Wc54u)

38 Laying the defense. Lawyers have told them it will fly if it's a parody, but they're facing real liability if it was presented as real.

So now a bit of revisionist history transforms something presented as genuine as an "obvious" parody.



When I looked at the site this morning (and just now), it stated "a possibly legitimate snapshot..."
Not sure if this means that they knew it was a fake all along...or if they were presenting it as legit.

Posted by: casey at September 29, 2006 12:10 PM (O0cii)

39 "OPPS, it 5:00, time to go to the Club for a cooling beverage. Bye now"

Jesus. I just had a Mike! flashback.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 29, 2006 12:12 PM (rnOZq)

40 See, and thats what I thought, that they had their disclaimer that they may be bogus. Now that the picture has been thoroughly debunked, they should do the honorable thing and remove it with an apology a real one, not an 'apology' apology, though I realize this is nearly impossible for a lib to do.

Posted by: Sinistar at September 29, 2006 12:13 PM (jhhLS)

41 Interesting Douglas Adams style logic argument here;

Liberals can use this as proof that MM is unhinged. How many sane women who have had two children would publicly and vocally claim that a picture of them (in a bathing suit) widely circulated on the Internet was too flattering?


Posted by: at September 29, 2006 12:20 PM (mEGYI)

42

<i>Jesus. I just had a Mike! flashback.</i>


You didn't mention:


a. A Beach.


b. Your dog.


or


c. Anal Fisting.


So you're OK.


Posted by: mesablue at September 29, 2006 12:25 PM (DzeyU)

43 I think that deaf Amish should be able to have a blog where they can talk about their troubles and their religious convictions.

Posted by: Dan Collins at September 29, 2006 12:30 PM (6+A8I)

44 Somebody found the original photo.

Posted by: mesablue at September 29, 2006 12:45 PM (DzeyU)

45 The poster of the photo isn't just actionably malicious, but also mentally retarded. It takes approximately 0.5 seconds for the average straight guy (any of those still around on the left side?) to realize that is not Michelle--(1) head WAY too big for body; (2) body WAY too big to be Malkin. If they had copped to what they were doing it would just be a very tasteless joke. To try and pass it off as real is, IMHO, fraud. To the law professor who posted this---are you retarded? I mean seriously--are you mentally fucking retarded??

Posted by: TheManTheMyth at September 29, 2006 12:55 PM (zBQzN)

46 Sorry--said head too big--meant too small--though I'm sure all you non-mentally challenged people already figured that out.... :-)

Posted by: at September 29, 2006 12:57 PM (zBQzN)

47 Information wants to be free.

Beer and porn yearn for this same freedom too I might add.

20G's sounds like a perfectly reasonable Stupidity Tax™ to me.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 29, 2006 12:58 PM (8uJYe)

48 I couldn't remember who Charlotte Church was and a quick search came up with mostly boobies -- she was that wierdly cute, but too young chick that sang all of the arias.

I'm sure she is old enough to run from Congress.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at September 29, 2006 01:03 PM (KeOQp)

49 Ahaha, good one Mesablue.

Posted by: Entropy at September 29, 2006 01:05 PM (Uh5fR)

50 She might have a case against the person who actually did the photoshop and posted it on his Flickr gallery. She doesn't have a case against someone duped by the photoshop.

Posted by: LoafingOaf at September 29, 2006 01:32 PM (GIL7z)

51 While she may be our version of "public figure" she is still an independent journalist, wife and blogger. This was intended to harm your professional reputation, not for any other reason. It was fake, they admitted it is fake, but it was intended to harm her. I say, sue them to no end.

Posted by: AMERPUN at September 29, 2006 01:41 PM (Ycv4S)

52

Since it's being presented as 'fact', Malkin should due. It's absolutely defamatory.



You have to realize that this is part of a larger campaign by the left to poison the well for Republicans. Too many things are happening at the same time. Don't you think? If Michelle doesn't attempt to stop them--if Allen doesn't fight back against the character assasination--you'll see much more of this in the future.



I wonder if Soros' announcement that he is out of politics coresponds to any of this. There's been a concerted effort from the Left over the last week. He's no more out of politics than John Kerry.


Posted by: ahem at September 29, 2006 01:43 PM (LKeGU)

53 I'm convinced this Ken Layne guy is gay.

Now, I have absolutely nothing against gays. I stand apart from my conservative brethren in my support of gay rights, gay marriage, etc.

But c'mon, that's the only explanation for this "EW, MICHELLE MALKIN IS UGLY / HAS COOTIES" nonsense.

I, personally, would do awful things to Michelle Malkin. For our equal gratification, mind you. But just filthy, dirty things. She's fantastic. You can keep your Ann Coulter, I'm happy with Michelle.

Posted by: Vyce at September 29, 2006 02:05 PM (kAzPf)

54 They knew, and should have known, that the photos were fake. (I did in one glance.) When the falsehood brought to their attention, they responded with arrogant dismissal and mockery. Seems like reckless disregard for the facts, a standard with which even a public figure like Malkin can succeed.

Sue. Sue. Sue. Just because no one should take this crap.

Posted by: jannelsen at September 29, 2006 02:23 PM (dqopC)

55 It would be poetic justice if a law school professor were successfully sued for libel. It's not as though the contemporary profession has been a guardian of our rights. Quite the contrary.

Posted by: Brett at September 29, 2006 02:29 PM (Na+l/)

56 I think Michelle should just put up a picture of the lefty girls in bikinis - Cindy Sheehan, Randi Rhodes, Kim Gandy, Maureen O'Dowd, Ana Marie Cox (who looks like cindy sheehan) Hillary Clinton et al., and threaten not to take it down until they stop. You would have everyone crying uncle in no time. On second thought that probably wouldn't work. Lefties are used to seeing ugly chix in bikinis - or less - with more hair. sorry. that was *nasty!*

Posted by: BCMG at September 29, 2006 02:29 PM (4nexs)

57 You know, I couldn't handle it if I were Michelle's husband. With all the crap she has to put up with? I'd be in jail on multiple homicide counts. Multiple as in numerous.

And while I'm cooling my heels and getting a jury of 12 of my peers to understand why I eliminated the scum who threatened my wife, my buddies would be out eliminating more.

This isn't funny. It isn't harmless. And it's just a continuation of the garbage she and her family constantly have to put up wtih.

Someday they're going to fuck with the wrong person.

Posted by: jimg at September 29, 2006 02:33 PM (5ZWwc)

58 She should sue.

People need to start standing up to liberal lies in the media. As long as they know they can get away with it, they'll keep doing it.

Posted by: FrauBudgie at September 29, 2006 02:42 PM (PJ6eI)

59 The libel isn't the original photo. It's continuing to present it as real after she has told them it's fake, and saying--with no basis in fact--that she was lying.

Posted by: DSL at September 29, 2006 02:45 PM (keIpj)

60 OH NOEZ AZN BUTTHURT ((((

Posted by: OH NOEZ at September 29, 2006 02:49 PM (D96Dg)

61 Dear Michelle:
It was a mistake to publicize these nonentities. Even mentioning the incident is driving readers to their blogs--free advertising for them.

Lawsuits only further publicize the incident in question, and justice is not guaranteed. Money for the lawyers is all that is guaranteed.

You've got one of the most visited blogs; you have a valuable point of view, presented in an entertaining way. I enjoy reading it. But reading about a feud with idiots is boring.

Take it as a compliment that you were lampooned. Remember how many times Reagan was lampooned? Did it diminish him one iota?

Just go back to what you were doing before and don't waste another pixel on morons.

Best,

Bob Bennett

Posted by: Bob Bennett at September 29, 2006 02:52 PM (r7TBF)

62 I think Michelle should just put up a picture of the lefty girls in bikinis....

Oh.
Please.
God.
No.

Posted by: RW at September 29, 2006 02:59 PM (WSbZM)

63 For a person to be libeled, there are two factors that must be shown. First, that a false statement was made to a third party, and second, that the person libeled was damaged by the falsehood.

The burden of proof is on the defendant in the case...it would be up them to prove the truth of their story, not up to Michelle to show it is false.

While she is a public figure, the smear clearly passes the "malice" or "careless or reckless disregard for the truth" standard.

However...

The other hurdle she must pass is that the falsehood damaged her. This can be difficult to prove. Embarrassment is not enough for a public figure in most cases; she must show monetary loss.

I doubt she can do this.

Still, I wish she'd go ahead and sue. I'm just not hopeful that she'd win any type of settlement, although she might be able to force an apology and at the very least, cause them some expense.

Posted by: Kip at September 29, 2006 03:03 PM (N9nMC)

64 I hope Michelle Malkin doesn't sue, because she's likely to lose.

The best answer to an attempt to harm your reputation is self help, not calling in the law. The law may have to step in if someone is totally outgunned, so self help doesn't cut it. A private citizen being smeared by a media chain is in this case.

Michelle Malkin can help herself, and she has.

If there are idiots who see her answers to the obvious smears on her and believe the smears anyway - courts can't cure all idiocy.

Just my 2c.

Posted by: David Blue at September 29, 2006 03:06 PM (idZpk)

65 I say sue ...

Posted by: papagresh at September 29, 2006 03:11 PM (zVCUJ)

66 Michele shouldn't have to put any effort nor a dime into a lawsuit. Some law firm should take it on a 'keep' what you win basis. Want to see some bloggers and a professor moving to somewhere in south america. They will abandon the country like rats off a sinking ship to avoid what a lawsuit (which i hate) would cost them.

Posted by: Scrapiron at September 29, 2006 03:18 PM (fEnUg)

67 RaLph over in LaShawn Barber's comments notes that cameras would have stamped "92" not "1992."

I just dug out some shots from a ski trip time stamped "92 3 11" without the leading zero for the 3 and without the slashes. It was indeed a cheap camera because I never skied with a good one, but I can't check it out because the boyfriend it belonged to is long gone.

Posted by: at September 29, 2006 03:34 PM (0h0eS)

68 RaLph over in LaShawn Barber's comments notes that cameras would have stamped "92" not "1992."

I just dug out some shots from a ski trip time stamped "92 3 11" without the leading zero for the 3 and without the slashes. It was indeed a cheap camera because I never skied with a good one, but I can't check it out because the boyfriend it belonged to is long gone.

Posted by: Christy at September 29, 2006 03:36 PM (0h0eS)

69 I emailed Ms. Malkin and basically said:
I think it's a joke. It may be offensive to you but it's beneath you to take any real action on this, even two posts worth.

And how shocking to find a conservative website advocating a frivolous lawsuit because someone got their feelings hurt.

Posted by: Bobby at September 29, 2006 03:37 PM (sIVZx)

70 This is an email I wrote Mrs. Malkin earlier today. The full Flikr url is here as well:

http://flickr.com/photos/77759223@N00/

Mrs. Malkin,

There are several glaring inconsistencies in the photos on that web site. While two are as you rightly point out, photoshopped to high heaven(spring break, me & michelle) the other (the girls) appears to be a genuine picture of you with some college friends. If it isn't you, then it is someone who has a lot of similar facial features to you. In the "bikini shot" of "you" if you look at the date stamp, most cameras or photo processing stores didn't print 4 digit years until the mid-1990's, not to mention the lop-sided head. Remember Y2K?

I believe (again just a thought here) that most of these photos are, in fact genuine. Date-stamps also appear to have been photo-shopped into several that do appear to be older than the rest, but by how much is uncertain, by the "creases" or "wear marks" in the pictures. This can be seen if you zoom in using PhotoShop (or in my case PhotoPlus from Serif) near the left of the date stamps you can see a very jagged edge that disrupts the pixel flow and also the backpack appears to be much darker when it intertwines the datestamp as opposed to directly below it. Again you'd have to get a true photo-analyst to examine these to be certain of all the flaws, but I feel rather sorry for the young (or not so young) woman in the majority of them as she has now been associated with these nasty personal attacks on you.

Very Respectfully,

Joshua Jones
Cadet Private First Class
Alpha Company
VTCC

Posted by: Jonsey at September 29, 2006 03:53 PM (QX/1g)

71 See what they have up now? How about a "We fucked up. Sorry"?

Their first post used the fake photo to imply that our Michelle (Such spirit, And a woman too - Wordsworth) was a hypocrite, that is, damage her credibility as a commentator. This would considered actionable.

Forget about damages, just go for a ruling for libel. Make them put up real money to defend themselves and let them see how funny that is.

I'm sure one of her loyal fans would do this for her pro bono.

Posted by: Kurt at September 29, 2006 03:57 PM (LPxyX)

72 This is libel, isn't it?

Yes.

Is there any good reason Michelle shouldn't sue?

Yes.

Any other questions?

Posted by: Xrlq at September 29, 2006 04:23 PM (SDhNB)

73

Back from the club.  There were data back pre 1997.  That does not mean that the post is BS only don't give me any more shit.  My Nikon FA had a data back pre 1997 here is the link.  So I will be polite.


 


http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/fefmshared/html/databacks.htm


Posted by: kempermanx at September 29, 2006 05:10 PM (Wc54u)

74

#26


read the post. 1981 data backs. OK waiting for an apology, I've given mine, and I think it is a photoshop, BUT data backs existed pre 1992.  DA HUH


Posted by: kempermanx at September 29, 2006 05:15 PM (Wc54u)

75 I think that all concerned (if they play it right) can profit from this.

Besides, without stories like these, someone might mention 'torture as government policy.'

Posted by: anonymous at September 29, 2006 06:23 PM (PWOwT)

76

#26


I just changed the battery in the Pentax, which I thought was 94 manufacture, the data back when back to 1987.  Sorry, I take back my thought about manfacture 1994, data back would not go back to a data before it was made. 


So, let's get this straight, Pentax data back 1987, Nikon data back 1981, I will give you a date for the Contax, but as you undoubtablely know, they own Pentax, so you are just SHIT out of luck.  Get it??  An apology is in order. Kemp


 


Posted by: kempermanx at September 29, 2006 07:08 PM (Wc54u)

77 Under the standard of New York Times v Sullivan, Ace is right; she has a case. Enough of a case that the defense attorneys should be counseling their clients to break out the checkbook early; because breaking it out later is usually too late.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 29, 2006 07:44 PM (HX/8J)

78 What a moron. You, not Denton. Try getting pissed off about something important, like... say... the Iraq war, that nasty little business far far away that's killing lots of Americans and making this country less safe. In fact, why don't you enlist?

Posted by: Thomas at September 29, 2006 07:53 PM (UEZq2)

79 Ah, I love the smell of troll flailing in the morning.

She should sue, hard. Denton is one of the few people actually making real money from blogs.

Posted by: someone at September 29, 2006 08:21 PM (LS1TS)

80 She outht sue everybody because it you say A' oh a drunk did this" then it is LIBEL. stay strong, those, and makesure you know it is a ))) actionable (was not in college at that time, plus whore) and #) who now benefitts from left / liberal horsecrap? not us/1 stay strong and refute all hroescrap

Posted by: Sam Patriot at September 29, 2006 09:16 PM (I1Vhy)

81 Strange incident to pluck out for a libel suit. A photograph, which clearly doesn't feature the photoshopped smile Malkin suggests it does.

Is this really the pinnacle of outrageous claims agains Malkin? Someone suggesting she's hypocritical on the topic of chicks getting pissed ? Something which cuts so deeply into her core principles.

After all, the "anchor baby" story got a whole lot more coverage around the blogs with a much more grievous claim... if untrue. Passed that lawsuit opportunity up for some reason.

Posted by: Tank at September 30, 2006 12:40 AM (aOeXm)

82 "LED date stamping for film cameras wasn't even patented until 1991."

Which does not explain why I am looking at photos I took in 1986 that imprinted the dates so:
86 4 17
86 4 29
86 2 9

I know nothing about patents but time stamp technology was available in the mid 80s.
However, the time stamp can be easily photoshopped as any other part of the bogus photo.
It's not her. She doesn't need the aggravation or publicity or the boob-job for that matter, Kempermanx. Jeez, leave her alone.

Posted by: cat at September 30, 2006 01:56 AM (t1iPt)

83 Sorry, "Anna," when it comes to substantive law, you're flat-out wrong.

While Michelle is a public figure, and for libel, that may be the case, but the correct common law issue at play here is not "libel" but "defamation."
Parody is one thing; publicly disseminating a lie that contributes to the destruction of a reputation is quite another.

If someone publishes something they know to be a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation, it doesn't matter if that person is a public figure or not. Haven't you seen how many lawsuits have been won against the National Enquirer for defamation?

Being a public figure does not give someone an excuse to publish lies about you.

Posted by: Law Student at September 30, 2006 02:47 AM (/63F0)

84 Surely nobody still reads that alcoholic, talentless hack, Ken Layne. Who really cares what he thinks or does? On the other hand, I suspect he can barely scrape together enough bread to buy his next drink, so an expensive lawsuit against the silly asshole could be a good thing from that perspective.

Posted by: J G Cole at September 30, 2006 04:08 AM (Tgpe/)

85 All of the legal advice here is hilarious. Keep it coming, folks. You're covered *most* of the moronic misunderstandings about civil law, but are still missing a few.

Posted by: fishbane at September 30, 2006 06:42 AM (lTBUn)

86 DON'T SUE.

Credibility is the coin of the realm, blah blah..

Unless she suffered real damages, don't sue. Conservatives don't use the courts to just screw liberal web sites.

The sites involved have taken a serious credibility hit.

Posted by: CJ at September 30, 2006 07:12 AM (Tgpe/)

87 Assuming there were a compensable injury to Michelle's reputation arising from the defamatory publication, in dertermining the damages the jury would have to offset the benefit Michelle derived from the fact that she looks so fuckin' hot in that picture. Dang! I'd hit that in a New York minute.

OK, fishbane, your turn.

Posted by: More Dumb Legal Advice at September 30, 2006 07:18 AM (LPlsm)

88 Sigh. I do so love when laymen start talking about legal issues like they're big boys. Ace, you don't understand what you're talking about. MikeyNTH, NYT v. Sullivan was a question of constitutional defenses to libel; it didn't create a new action. Whoever suggested false-light claims (a privacy right claim, by the way, more than a defamation claim, and not recognized in every jurisdiction) similarly misses the point. Consult a first-year law student before you start talking about who has a case.

The standard to show defamation varies accross the several jurisdictions, but as a general rule you must prove (a) a false statement of fact and (b) that statement's defamatory capacity. (I don't know how many jurisdictions adhere to the English common law rule---I believe Pennsylvania does, New York doesn't, and probably a sizeable minority of the rest do---but the necessity of proving damages is a complicated side issue. In Gloucestershire in 1788 you didn't have to show damages unless the defamation were pro quod.)

Now, I get that the normal posture for bloggers is just to be outraged all the time and assume that the legal system exists to satisfy your instinctive anger, but in the real world you actually have to satisfy the legal elements before you can bring a claim. To say something is libel isn't actually to show that it is; the concept of defamation has several requisite elements. How do these photographs actually contain or entail a false factual statement of defamatory nature? It appears to be a side thought for you, yet it's the essential question to the inquiry whether Malkin actually has a case! Wouldn't that have been a worthy topic, more so than, say, whether Malkin is really a limited purpose public figure and the extent of her constitutional infirmity to bring such a claim. The Constitution is a little beside the point when there's no underlying state law claim---and this is really remedial stuff. You don't need to have gone to Yale Law School to reach the insight that, before you allege libel, you should at least think about the question what libel actually is.

Dumbasses.

Posted by: Jack Roy at September 30, 2006 08:59 AM (m/Bu7)

89 Opiniooooon! Opinion! OPINIOOOOOOOOON!

Posted by: Anatevya at September 30, 2006 09:05 AM (lFAhu)

90 Oh goodie, another one. Ahem, "Law Student," I'm unfamiliar with a single jurisdiction that distinguishes libel from defamation (except, of course, that defamation includes both slander and libel). What body of positive law could you possibly be talking about?

Posted by: Jack Roy at September 30, 2006 09:09 AM (m/Bu7)

91 Oh goodie, another one. Ahem, "Law Student," I'm unfamiliar with a single jurisdiction that distinguishes libel from defamation (except, of course, that defamation includes both slander and libel). What body of positive law could you possibly be talking about?

OH NOEZ BUTTHURT :*(((((((((

Posted by: LOL at September 30, 2006 11:35 AM (D96Dg)

92 Michelle you are a beautiful, smart, classy woman. This guy is a pig! That is not you in the swimsuit and even if it was young girls in bikinis and having fun are sluts???? He does this to get attention and he is getting it - everyone thinks he's a jerk. Michelle - my advise, do not sue. For what? Unless he is posting some truly disgusting photo or some other garbage - fugeddaboudid!

Posted by: Linda at September 30, 2006 12:45 PM (fEnUg)

93 Dear #73, #74, #76, a.k.a. kempermanx, a.k.a. misogynist asshole,

Keep it in your pants, you ADD-stricken troglodyte. Shabbat, look it up.

I screwed up by trusting Wikipedia. The page about film date imprinting states one patent number, but links to an entirely different one.

The correct patent was issued in 1977.

I failed to read the patent text before I posted my comment, thinking erroneously that Wikitards could be bothered to actually vet their own links.

My bad. Lesson learned: never trust Wikipedia; only use it as a secondary source to guide real research.

Here's the real research. A camera from 1983 had very similar style of datestamp to that shown in the Photoshopped picture, so it's feasable that cheap film cameras with LED date imprinting existed in 1992. This supports what you, Alex, and cat posted.

However, with several other pieces of evidence, Michelle and her supporters have destroyed the argument that the picture was anything but a Photoshop.

Now, kindly fuck right off, Moby.


As for a lawsuit: no. If Michelle hadn't cut these dipshits off at the knees and this had gotten published somewhere, you know, noteworthy and important, then she might have had a case. As it is, her quick, devastating response stopped the lies from metastatizing.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at September 30, 2006 03:27 PM (tnsUn)

94 I agree with you, Ace...she should sue.

Posted by: Chris Oakley at September 30, 2006 04:01 PM (EtsEc)

95

Heh Sue, thanks for the apology. 


I guess you don't understand what making a mistake and admitting it is all about. 


We love you sweetie, our questions about your posts are not  personal attacks, it is about the FACTS. You need not slash out at those who find you incorrect.  You will find out in life that you will be incorrect lots of times, so don't take it personally.. When you grow up, you will figure this out, we really are looking only for facts, not your idea of facts. And sometimes we all get it wrong, so what.  Chill out and stop the personal attacks.  It will show you are older than 12. I think you are. Prove me right. 


Posted by: kempermanx at September 30, 2006 04:16 PM (Wc54u)

96 "cock-smoking douchetool."

Damn, that is one of the funniest things I have read in eons. I am still laughing out loud.

Nick Denton is indeed a "cock-smoking douchetool."

Posted by: drjohn at September 30, 2006 04:23 PM (I1c2l)

97 "She should retaliate as bloggers do, either get nasty"

That'd be out of character.

Posted by: jpe at September 30, 2006 05:43 PM (KMl8p)

98 "The burden of proof is on the defendant in the case...it would be up them to prove the truth of their story, not up to Michelle to show it is false."

Go back to France, ya hippie. In America, the burden is on the plaintiff.

Posted by: at September 30, 2006 05:52 PM (KMl8p)

99 It would have saved them so much time if they had just posted pictures of Charmane Star, who is a dead ringer for MM.

I will not do you the discourtesy of posting a link. Those with sick minds know how to Google.

Posted by: otcconan at October 01, 2006 03:47 AM (GvZnP)

100 Pray tell, how you know about this here, Charmane Star?  You are right, it's MM's lost twin BIG sister.

Posted by: kempermanx at October 01, 2006 05:11 AM (Wc54u)

101 You need not slash out at those who find you incorrect.

I only attacked you, dumb ass, and it was because you're obviously a fucking misogynist racist lying asshole and a Moby to boot. Here's your FIRST FUCKING POST EVER on this blog:

She doesn't deny it is her [LIE]. It is listed on a Flickr site with other pictures of her in college, NINE years ago [ASSUMPTION OF LEFTIST ACCURACY]. It IS her, so no suit [LIE]. She needs a boob job for that tight little ass. yum yum [MISOGYNIST]. Probably not as hot now, after some kids [MISOGYNIST], but she has always been pretty hot. Me thinketh she thouht protest too much[ASSUMPTION OF LEFTIST ACCURACY].

You bust in here throwing around shit that's obviously stupid, slanted, and false, and then you expect some sort of respect? Fuck you, loser. Go back to sucking donkey balls.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at October 01, 2006 06:02 AM (tnsUn)

102 Sorry, I meant to say:

Go back to sucking donkey balls, Moby.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at October 01, 2006 06:04 AM (tnsUn)

103

Hey, Sue, see #25.  I apologisted when I read MM's updated post. 


Something that you seem not to understand.  When you are wrong admit it.


Is this bitchyness just you normally?   Do you have this chip on my shoulder attitude, all the time.  Have you tried Zolof?  Maybe it would tone you down a bit.  Stress is the number one cause of heart attacks.


I've been posted her for over a year, AND I hit the tip jar,  so PLEASE don't give me this new boy shit?


Have a nice day!  or as Bill Clinton would say, "Nice Tie".


Posted by: kempermanx at October 01, 2006 07:09 AM (Wc54u)

104 Hey, Sue, see #25. I apologisted when I read MM's updated post.

Your whole problem was not being wrong, per se. It was your being an asshole. A misogynist Moby asshole.

Something that you seem not to understand. When you are wrong admit it.

Oh no, I understand perfectly, so much so I did it myself. You don't seem to understand why it's bad form to bust into a thread and be an asshole.

Is this bitchyness just you normally?

Yes, particularly to assholes.

Do you have this chip on my shoulder attitude, all the time. Have you tried Zolof? Maybe it would tone you down a bit. Stress is the number one cause of heart attacks.

Maybe drugs are your thing, considering your lack of tact and brain cells. My stress relief comes from telling assholes on the Internet that they're assholes. Asshole.

I've been posted her for over a year, AND I hit the tip jar, so PLEASE don't give me this new boy shit?

Congratulations asshole, you want a cookie? As it is, my ignorance of your other posts should be a sign to you of how memorable your contributions are. Try mouthing the words "utterly forgettable." Also try not to drool while doing so.

Have a nice day! or as Bill Clinton would say, "Nice Tie".

What are you doing here?! There are donkey balls going unsucked! Quick, get out of your mother's basement and get to it!

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at October 01, 2006 07:43 AM (tnsUn)

105

Pray tell, how you know about this here, Charmane Star?  You are right, it's MM's lost twin BIG sister.


Just a link that popped up that I clicked on when I was younger and more naiive.  Actually that was long before I ever visited MM's site.


Posted by: otcconan at October 01, 2006 09:49 AM (/tuNb)

106

Hey, Sue,


God bless you, may your hate for men fester forever and you find the right womyn for yourself.  Are you on crack?  Where does this rage come from?


Clearly you have no idea about how degranded you sound.  Try smoking some dope or something, cause your hate is not getting me worked up.  Is that what bothers you?  Why don't you sit down and watch the Lifetime channel for a few weeks and then come back. Maybe one of your cats died and your are upset, I am here for you.  Nice Tie!


Posted by: kempermanx at October 01, 2006 01:07 PM (Wc54u)

107

Hey, Sue,


One more point, an insult is only an insult if you know what the insult is, so please tell me what the hell the Moby reference is, I am thinking Moby Dick which means  you know about my personal features(is that on google?), or this is some teenage reference that grown ups don't know about.  You don't have to tell me if it will get you in trouble with your parents, but I'd like to know.


Thanks, Kemp.


Posted by: kempermanx at October 01, 2006 01:26 PM (Wc54u)

108 If you give a man enough rope, he will hang himself... (looks like he's damaging his own credibility by setting out to damage Michelle's)

Posted by: lilswede at October 05, 2006 07:43 AM (Npzy6)

109 Veteran game show host Bob Barker is stepping down from hosting The Price is Right after 35 years...

Posted by: Efren Marks at November 12, 2006 01:49 AM (MMB4z)

110 Social networking site MySpace is to block users from uploading copyrighted music to its pages...

Posted by: Terence Hooker at November 12, 2006 01:23 PM (QxKL5)

111 Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

Posted by: Arthur Bliss at November 16, 2006 01:57 PM (5/2Ln)

Posted by: yujinxiang at March 25, 2009 10:41 PM (x6PsB)

113 The Microsoft Certified Systems 70-680 Exam Engineer (MCSE) certification shows clients 70-270 and employers that you are skilled in designing, implementing, and administering infrastructures for business solutions based on Microsoft 2000 MCSA Certification Windows Server and other Windows server platforms.

Posted by: hanliu at April 21, 2010 03:16 AM (kXuNL)

114 I really impressed by your post, its valuable information. Thanks, I enjoyable to read and help me more.

Posted by: used stationary bikes at July 24, 2010 08:32 PM (y1T+W)

115 I came lately to your website and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my initial comment. Keep writing, cause your posts are impressive! Doesn't it take up a lot of time to keep your blog so fascinating???

Posted by: american news at July 24, 2010 08:33 PM (y1T+W)

116 en kalitelisi burası porno gel bak
kanlı canlı bir platform porno izle keyfine bak
sikiselim diyenler burası sikiş en güzeli
dedik ne bir bakınz vipdilber kaliteliyer

Posted by: la bisaniye at January 18, 2011 03:03 PM (838hn)

117 Bless you for taking a few minutes to publish this. I understand where you are coming from on this article however , I do believe that there are more desirable solutions.

Posted by: Payday advances at June 28, 2011 07:01 AM (0Q/wF)

118 Here let me introduce to you      quality canvas art

Posted by: Quality canvas art at July 08, 2011 05:17 AM (ekdAp)

119 I got a lot in internet always!Especially to see some interesting articles,it makes me feel life is very rich

Posted by: karen millen at February 10, 2012 07:26 PM (SYrX9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
140kb generated in CPU 0.13, elapsed 1.2605 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.162 seconds, 355 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.