• So is “litigious total idiot” defamatory?

  • The filing of the law suit itself established the truth of the remark, thus providing the defense.

  • Out of context, calling someone a “total idiot” is pretty clearly a matter of subjective opinion and therefore not actionable. In the context of this suit,, however, it seems less obvious to me because the intention seems pretty clearly to be to say that the inspector is not competent, which is arguably objective and actionable.

    I’m also surprised that the case went to the Supreme Court before someone realized that a non-lawyer owner could not represent his business. That you can’t appear pro se for your business since you and the business are distinct legal entities is very well established law, is it not?

  • My cousin had a good retort when called a moron: “I’d rather be a moron than a lesson.” (You have to say it out loud for full effect.)