In what I can only describe as a masterful parody of herself, Meghan McCain hired lawyer to send a cease and desist letter to Leon Wolf, the Red State writer who routinely satirizes her (and before you ask, no, I still haven’t received mine). It seems the younger McCain — who is, like, totally in touch with the youth of our generation, and so is in, like, the perfectest of all positions to speak as a spokesperson for the generation of youth whom she knows would love being Republicans if only the Republicans would listen to her and the youth of our generation and become kinda Democrats (maverick!) — doesn’t quite like it when it isn’t, say, Sarah Palin, who is the object of pointed criticisms from other Republicans.

— So much so, in fact, that she wants people who criticize her bullied into silence.

A chip off the old block, this one is.

At any rate, worth looking at is Wolf’s attorney’s response letter, which schools the young and Mavericky representative of the youth of our generation (and her attorney) on, among other things, those parts of the Constitution that don’t guarantee the youth of our generation or their elder parents the right to marry same sex peoples and or/ import illegal labor to help really shore up your tamale recipe.
Here’s a taste:

[…] concerning the “Totally Meghan McCain” parodies at RedState.com. I confess that I first took the letter itself as a metatextual parody. To my surprise, on a re-reading, I discovered that you were apparently serious.

Initially, on the nominal merits of your letter: As I am sure you know, 47 U.S.C. § 230 completely immunizes any site that publishes my client’s material from Federal or State liability, insofar as such liability is based solely on the fact that such site publishes his material. This would be true even were Mr. Wolf a paid employee of that website, as explained in Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 D.D.C. 1998), which is considered one of the great pathbreaking cases in this area of the law. Your threats against the websites that publish my client’s content are completely without legal merit; your only recourse for this content would be against Mr. Wolf personally, under the black letter of Federal law.

Of course, you also have no recourse against my client individually, as his actions were clearly a parody of your client, a well-known public political figure. This activity is protected by the First Amendment from state law suits, including false light invasion of
privacy.

[…]

Of course, the subject matter of your letter is a fairly obvious parody to any person of even barely functional literacy. Thus – and your client probably didn’t tell you this – even she recognized that the posts were parodies (or “parody’s,” as she put it). At approximately 8:25 p.m. EDT on September 17th, your client posted to her Twitter feed, “I don’t care about parody’s(sic) or fake names – but falsely putting my name on someone else’s writing is illegal.” She then subsequently deleted this Tweet, presumably when someone told her that “parody’s” were constitutionally protected and it might look bad in a subsequent lawsuit if she were caught admitting in public that these posts were obvious parodies. Not to worry: My client has screenshots.

[…]

My client will not be bullied out of exercising his First Amendment right to make clear his belief that your client is a spoiled, brainless twit who is cheapening the political discourse in this country. Therefore, henceforth, the “Totally Meghan McCain” series may be found at http://pajamasmedia.com for your client’s reading pleasure.

On the off chance that your client actually files the baseless litigation you threatened in your September 23, 2011 letter, Mr. Wolf will pursue all available remedies available under any applicable anti-SLAPP statutes, State law malicious prosecution/abuse of process actions, and/or Rule 11 sanctions. Although I do not envy you the Herculean task before you, please make sure your client understands the potential consequences to her personally – in addition to those her attorney would face – for pursuing this ill-advised course of action.

On a personal and professional note, I am of the firm conviction that the world is a worse place because of unscrupulous lawyers who force people and companies to forego their legal rights simply because they don’t want to pay the fees lawyers to defend themselves – even from suits that are meritless on their face. It is particularly obnoxious when it is used as an effort to chill free speech – political speech, no less – as has become all too common in response to unflattering internet postings.

Well, then. That’s going to leave a mark on the youth of our generation, wouldn’t you say?

(thanks to Benedick)