More Lawsuit Threats and the State of Blog Law

By Loudoun Insider

It just keeps coming. I was recently informed via email that myself and others will be sued unless we treat this person with “respect and fairness”. I only keep this person’s name out of this post due to Vincent’s wishes to do so, and ask that all commenters with any guesses as to this person’s identity do so as well.Â

If this were my site entirely I would relish the opportunity to take this person on in defense of free speech. I can say whatever I want about this person as long as it is truthful or simply stated as my opinion. I have absolutely no qualms about anything I have ever written here. I believe I have been fair to everyone, and any who disagree have the ability to respond. As far as respect goes, that is earned and I have no requirement to give it to anyone I don’t respect, as it is their right to do the same to me.Â

Glenn Reynolds, the blogger known as InstaPundit, recently published an interesting article in the Washington University Law Review, that I noticed at BVBL, entitled “Libel in the Blogosphere: Some Preliminary Thoughts”. You can download a free copy of the article here. It makes for interesting reading and further cements my already well established (and multiple lawyer-informed) belief that anyone making any charges against this site are absolutely wasting their time and the courts’ time.


  • Some [redacted][redacted] and [redacted] are so [redacted] litigious.

  • Stephen G. Nichols and The Clue says:

    LI, I applaud your desire to keep the 1st Amendment alive and well, despite the attacks by some and the acquiescence of others. There is a dire need to put your heart and soul into some issues, despite the alleged (and feared) consequences. One of my favorite movies of all time had a great line and it applies to you and this fight:
    “Putney say, ‘You got to have soul.'”
    Keep up the good fight, Putney, and keep your soul in one piece in spite of the fight ahead. Remember, the posse has your back.

  • Macho Man says:

    That’ll backfire on them in so many ways it’ll be hilarious to watch. The Commonwealth is probably THE place you want something like this to move forward. The admittance of discovery after it hits the court is ASTOUNDING, and so much latitiude is given here, that those who have had their time wasted by this person may well find themselves reimbursed by the very party trying to bring it.
    This is all based on the situation where a sitting Judge would ACTUALLY allow the suit and does not dismiss it immediately as a waste of HIS time.
    Putting that out there, if you don’t have alligator skin, you’d do well to stay out of the alligator enclosure. They don’t care whether you demand that they respect you or not.
    And a huge part of public discourse is that in discussions where we will disagree, one side does not try to leapfrog over the First Amendment to shut down a particular argument. If you want to win the argument, bring actual facts, leave the stuff you made up, or just can’t prove at home, and welcome others opinions.

    With as many of the relevant facts presented to the ther side, and as fast as they overlook ANYTHING that undermines their presentation of events, I wonder about their IQs sometimes.

  • Loudoun Watcher says:

    Don’t play in traffic.

  • t says:

    [7] To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?

  • t says:

    Identify the transgressor LI.

    t will speak with him and broker a peace.

  • Anonymous says:

    IANAL, but…

    If this person is an elected official or other “public figure,” libel is going to be one tough case to make. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

    Not only must a statement about a “public figure” be proven to be false, the aggrieved party must prove that the person in question acted with “actual malice,” knowledge that the statement(s) in question were false.

    Just stating an opinion that hacks somebody off is protected under the First Amendment. To state otherwise is just racking up billable hours for no reason.

  • Common Idiot says:

    Anyone who threatens a frivolous suit like that deserves all the crap the world has to dish out, and I’m sure that such a day of reckoning will come for her (oops, did I say something I shouldn’t have?). This should be fun.

    At any rate, you can’t fault Vincent for reasonably avoiding the cost of defending such garbage not to mention the aggravation.

  • BlackOut says:

    Now now folks lets back off of the now emboldened and very vocal addition to the LCRC. New leadership should be given a chance.

    Frankly, this could be the best thing that ever happened to the LCRC.

  • James Young says:

    If “[dis]respect and [un]fairness” are all that this person has to complain about, he or she will not have much of a lawsuit.

    If “respect and fairness” are what he or she expects here, he or she has come to the wrong place.

  • t says:

    You would know Jimbo. You have needlessly insulted a fine woman who is beyond reproach.

  • Jose Kinusee says:


    You must think of yourself as some sort of ‘Yoda’!! (I mean no disrespect, Mr. Lucas, really).

  • This only points once again to the importance of keeping our identities secret.

  • Macho Man says:

    Speak fer yourself, there Joe Bud. In a former life, if you cowered in the face of adversity, they not only fired you…they fired at you!!!

  • Greg L says:

    Guest post what you want to write on BVBL. We have a collection of cease & desist letters that are becoming quite a collection, and have embarrassed quite a few into thinking twice about issues like these. Maybe we should e-bay them, sort of like Rush did.

    There’s always a venue for the truth, or opinion protected under the First Amendment. Let’s get it out there.

  • Loudoun Outsider says:

    We should all have the greatest sympathy for [REDACTED}’s spouse. He has a heavy burden indeed.

  • Ric James says:

    Hmm. If you “redact” something that was never published in the 1st place, shouldn’t that be “dact”?

    (I’ve clearly not had enough sleep…)

  • Stephen G. Nichols and The Clue says:

    “Sir, if you were my husband I’d put arsenic in your tea.”
    “Madam, if I were your husband, I’d drink it.”

    ‘Nuff said.

  • James Young says:

    Caricature “t,” what the Hell are you talking about?!?!? I have “needlessly insulted” no one. And certainly not any “fine woman” who is “beyond reproach.”

    You are probably confusing “needless[] insult[s]” with telling the truth.

    And, of course, the kind of comment you made is simply a vague, unsupported generalization.

  • Former LCRC Member says:

    That’s [dacted]ing insane!

    Big ups to Ric.

  • G.Stone says:

    You guys need to take it easy. This poor SOB went throught 12 years of school with the first name Redacted.
    What were his parents thinking ?

  • David says:

    Stone, you are having a gender confused moment.

  • shhh…

    G. Stone is trying to confuse the legal hound dogs sniffing up and down this thread looking for people not using “respect and fairness”…

    One just peed where post 27 will go.

Leave Comment