J.P. Weichel, 40, allegedly posted that his ex paid her attorney with sex acts.

Has she given the lawyer any money? Have they had sex? If the answers are no and yes then the lawyer is working pro-boner.

If the answers are no and yes then the lawyer is working pro-boner.

FF right outta the gate!

Spud expects that the initial war on free speech in blogworld will start with a series of libel lawsuits similar to this one.

/Course the AP "fair use" thing was the first shot over the bow.

This story reminds Spud of a story Spud read a few years back about a guy who recieved a questionaire from his recently divorced ex-wife's High School Reunion Commitee.

He filled in "Recent Activities" with "living with hubby #3 after screwing around on and ripping off hubby #2 and generally laughing all the way to the bank."

/Spud paraphrases cos the article aint at hand

High School Reunion commitee published it in their newsletter.

Biatch sued him and the HSRC too and won even more money.

Such an overly litiginous society you guys got going on there.

Be Well.

I wonder if "truth" is a defense. It sounds as if it is not in this jurisdiction.

The statute allows prosecution for speech "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or to "expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule." Criminal libel carries a punishment of up to 18 months in prison.

But here, the dead, however egregious their behavior, are transformed into sacrosanct creatures. Say nothing derogatory concerning Stalin, or Hitler, or other deceased persons as "maligning" them subjects you to criminal sanctions?

And what is the lady was banging her lawyer for representation? If true, is the man making the allegations still liable? Of course, the State Bar might consider the conduct of her lawyer unethical, if it did indeed occur.

I wonder what the relationship between the DA and the lady's accused lawyer may be. Should the DA have recused himself?

Ah, the intricacies of human relationships.

Hmm. I wonder if the abusive interchanges on blogs would support prosecutions?

He called me an asshole.
But you are "an asshole."
Ha. Ha. Doesn't matter. I've been exposed to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule because of a "natural defect" in my character. You're going to durance vile.

What is the "natural defect" that was exposed? The pleading would make an interestin read. I bet the case is dismissed as no natural defect was cited. Criminal law is interpreted, supposedly, very restrictively.

There is a threat to freedom of speech on the internet but not from Colo. It is coming from the FCC where the Chairman is trying to bring about the two tiered internet system we have been reading about.

What is the "natural defect" that was exposed?

Ummm-The fact that she turned being a whore into a verb?

I agree with Johnson at #3.

God help me.

"The statute allows prosecution for speech "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or to "expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule." Criminal libel carries a punishment of up to 18 months in prison."

This sounds like the perfect law to charge lawyers with that tear a witness down on the stand.

then the lawyer is working pro-boner.

If he paid he, on the other hand he would be a pro-boner.

Running your mouth carelessly should and does have consequences at least in some areas. In far to many other areas it is up to an individual to deal with such a concern in his/her own manner. Freedom of speech does have some limits and these truly need to be identified and penalties made available.

KBM-problem with your idea is it runs counter to providing facts to a jury. calling someone a junkie would be actionable, but the fact that a witness was strung out on heroin at the time of the incident may be of some interest to the jury.

Learn something new everyday.

Who knew there was "criminal" libel? 18 months is not an easy sentence either--if convicted.

Thought this was always a civil matter and if proven in court--then big bucks could follow.

Guess she could do both...

These folks need some serious intervention and mediation with the courts. They have a kid together.

When does the madness stop?