Long story short…
No one comes out looking good in this.
Calling her a fascist for refusing to dance to some bloggers entitled tune that she’s responsible for some of her fans being bigoted assholes is definitely asinine and self-righteous. But it sure as shit isn’t defamation.
I’ve come to the conclusion that simply ignoring scurrilous click-bait accusations from vindictive trolls isn’t the best response. The best response is to go on the rhetorical offensive and call them out for the lowlife scum they are. Suing them is simply idiotic.
To be honest the lawyer’s letter would have been fine if they’d left out all the stuff about what the site did being defamatory, the threats to sue, the demands for retractions and the incredibly weird attempt to claim confidentiality in a threat of legal proceedings.
What’s left is then a pretty nice letter setting out how and why the article is cobblers.
Would there have been any point sending it? No. But then there was no point sending the “We’ll sue your pants off” letter either. And the other one wouldn’t make your client and the lawyers look like idiotic arseholes.
The other letter can also be dealt with by your publicist rather than Messrs Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel.
Yeah, spurious defamation lawsuits are counterproductive. I don’t doubt the blogger trolling Swift was thrilled to receive such an easy pitch. You’d think someone with that much money and apparent intelligence could afford better legal counsel.
Funnily enough spurious defamation lawsuits can achieve the desired effect even if you lose.
If it tells people that you are vindictive enough and rich enough to bring claims even if you’ll lose and shows people that not retracting drags them into expensive and time-consuming lawsuits, it can work.
Spurious threats of spurious lawsuits are really just counterproductive.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.