chsw

It is they way the choose to operate, and it diminishes them in the eyes of anyone who is not a rabid supporter of theirs.

Michelle is a public figure and NY Times v. Sullivan (1964) makes it nearly impossible to sue for defamation over this.

However, wonkette.com (at IP address 209.11.51.41) has an internet service provider — Globix Corporation [globix.net], 139 Centre Street, New York, NY, 10013,(212) 334-8500.

And I notice that Wonkette gets their Domain Name Service from markmonitor.com of Boise, ID, who appear to have terms and conditions that restrict this kind of behavior (as I read them).

Now I don’t know, but perhaps a sharply worded complaint to both of them, from Michelle’s attorney expressing concern over Nick Denton’s (he’s kinja.com, the blog provider) use of their equipment and networks to knowingly defame her and her trademark and how unhappy she is, might convey the point to wonkette.com and others that this time they might have crossed the line into violation of their terms and conditions for an internet connection by publishing these FAKE photoshoped pictures of her.

This attack, and the previous ones, materially diminish the value of her trademark, not just her personally. She has the right to protect this trademark, irrespective of her status as a public figure, and to call on Globix and marketmonitor for assistance.

That’s my (admittedly) ignorant 2 cents worth of advice.

Anyone associated with her is game, too. I got some hate mail and comments last year.

Who’s doing this again? Why, exactly? Man, these people havae issues.

MM post a real of yourself next to the frig.

Then have your lawyer earn a big payday.

was that first song an old Steve Taylor one?

It’s almost too pathetic to post a response, but the Wonkette benchwarmers really have no clue about weblogs, photoshops, or criticism — and their latest attack on Michelle Malkin exposes them as wanna-bes. Michelle penned a cultural critique about t…

Here is the real thing for ‘too old and saggy for slutty’; click on the ‘enlarge’ button to get the real picture. Never heard much about this from the Left.

Despicable.

Rock on, Gang. But don’t get too caught up with creeps like this. Smack ‘em down and move on.

Wonkette is 95% of the way to Australia

Perv that I am, I’d pay good money for a nice, real autographed ‘cheescake’ photo of the lovely Mrs. Malkin; nonetheless I’m insulted by this lousy fake and their fake outrage too.

If Michelle was an “ignoant slut” as they call her, they would love her. The fact that she is well informed, brilliantly intelligent and has a strong sense of morality is precisely why they hate her.

You dont have to even know photoshop to know that the photo is fake. The woman is standing next to refridgerator and is obviously 5’6″ and up. and Michelle’s head is so tiny it is ridiculous. I haven’t even seen Michelle in person but it is clear that she is short and certainly not the giant in that fake photo.

I wish I looked that good in a bikini)

Don’t kid yourself, Michelle. YOU LOOK GREAT IN A BIKINI!!!!

To create fauxtographs of you to discredit your writings just demonstrates how desparate they are.

A woman in a bikini, topless, or naked at the beach or at her home DOES NOT make her “slutty.”

Indeed, I do not recall the liberals getting offended when a celebrity’s boob pops out of an incredibly sheer, 2 inch evening gown during a formal affair or during a movie premier. Oh, I forgot, double standards are justified. Silly me.

slut 
–noun 1. a dirty, slovenly woman.
2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute

We know that doesn’t apply to Mrs Malkin.

Webster law dictionary of actual malice:
1 : malice proved by evidence to exist or have existed in one that inflicts unjustified harm on another: as a : an intent to injure or kill b : MALICE 2 called also express malice malice in fact
2 a : the knowledge that defamatory statements esp. regarding a public figure are false b : RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE TRUTH —see also PUBLIC FIGURE New York Times Company v. Sullivan in the IMPORTANT CASES section

#2 seems to cover it.

But, guys being a leader in the blogosphere puts a target on you. Those loving Liberals can’t control their “free thinking” minds.

Like on old song use to say “Well you throw your hat in the bull ring before you know know know it’s a personal thing”
or another
“Jesus told us men would hate us but we must be of good cheer!”
More Power to Ya!

It is also interesting to see how they are trying to call her “slutty”. Even if this were a real photo, what would be slutty about it? A picture of a woman in a bikini, yeah, that’s offensive, avoid the beaches. Yes, Michelle Malkin is an incredibly attractive woman, and if she showed up in a bikini to one of her lectures, I can imagine some people getting a little riled up. But are we really supposed to believe that liberals are actually offended by a picture of a college-aged woman in a swimsuit, or is it just their unhinged (had to use it) anger towards Michelle? I think we all agree that it is the second, not the first, question that rings in the affirmative.