Wonkette

Another case study in the increasing ineffectiveness of the Small Penis Defense.

There is something hot in that photo, but it's not the two-dollar whore in the strapless dress.

Yes. More pics of Ana's rack, please!

preferably with tattoo visible, thanks

A recent case ruled that a blog is not liable for libelous comments it quotes from another blog. You guys should have hung onto that lawyer Wonkette a little longer.

But if McCain has his way, you will be liable for libelous commenters.

What's with the demure "Sodomy" tag? Whatever happened to good old fashioned "Assfucking"?

Yeah, Ana Marie Cox had better boobs than the current editors. That's the meaning of this post, right?

I want to see video of Anna on the stand. Fish an old briefcase out of the closet, cut a hole in it... you've seen enough Matlock to know what to do.

I started to read the post, but then I got distracted by that hot girl-friendly photo.

Mm, I like.

No foreskin v. Bad Skin

First all that dastardly Butterstick-hating and now you're slacking on AMC's proper title.

She is NOT "former Wonkette editor". She is Wonkette Emerita.

You Alex and Ken-come-latelys do a good job, but don't eff with our Butterstick or our Ana.

Treat them with dignity.

(Which doesn't bar future gratuitous pictures of Ana's admirable rack. The pix just have to be tasteful.)

They've got nothing on you, because it was already public when you copied it, and they've got nothing on her, as long as she didn't write anything that wasn't true.
She's not a doctor or a priest and the last I heard, there's no binding confidentiality clause between random sexual partners.
I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I see it.
Good luck!

Bah, it's not a libel suit. It's an invasion of privacy suit. Truth, recent caselaw on libel, etc., etc. -- none of that matters in this case.

None of that matters AT ALL. Just more pictures of AMC's rack from more care-free times. Last time she appeared as a talking head, there was no cleavage and her snark was clearly in check.

*sniff*

Invasion of privacy? I think my point holds. If she never made an agreement with him not to discuss their sex lives, then, well, it may be a bit over the top, I might be pissed off, too, if a former girlfriend did it (but probably only faux pissed off, any publicity is good publicity), but I doubt very much if its illegal.
Hey, its only sex, she said he likes a bit of the old spanky, spanky. How's that going to hurt the guys social life?

I would so touch Anna where she pees.

Invasion of privacy? I think my point holds. If she never made an agreement with him not to discuss their sex lives, then, well, it may be a bit over the top, I might be pissed off, too, if a former girlfriend did it (but probably only faux pissed off, any publicity is good publicity), but I doubt very much if its illegal.

Well, not really. I'm not saying that it's a good case, but you don't need agreements or any traditional confidentiality relationship (doctor, etc.) to bring a viable invasion of privacy claim.

But like Nabisco said, none of this really matters. And I certainly don't want this dull legal discussion to tarnish the simple beauty of AMC's rack.

But let's not forget

by secularliberalradicals... at 05:25 PM on 12/27/06

Reply by Email

*

Woah, a comment linking to a future comment. My head is going to explode.

From the original original complaint filed by Mr. New Age Senstive Guy:

"33. .... It is one thing to be manipulated and used by a lover, it is another thing to be cruelly exposed to the world." [As a what?] Weep.

For the cruelly exposing stuff, p. 16 - 20:
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torts/s...

Zut, alors! What this man has endured by such exposition by that poule Cutler! (Her bottom must be spanked and spanked and spanked and speanked by the law.) But worse for the plaintiff: no surprises are being left for him to show a bride on the wedding night! Sacre bleu!
************
http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/privacy...

Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts
[Facts are]:
1. true,
2. offensive to reasonable person,
3. not of concern to public, and
4. so intimate that publication outrages the public's sense of decency.
*********
Apply No. 2, 3, & 4 to Para. 30 of complaint.

FWIW:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Mike_DeWine_SenateMatch....
"[DeWine] Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record"

Who the hell knew who "RS" was until he sued?

Also, I note he didn't sue for invasion of privacy for the gossip about his sex life that were apparently spreading through the Senate the old fashioned way.

I'm with Cynica. "Assfucking" usage is down 2,487% since the new editors took the helm. Not even a Christmas-themed use this year.

Where are our standards of decency? just had to ask. Didn't we just recently drag a president through a fair amount of mud just because some cheap slut from Little Rock with a brand new set of fake tits and a bunch of expensive legal help paid for by the mellon family managed to get the Supreme Court no less to agree that she had the right to have him deposed by a grand jury? Do we remember this, or have the horrors of the Bush years burned it from our brains? This is America, people! When you fuck someone it gives you the right to haunt that person forever, lawyers in tow. That goes twice for ass-fucking.

Chiming in with another reader request for the return of "Assfucking". It's lack of use under the current editorial staff's watch is deplorable.

Oh, and more girl-on-girl pics would be nice 'cause I, like most Wonkette readers, am a proud and raging pervert. And while I certainly enjoy the above picture, whore and all, I'm not picky - let's find some dirt on Alaska's new Governor. She was a beauty queen! There's got to be something out there!