Funny T-Shirts

Don't worry. We've got your back. Plus, there's the truth and all...

Yep. If he's willing to go through with a lawsuit, he would have to prove that he wasn't engaged in such a scheme. You could additionally file countersuit.

Personally, I'd say 'Bring it'.

Alex
You're wrong.
There, now you can sue me and recover any damages collected by GG. Don't worry, I'll get it back from someone else.

He is probably just desperate for some more attention.

Alex, maybe if you just agree that he is, indeed, a gorgeous guy, he won't need to sue...

Should we start referring to you as "The Real Defendant," Alex?

I was just reading this story again the other night! I think that certain somebody's may just be:
A) Broke due to the new economy,
B)Desperate for some more internet attention,
or
C) Looney as hell!

Take your pick!

Your article strikes me as even-handed and sticking entirely to the facts. You never state "Gorgeous Guy made all this up" or anything even remotely like that.

It'd be interesting to see if any real-life lawyer is willing to take this on. I'm betting a real lawyer would laugh so hard he'd hit his head on his desk and end up suing Gorgeous.

Besides, don't you need to HAVE character to have it defamed?

Thanks for the words of support. I suspect it was an empty threat and nothing will ever come of it. If nothing else, he'll find that the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit expired long ago.

I figure the reason he's decided to vent his frustrations on me is that the MoH comes up as one of the top links if you google his name. Thus, it ensures that the episode continues to cling to him.

However, I don't have much sympathy for people who try to use the legal system to rewrite their personal history.

"However, I don't have much sympathy for people who try to use the legal system to rewrite their personal history."

You can DO that? Man, that would have come in handy on more than a few occasions in the past.

The longest statute of limitations I could find on any form of defamation (in the US) is 3 years. Besides that, there appears to be nothing libelous in your story in the first place. In fact, you made him look pretty good in the face of the facts presented.

"Besides, don't you need to HAVE character to have it defamed?"

Yeah, what he said.

The whole thing would be laughable if not for the annoyance factor.

First, it's only defamation if it's false. Not only that, but the person who made the claim has to have either known it was false, or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth and the consequences of the claim.

Second, defamation means you injure someone's good name and public character. If you make the subject look better, or about the same, as he/she looked before, it's not defamation, whether or not it's true.

And if you don't have a good reputation to begin with, it's almost impossible for anyone to defame you.

Suppose, for example, that I say that Bernard Madoff's feet stink and he never washes his socks. Mr. Madoff is outraged and he sues me for defamation. Is he going to win the suit? Of course not! What could I possibly say about Madoff that would make him look worse than the actions of his own that he has already admitted to in court? The truth or falsehood of the claim about his socks is thus irrelevant.
The same thing would be true if I said that Charles Manson has bad taste in neckties, or that George W. Bush has an ugly dog. It's not going to hurt either of their reputations more than they have already managed to do without my help.

So, Gorgeous Guy, you're a pathetic twerp who's desperately trying to get attention by threatening frivolous lawsuits. There, I said it. Go ahead, sue me. I dare you.

Big Gary:
I have to disagree with your analysis of the defense pertaining to where a claimant is incapable of further defamation. Although I agree with you that such a defense exists, application of this defense to the facts in this situation would be incorrect. For the defense to apply, the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the claimant. You provided proper examples of where this defense would be relevant. However, as stated previously, "gorgeous guy" has been in the spotlight only briefly and the publicity surrounding him has been mixed. To say that gorgous guy's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage is foolish.

If you need further clarification of the any other torts and/or their relevant defenses, please let me know.

Law Dawg, I assume either you are representing Mr. Gorgeous or you are him.

I admit that my mention of Madoff et al was a digression from discussion of the Gorgeous Guy case. Mr. Gorgeous Guy is not in the league with Madoff, Manson, Bush, and their kind.

I've never met Mr. Gorgeous, and I don't know what people who know him think of him, but his only public reputation is as a person who went to considerable trouble, and some amount of hoaxing, just to publicize how "gorgeous" he alleges himself to be. The point I was trying to make was that Alex didn't make him look any worse than his general reputation already suggested. The more negative claims about Mr. Gorgeous had already appeared in numerous other published sources.

I still hold that my other arguments apply. The statements Alex made about Gorgeous Guy were true, or at least Alex could have reasonably concluded that they were true, and there's no real evidence that Alex's statements about him made Mr. Gorgeous's reputation any worse than it already was.

So a defamation lawsuit would probably be frivolous, and certainly would be without merit.

Big Gary,
Are you representing Alex or are Alex (using an alias)? See how groundless this assumption appears? To answer your assumption, I am not Gorgeous Guy nor am I representing him. I am simply someone that knows the law and found your comment a little misleading. As with most lawyers, legal issues leap out of most situations, whether we intended to look for them or not! I never disputed your other arguments as they are correct. If I disputed any of your other arguments, I would have raised the arguments in my first comment.

Gorgeous Guy is the Antichrist. There is absolutely no doubt in my Christian mind which I do not wish to offend but feel I must caution about. Dan Brown your close friend is absolutely right. He does exist. I would like no further discussion of this issue. Please close. Please. This discussion was wrong from the beginning. It is extremely bad luck to talk about this further.

P.S. Alex I have bought all of your books including the Hippo. You are brilliant and I love you as a writer. Please keep writing.

Gnosis 2012: See a head doctor who can help you take things a little less seriously. What does any of this have to do with Christianity? Nothing, and if you can't see that, keep your comments to yourself so the rest of us Christians don't have to keep apologizing for the nonsensical statements unhinged types like you make.