If you accuse someone (not me) of having a small penis (I don't) they (not me) don't have to show that they (not me) have a large penis (like me). Just the accusation they made (to you, not me) is slander enough. But I'd gladly drop-trousers in a court.
Sigh. Reductionist thinking again. Yes, of course, if you literally say “small penis” the plaintiff would rightfully cite this history.
But it’s not meant to be taken literally, like those are magic words. You say “he failed upwards, funded by family wealth and connections, despite everyone thinking he was an idiot who could barely string a sentence together”
The point is to emphasize, even exaggerate, low-status negative qualities.
I'm sure South Park had no idea about any of this
It's pretty amazing that South Park hasn't been sued (or lost?)
I wonder if Peter Thiel took umbrage at how South Park portrayed him recently [0] and is planning Gawker v2 [1]
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/06/21/peter-thi...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfSOC6-G044
Then again, money.
> A jury in New Mexico awarded $412 million to a man who sued over what he said were unnecessary erectile dysfunction shots that decimated his penis
On the one hand, now you're famous for having a dick that doesn't work, on the other hand, $412 million.
https://amp.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article296...
If you accuse someone (not me) of having a small penis (I don't) they (not me) don't have to show that they (not me) have a large penis (like me). Just the accusation they made (to you, not me) is slander enough. But I'd gladly drop-trousers in a court.
Where are the pictures to see what exactly is the problem?
Right in the article. On Windows, use "Magnifying Lens"
Sigh. Reductionist thinking again. Yes, of course, if you literally say “small penis” the plaintiff would rightfully cite this history.
But it’s not meant to be taken literally, like those are magic words. You say “he failed upwards, funded by family wealth and connections, despite everyone thinking he was an idiot who could barely string a sentence together”
The point is to emphasize, even exaggerate, low-status negative qualities.
It isn't the size of your tort, it is how you use it.
Also, are men this easily manipulated?
Yes.
Where's @Cindy when you need her?
Yes, I see you have produced a very small (re)tort, but arguably have used it well.
Were you trying to reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48797302? Because as it is it seems like you're being snarky with Wikipedia.
I can't imagine judges would normally except this especially since it seems to be a known way to skirt law.
It's not a legal defense strategy, it's a social engineering strategy
If nobody brings forward a lawsuit in the first place, why would there be a judge?
I think the point is that you can apply it to any shameful-enough aspect of the libel/parody.