As Allah Pundit warns us, “I suppose you know that this means photoshop war.”
Y’know, it’s not the stupidity or the basement-dwelling worldviews on parade here that are so objectionable, it’s that the particular law they’re so ignorant about can be found in New York Times v. Sullivan, which is not only a landmark First Amendment case anone who writes in public ought to be familiar with, but also a landmark in the history of that Dr. King they express so much admiration for anytime some right-wing racism is exposed.
There are two ways we could play this, I guess. One: call a libel lawyer, point them to Alex Pareene’s earlier post about Michelle and ping-pong balls, and see if we can’t fashion a little “actual malice” from the pattern here. Or two: fire with fire. It’d be a shame to have to go that route, but this nonsense has to stop.I guess we’re in for a Photoshop apocalypse. But could AlPun come up with photos more convincing that Scott’s (see below)? Inquiring minds want to know.
I promise you this, though. If it does come to that, the shocking! new! photos! we “discover” and circulate will be a lot more convincing than that amateur-hour crap currently running on Gawker Inc.
Y’know, it’s not the stupidity or the basement-dwelling worldviews on parade here that are so objectionable, it’s that the particular law they’re so ignorant about can be found in New York Times v. Sullivan, which is not only a landmark First Amendment case anone who writes in public ought to be familiar with, but also a landmark in the history of that Dr. King they express so much admiration for anytime some right-wing racism is exposed.
First Amendment? pffft! While we were (rightly) worried about torture and Habeas Corpus and Foley bending the pages, the Congress Gops have been sawing away on the 1st Amendment too.
They’re not worried.
They’re not worried.
There are two ways we could play this, I guess. One: call a libel lawyer, point them to Alex Pareene’s earlier post about Michelle and ping-pong balls, and see if we can’t fashion a little “actual malice” from the pattern here.
Wow, does it hurt to be stupid like that? Maybe it itches, a little? Good grief.
Do they think that someone created that MM photoshop with the intent of actually fooling the world into thinking that she was a “Pundit Gone Wild?” That it would fool the average blog reader at all? That the general public’s reaction would be: “Oh my! Pretty MM is a girl gone wild?! Well! I won’t be reading HER blog anymore, and I’ll tell everyone I know to boycott her sponsors, too!”
and not: “Heh. Pretty funny, but what a bad photoshop job. I could so do better. But I like how little her head looks.”
Good thing they didn’t get a load of the YouTube Wars of 06, they’d accuse us of launching attacks on the US right from our Home Computers.
Wow, does it hurt to be stupid like that? Maybe it itches, a little? Good grief.
Do they think that someone created that MM photoshop with the intent of actually fooling the world into thinking that she was a “Pundit Gone Wild?” That it would fool the average blog reader at all? That the general public’s reaction would be: “Oh my! Pretty MM is a girl gone wild?! Well! I won’t be reading HER blog anymore, and I’ll tell everyone I know to boycott her sponsors, too!”
and not: “Heh. Pretty funny, but what a bad photoshop job. I could so do better. But I like how little her head looks.”
Good thing they didn’t get a load of the YouTube Wars of 06, they’d accuse us of launching attacks on the US right from our Home Computers.
Well, all I can say is, they know their readership. If anybody believed the photoshop, it’d be them.
Jeez, this is an obvious photoshop. I only mention it because some comments sections were actually debating this nonsense. As for lawsuits, Doghouse is right, both with Sullivan (Malkin is definitely a public figure) and the Hustler case (because it’s obviously a parody).
That picture looks a little bit like Angelfood McSpade, proportionwise. There’s someone out there who might find it hot.
No comments:
Post a Comment