Oh, wait. It’s some shmuck in Colorado:
FORT COLLINS, Colo.  A man accused of making unflattering online comments about his former lover and her attorney on Craigslist has been charged with two counts of criminal libel.
“It’s not a charge you see a lot of,” Larimer County District Attorney Larry Abrahamson said of the 1800s-era state law that can put people in jail for the content of their speech or writing.
Abrahamson charged J.P. Weichel, 40, of Loveland, in October over posts he allegedly made on Craigslist’s “Rants and Rave” section.
The case began when a woman told Loveland police in December 2007 about postings made about her between November and December 2007.
Court records show posts that suggested she traded sexual acts for legal services from her attorney and mentioned a visit from child services because of an injury to her child.
Police obtained search warrants for records from Web sites including Craigslist before identifying Weichel as the suspect. Weichel shares a child with the woman.
Weichel, confronted by detectives at his workplace in August, said he was “just venting,” according to court records.
No phone listing could be found for Weichel, and his attorney, Michael Liggett of Fort Collins, didn’t immediately return a message left Monday by The Associated Press.
Libel is commonly seen as a civil case. Denver attorney Steve Zansberg, who specializes in First Amendment law, said prosecutors seeking criminal libel cases could have a “chilling” effect on free speech in Colorado, particularly over the Internet.
Abrahamson wasn’t so sure. He said it is up to police departments to pursue cases.
Zansberg contends the law is outdated, is unclear about stating opinions and is written in such a way that dead people could be victims of criminal libel.
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.
I don’t mind them punishing this guy, for the irreparable harm.
In related news, Zombie Hitler sues over monorchic rumors. Even under Hitler, Germany was never a monorchy.
Speaking of which, what do you get when you cross a penis with a potato? A dictator!
I’m sensing a slippery slope here…And smell an appeal. I don’t see how the state can infringe on the right to free speech in an open internet forum…
I mean, the usual tactic is to simply declare it hate speech, thereby dispensing with that pesky first amendment…
Slander and libel are generally civil matters, and should be decided by a jury…
Last I checked it wasn’t against the law to be an asshole!
I see this and think about that case of the teenager killing herself over some online stuff, and wonder a bit about what justice really is. We aren’t there yet I don’t think, and probably never will be.
Our Sarah W. got just about as much exposure for that as Drew, cranky, because of teh equivalency.
I thought it was Himmler that was monorchic.
Oh. Oh, my:
Hitler’s genitals have long caused controversy.
Evidently I’m not getting out nearly enough.
The earth is spinning counter-clockwise, isn’t it?
“expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.â€Â
You know, I might have a libel suit against that Instaputz commenter.
It really depends on how you look at it.
But cheezit, truth is a defense in a civil libel case.
I think the criminal statute might have some natural defects.
Which way is up in space?
Nah, Dan, truth is still an absolute defense, and as a rethuglican, any insult hurled your way has the automatic defense of being true…. /sarc
That’s space-nuance.
But cheezit, truth is a defense in a civil libel case.
But is it? Now that we’re living in the O-Zone?
Lying seems to be the number-one defense of Obamaboosters.
I guess that’s a little too moveon.org in tone.
I just came from reading Niekamps account of the Joe-the-Plumber record search and dictated “explanation” she was required to write. I feel some welling disgruntlement.
Strangely, I just linked that, Sarah.
Regruntle. You deserve it.
Depends on which way your clocks spin, doesn’t it?
That way. Over there. No, not there. There.
Sort of, in that if clocks had been built to spin the other way by default, then the definition would be different. However, “clockwise” has a meaning that is independent from the existence of clocks.
Yes, I’m bored.
cranky-d – Alright, I will bite. If the term clockwise has a definition independent of the direction a clock spins, I am interested in hearing it. Truly, I am. Learning about clocks is exponentially more interesting than reading that drivel from Ron Jeremy and Spooj.
JD: Here you go.
Reading the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act would be more entertaining than SpooPoo and Pink Chablis.
JD, I guess I should have said that clockwise, as a term, no longer requires the existence of clocks. It certainly started with them.
Remember those folks that wore the huge digital Casio watches with the calculators on them?
I remember those watches. I am happy to say I did not own one.
I bet they do not know what direction is clockwise, since they were the digital kind of folks.
Remember the digital watched which required you to press a button to see the red numbers?
‘Venting’ is what you are supposed to do with your buddies after you have had a few beers.
BTW – it is Friday, and right now I am feeling very gruntled.
No armadillo, therefore not gruntled.
Beware the left hand thread!