[lbo-talk] David Horowitz question

knowknot at mindspring.com knowknot at mindspring.com
Mon Feb 28 14:41:20 PST 2005


On 2/28/05, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> said:

> Why doesn't somebody sue this guy?

Here's just a partial list:

- most of what he writes is opinion, not

fact, (in the law significant senses of these

terms) and, as such, is not defamatory;

- to the extent he does make statements of fact

about others' past words/behaviors, most of what

he says as such anyway is true and, as such, is not

defamatory;

- even if there were a target of his who could

prove he lied about that person with resulting

(also: realistically provable?) damage, most of

his individual targets are "public figures" to

one degree or another and, as such, would have

to prove not just a lie and resulting damage in

fact but also "malice" and yet the latter

requirement (that he lied knowingly/deliberately

or at least with disregard for the truth that is

"reckless") at is a usually very difficult and

anyway very expensive burden, even for one who

could afford to litigate;

- except to the extent that he may welcome being

sued by some of his "celebrity" targets (he wants

and maybe even craves the attention - right?), he

tries to avoid the above alternatives by emphasizing

that he promptly will correct any errors of fact

pointed out to him, and from time to time he has

done so;

- lest there is an individual target who might be inclined

to sue nonetheless, he is comparatively very well

funded, thus able to defend, and, though, possibly, there

is a would-be plaintiff who is financially able and willing

to sue, so doing (suing effectively) would require spending

(squandering?) of many tens of thousands of dollars --

more likely, many hundreds of thousands of dollars --

just to, in effect, "get one's foot inside the courthouse

door" in the sense of actually obtaining a trial;

- he is a pissant, a toad, not worth paying attention to, much

less suing, even when (or, perhaps, especially when) he lies;

- using litigation to try to punish the expression of opinion,

or even misstatements of fact (especially when not published

by a pissant, a toad) is arguably an option to be disfavored.

> It doesn't seem like it would be too hard

> to get him for defamation of character.

What do you think are the well-founded bases this speculation?



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list