Hey! I'm busy! You have to remind me I can't pack heat wherever I go in D.C.!
I also heard Andy Harris say he told his staff to remind him.— Matt Fuller (@MEPFuller) January 21, 2021
But the legal system — which, after all, is a vocation for tradesmen — does not recognize the inviolability of good reputation of society's elite. Whatever the truth of what happened on that ill-fated expedition, Mr. Johnsen faces some formidable challenges. Under the First Amendment, we all have rather free reign to state opinions on a wide variety of matters. Courts — even courts in Florida — generally find that statements of opinion are by their nature not defamatory. Courts have often found opinions like "colorful, middle-aged, paranoid schitzo" to be protected speech. See, e.g., Lampkin-Asam v. Miami Daily News, Inc., 408 So.2d 666, 667 (1981) (calling plaintiff as “almost paranoid” was expression of pure opinion entitled to absolute constitutional protection); Wetzel v. Gulf Oil Corp., 455 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1972) (calling plaintiff “nuts” and “crazy” was expression of pure opinion); Fram v. Yellow Cab Co. of Pittsburgh, 380 F.Supp. 1314 (W.D.Pa.1974) (statement that plaintiff's comments sounded “a little bit like the sort of paranoid thinking that you get from a schizophrenic” was pure opinion); DeMoya v. Walsh, 441 So.2d 1120 (1983) (calling co-worker “raving maniac” and “raving idiot” was pure opinion, not slander).
Yeah, I feel the same way sometimes. It really has nothing to do with the content of this post; I just felt like adding it here rather than overemphasizing it in a post of its own.
It's clearly time for liberals to rediscover how evil I am.— RiddanceHat (@Popehat) January 21, 2021
I won't say I'm going to enjoy it, but pic.twitter.com/4Bgg2cMspm