Roughneck Blogging is Libel

[Be forewarned, some viewers may find the subject matter and my brand of humor and speech offensive, so please do not read further, if you feel this may apply to you.  Thank you!]

I'm not exactly sure when blogging, like memoirs, became synonymous with journalism.  Maybe most people just get confused by the words -- "journaling" and "journalism" -- they do look a lot alike, their etymology is the same, and I can see as how someone outside the writing realm could mistake one for the other.  And while journaling is not journalism -- neither is memoir nor blogging -- it's important to know that a writer can commit libel in any form of writing -- fiction or non-.

This has become a really big issue lately, mainly thanks to James Frey and Oprah Winfrey.  But, as I blogged on the issue back when it happened, Winfrey was way out of line to attack Frey the way she did: memoir is not journalism -- far from it, in fact -- and the publisher is the one who decides the genre in which a book is published and how it is marketed, not the author.  And I knew that, given this climate of hostility, it was only a matter of time before it hit the blogosphere.

Now, I had no real idea that blogging was a "new" fad.  The last time I heard about blogging in "fad" terms was probably 1999... of course, the last time I heard a message board called a "bulletin board" was a few years before that (when I was a sysop), and that seems to be making a comeback as well, so what do I know?  But according to many sources, there are tens of thousands of blogs being created every minute, so I stand corrected and -- I'll assert -- that means I was like 7-8 years ahead of the curve.  I don't really buy that, but even if it's off by a few tens of thousands, I'm not worried; every networking site, tech site, portal, and search engine has a blog nowadays, and my guess is that that's where most of these blogs are being made.  A lot of these sites will fall off within the next year or two and most of the rest will remove their blogging features in about the same time (consolidating with other sites, such as Blogger, and so on), in order to make room for the next "big thing."  Further, a full 80-90% of these new bloggers will abandon their blogs after a few weeks -- just as most of them do their very accounts on half the sites across the Web.

But, before then, libel is going to become an issue.  And I'll tell you why: of the 10% of new bloggers who actually keep at it for more than a few months, 85% of them couldn't write their name in the snow; of the 15% who can, 95% of them don't know the first rule of writing, and are working on raw talent, alone; of the 5% of that 15% of the original 10%, 90% will still know nothing about the laws concerning writing.

So, statistically speaking, 100% of all blogs are potentially dangerous.

Now, before you get to crunching numbers there, Poindexter, give me a moment:

Libel is the printed form of defamation of character, and defamation of character is when you say injurious things about a person or their character which results in a loss of work, revenue, or the like.  See, it's not enough that your feelings are hurt; you have to prove that whatever was said actually caused you financial harm or setback.  And I've been flirting with it for years.

I've frequently mentioned that Jerry Springer is a whoremongering pimp who makes his money at others' expense -- but I knew that calling him an "adulterous liar" was probably crossing the line.  Of course, Springer could care less, and he hasn't a leg to stand on to begin with -- not because he's a celebrity and that makes his life fodder for my blog (another sad truth I vehemently disagree with and have spoken about at length, many times over) -- but because none of these things I've said have, or could, cause him any financial or private loss in any way!  In fact, it can only help him, given the fact that he is a whoremongering pimp who makes his money at the expense of others!

Likewise, I've said time and again over the years that it is a matter of law in most every state in the nation that you cannot be held to a contract you entered while intoxicated or under the influence of any mind-altering substance, because it is called being "under duress."  And I mention this because I've said it in reference to both the porn industry, in general, and Joe Francis -- an underhanded opportunist who has made a fortune getting drunk girls to expose themselves on video.  And I said, many, many times over, for many, many years now -- in moments of what can only be called prophetic prescience (not to be confused with common, damn sense) -- that he's far too rich to ever go down for any charge of public indecency/lewd and lascivious acts, conspiracy, racketeering, or endangerment of a minor.  (As an aside, I originally blogged this years ago after seeing a Cops episode where a woman was arrested for pouring beer on a GGW cameraman's camera -- your tax dollars at work, my friends.)

Now, why would I -- a seemingly reasonable, young blogger who doesn't yet have enough money to buy his own website or blog professionally, much less fight what would surely be a multi-million dollar lawsuit against either of two, hugely successful celebrities -- dare to say such things, much less print them for all to see, in a forum populated by many successful professionals, many of whom are certainly hundred-thousandaires, if not millionaires in their own right?

Because they aren't libel; they're the God's truth: Jerry Springer is an adulterer who made the brunt of his fortune at the expense of others' and consorts with prostitutes.  And Joe Francis got away with videotaping underage girls exposing themselves while inebriated.  I could have chosen a different tack to take and worded everything differently, but I abhor men like these and have no intentions of white-washing their ways.  Especially since this is the root cause of all evil today: we don't just have to accept that such methods of advancement are okay, and we send the wrong message to others when we do.  And neither of these assertions, as made by myself, have caused either of them the least bit of professional or personal harm -- and here's the clincher:

Even if they have, the supposed "victims" have no recourse, because they cannot prove that the allegations are false!

As I've illustrated with the included links, these assertions are all true, and are my personal opinions concerning the offensive, little men, based on neither rumor nor allegation, but actual news pieces -- and so, that clears me of libel.

Let me put it this way:

If you call me a "buttface," and someone says they don't want to work with me because they heard that I had a butt for a face, I could sue you for libel and might win -- only if I can prove that my posterior does not, in fact, rest on my shoulders (well, appearance does count in this case... Poindexter).

If I happen to look like one of those aliens from Star Trek, it's a toss-up.

But if, in fact, my cheeks are ludicrously swollen and I have a hairlip that starts at my brain...