VD(J) Does Some Sleuthing
In his ever-viligant seach for his own name on the internet. VD(J) star of the ... ...well, nothing at all, had some clever and pithy comments about the Critic on this mornings show.Listen to it HERE ... NOTE: When I post one of these clips on Yahoo briefcase the link will send you to the folder directory. Then click on VDstupid8 to listen. This is so Yahoo can be sure to impress you with an ad or two.
I do like a man who can issue a put-down with a feather light touch. One that is so deftly said that the recipient does not even know that he has been slammed over the head with a hammer, but instead confuses it as a compliment. I am still waiting.
But it is nice to know that he is filling out the rolls of my audience nicely, thank you. I can now join the far better known list of bloggers such as the CHATTERismist-guy, DocLarry, those brain-dead morans at Missouri Radio Forums, and I am sure, many others who he never reads again, almost every day.
posted by John Stone at 6:43 AM
3 Comments:
VD(J) wants us to get off the couch. Today he ran on about how much he hates mediocrity. Perhaps he has a point. Let's get off the couch and rid our town of mediocrity by getting him replaced with a real person of quality who does more than whine!
After listening to the clip I think you might have an actionable libel claim agains VDJ.
To win a libel suit, a plaintiff must prove:
• The libel was published (when one person, in addition to the writer and the person defamed, sees or hears the material)
• The words were of and concerning the plaintiff (identification)
• The material is defamatory (any communication that holds a person up to contempt, hatred, ridicule or scorn and lowers the reputation of the individual defamed)
• The material is false (A private person plaintiff must prove falsity only if the statement is a “matter of public concern.” Otherwise, the defendant must prove it is true)
• The defendant was at fault (Private figure litigant must at least prove the broadcaster was negligent in failing to ascertain that the statement was false and defamatory)
The first element is obvious. VDJ made the statement (published) on the air and you have a recording of it.
While not specifically naming you (which he thinks covers him), VDJ clearly identifies you by stating a blogger wrote a post titled "VD(J) Threatens Two in First Ten Minutes." It is highly unlikely two separate bloggers used that exact same title for a post about the same incident.
VDJ defames you by stating that you are "huffing" something. And he must prove that this is true, you do not need to prove it is false.
Finally, unless VDJ ascertained you actually do "huff," he was negligent.
You may want to consult an attorney.
Agreed, and I have ...
Post a Comment
<< Home