ROBOTALAN FILES CRAPPY LAWSUITS

Pretend you're RobotAlan and imagine that someone has just posted an article that says "RobotAlan eats gerbils."

You, RobotAlan, do not eat gerbils. You rush to the pen and start writing, maybe a letter, maybe a lawsuit. You presumably write something like "I am not a gerbil eater." This is the easiest thing in the world for you to claim because you didn't do it.

Now suppose the accusation is something like this --

How dare they? Perhaps you're MAD about this. Perhaps you're feeling a thrill and a redness in your cheeks that you've never experienced before. Perhaps the pain of your embarrassment is almost pleasurable --

So you rush to Discord and (through your crappy law firm) send them a letter.

The letter says:

That is -- you, RobotAlan, do not necessarily eat gerbils. (Or charge for insulin.) Your employer as a matter of policy says that you may do so, or possibly are required to do so -- so there would be nothing wrong with it if you scarfed down the occasional furry morsel when others are looking. It might be obligatory. Why are you writing this? Keep typing. In conclusion, delete the article.

You hear back from their lawyer:

Consider the state of mind of a person who has received this response.

You presumably read this and think "Wow -- Theory, Talion & Partners? That sounds like at least three lawyers!" You notice the S in "partners" -- maybe four. Maybe five. Maybe you now think "Hundreds of lawyers believe that I'm eating gerbils."

(Or that their client comes by that opinion honestly based on available evidence.)

You've left yourself some wiggle room, but not much. If you want to make a "correction," you might do so by showing that the allegations are false -- that you didn't charge $15 for insulin, even though the department's policy said to.

You could also change the nature of your legal threats. For instance, you could assert that the department policy has become sentient and is retaining you as its lawyer and is a huge masochist and [by failing to describe it in the allegedly defamatory article] Wax Wing News has damaged its perverse interest in being criticized. This is only slightly less sensible than your original claims.

Or you could (apparently) ignore the content of the response and commence production of a lawsuit, which is apparently what you do. To start with, you rustle up some FACTS:

You're still not saying you didn't do it. Again, these are the facts that these exact lawyers told you would not support a defamation claim. Do you believe them? Maybe you shouldn't. But you could reasonably infer that they've been preparing for this situation and that they will make an argument based on the elements of defamation. Which are these:

You look at this. It might then be reasonably clear to you that you can't sue someone just for describing an embarrassing thing you did. You might realize your real problem is that your job requires you to do a thing that lots of people hate.

You could also complain (in some appropriate venue) about your lawyers, who have engaged in the arguably sanctionable behavior of not telling you your case is doomed.

These aren't legal remedies. These are just some of your options. (Except complaining about your lawyers -- there could be some legal remedies there.)

You don't have to take these options! Perhaps there's a bit of secret enjoyment in being believed to be a gerbil eater. Perhaps, out of a kind of coy ambition to be the rebel in society, you'd like to be perceived as someone who would put a price on insulin.

An apparent price of... $15,000?

I have no reasons to believe anything negative about Dr. RobotAlan, except the several I just mentioned.

I think he's ultimately harmless and somewhat righteous in being annoyed. If I assume not a single thing he's saying is false, and that Santa is real, then the situation he's complaining about does not appear to be his fault. Put another way, he can eat as many gerbils as he wants. What I take issue with is the fact pattern of the situation:

• A journalist posted about a situation that he found disquieting.
• What he posted was (apparently) true, or at least undisputed.
• It was (apparently) morally shocking to the public, or at least the public's reaction seems to be a significant part of why RobotAlan is upset enough to sue.
• Rather than going after the conga line of Discord denizens who are indulging his apparent desire to be humiliated, he's going after the journalists who created the conditions for his exhibition.
• In other words, he's creating the strong legal pretext for the "heckler's veto" scenario wherein unpopular speech is censored because its audience is liable to behave in inappropriate ways.
• Or appropriate ways. (What do you think insulin should cost?)

Importantly, I don't think this has a snowball's chance in hell at succeeding in a conventional legal sense. My speculation at this point is that both RobotAlan and Icarus Waxon will be made poorer without accruing any pecuniary benefit.

In the meanwhile, two vulture lawyers are eating well, and the allegations RobotAlan claims to be embarrassed by are permanently immortalized in the record.