Coulter Ups the Ante, Repeats anti-Semitic Smear in Print

Coulter may be able to laugh away her speech to the CPAC last week as “just a joke,” though I say it’s slander. (And so does my lawyer!) Now she’s compounded her assault on my reputation by putting into print. In this week’s syndicated Ann Coulter column, she specifically smears me as some sort of neo-Nazi Holocaust revisionist type:

The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)

I have a call into my lawyer about this, but this is clearly a case of libel added to her previous slander.

As stated previously, I will sue her if I can raise sufficient funds. If some of the big liberal blogs see fit to publicize this effort, I may have a chance. If not, look for even more right-wing smears on the integrity of those of us who oppose the Bush Administration and its policies.

Rall v. Coulter? It’s an Expensive, But Viable, Proposition

My very experienced attorney tells me that Coulter’s vile smear about me at last week’s CPAC confab amounts to a good news/bad news proposition, legally speaking.

First, the good news: He believes there is a viable cause of action against Coulter for slander. What she said fits the traditional profile for slander: She probably knew it to be untrue and that it could harm my business by injuring my reputation. In addition there is a body of case law that includes impugning a person’s patriotism and loyalty to their country as slander. True, we could lose. But there’s a good chance of winning.

Now, the bad news: As a best-selling author, she is richer than me. Moreover, as a conservative she can draw upon well-heeled ideological allies to finance her legal defense. (Sadly, many wealthy liberals prefer to sit on their hands than defend their own against smears.) She would undoubtedly find representation with a high-powered First Amendment firm to defend her.

I could, of course, simply use the $6,000 I’ve raised so far through my pledge drive (thanks, everyone—you’re the best!) to pay for the initial filing of a lawsuit. The problem is what happens next. As months of depositions and discovery drag into years, even people who initially supported legal action tend to move on, to become less interested in helping to support such a case, especially as it fades from the headlines. Without continued public support I simply couldn’t afford to keep making the necessary motions and filings, and would have to drop the suit.

Once I commit to a fight, I’m determined to see it through to its conclusion. So I’m not giving up my idea of pursuing legal action for the time being. What I need, quite frankly, is enough money pledged up front—and, if and when I file, paid directly to my attorneys—to ensure that this case can be brought to trial.

Some conservatives have asked why I don’t use my own money to pay for this case. If I could, I would. But you’d be amazed how poorly cartooning and writing pays! I don’t have that kind of cash. As you know, however, I am always willing to bear the brunt of the assault from the right-wing attack machine. I’m willing to stand up for what’s right no matter what they say or do. So it’s not like I won’t be paying for anything. If this case moves ahead, I’ll be the one sitting through court dates and being deposed and forking over my personal correspondence and being treated like dirt by right-wing commentators. Anyone who has fought a legal battle knows how ugly this can get.

So that’s where things stand. Whether or not this proxy battle for the soul of America takes place depends on the generosity of the American people and the depth of their contempt for neo-McCarthyite smear tactics against progressives. Please pledge today at chet@rall.com.

Ann Coulter Lies; You Decide: Should I Sue?

Republican columnist Ann Coulter spoke earlier today to the Conservative Political Action Committee, where the audience included 1000 right-wingers including Vice President Dick Cheney. There, among other things, she is reported to have said the following:

“Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions.”

She lied. I have not submitted anything to any Iranian publication. I have no intention of doing so. And I have said that in public, repeatedly.

Obviously, in making such a statement, Coulter crossed the line into outright libel–she intentionally stated a mistruth intended to harm my reputation. And obviously a libel suit is called for. Problem is, it costs many thousands of dollars to file such a case, much less pursue it through the courts. (I know this from personal experience.)

So what do you, dear readers, think I should do? Should I do what no liberal has been willing to do as of yet–hold a lying neoconservative to task for smearing them? I’ll do it with your support–but I need your help to decide. Thus I hereby I announce

THE FIRST ANNUAL ANN COULTER LAWSUIT OPINION POLL

To vote NO, simply email chet@rall.com with a message telling me that you vote no. Feel free to impugn my patriotism if you feel so moved.

To vote YES, please email chet@rall.com along with a solemn pledge stating the amount of financial support you are willing to contribute to support my legal challenge to Coulter’s libelous statement.

If enough YES votes come in with enough serious pledges, I’ll see Ann in court. If not, well, chalk up another victory for the Right.

UPDATE (Sat. 11:45 AM EST): Votes are currently running 3-to-1 in FAVOR of suing Ann Coulter. And people are putting their money where their mouths are! Pledges already total more than $1500; since it costs about $6000 to draft and file a libel lawsuit in New York, where both she and I live, we’re a quarter of the way to having enough to get the ball rolling. If that number continues to rise, I’ll be in touch with the pledgers about putting their contributions into my lawyer’s escrow PayPal account and start things going.

Some have asked whether she’ll be able to use the “just funnin'” defense. She’ll certainly try, but I doubt her claims of “humor” or sarcasm will fly with a jury since (a) she’s not funny and (b) her audiences take her literally and she knows it. But this will all depend on my attorneys, a team with expertise in libel law. If the pledges keep coming, I’ll know whether it’s even financially feasible to proceed. Of course, I could sue and lose. But, as emailers have remarked variously: (a) it’d be amusing nevertheless and (b) would finally hold her accountable for her over-the-top libelous statements about Americans with more patriotism than they could ever dream of.

UPDATE 2 (Sun. 4:30 EST): Votes and pledges continue to come in roughly the same proportion as yesterday. So far pledges amount to about $2700 and most votes are positive. If we come close to the magic $6000 by tomorrow (Monday) I will meet with my attorney to discuss what to do. Bear in mind, of course, that it can cost more than $100,000 to actually *pursue* such a suit over the years. $6000 only gets a suit drafted and filed. And, of course, there’s no guarantee of winning. Some readers have (rightly) pointed out that this will be a difficult case. I’ll know more once my lawyer’s offices open for business tomorrow morning. I pledge, by the way, that any net proceeds from a settlement or final judgement (minus attorney’s fees, natch) will be donated to a political organization chosen by those who front my legal fees.

A lot of people want to see Coulter held to account for her disgusting statements, and that’s gratifying. It may be an “honor” to be considered influential enough to be referenced at a national gathering of right-wingers but being smeared as some sort of treasonous Holocaust denier is sickening. These are the kinds of statements that prompt Republican bloggers to casually claim that I’m anti-Semitic (!) when nothing could be further from the truth. As a student of history who specialized in World War II I am not only completely aware of the monstrous scale and unique place of the Holocaust in modern history but terrified that genocide could happen again–if ideologues like Coulter manage to seize the complete power they crave. Call me straight, call me gay, call me an asshole, but if you call me a Holocaust revisionist I won’t take it lying down.

UPDATE 3 (Mon., 4:30 PM EST): My lawyer is out of the office today, presumably digging out of the blizzard, but is expected in the office tomorrow morning. I’ll talk to him then and post the replies there. If pledges continue to come in at the present rate, we should hit the $6000 mark sometime late tonight. Thanks to all who have written to offer support, as well as those who say “don’t do it, it’ll only make you look like a liberal girlie-man”—seriously, all advice is appreciated. Even the negatives. I have received so many “Sue Coulter” emails that I’m beginning to think Sue is her first name. Whether I choose to move forward will depend on the pledges as well as my lawyer’s opinion. If he says there’s a solid case, looks like a go. If not, nope.

UPDATE 4 (Tues., 1:20 PM EST): My lawyer is researching precedents to determine whether a case would be legally feasible. In the meantime, I’m declaring the First Ann Coulter Lawsuit Opinion Poll over. Despite votes generated yesterday by right-wing blogs (which, unlike the Florida elections officials, I counted) votes were overwhelmingly in favor of pursuing a suit. Pledges continue to be welcomed, but the vote is final. I will be in touch with pledgers to let them know whether or not we’re moving forward.

UPDATE 5 (Wed., 10:00 AM EST): The law is mighty but not all that swift–because legal research is slow. I’m still awaiting word on whether the case law favors the filing of a suit because, after all, there’s no point fighting a battle one is destined to lose. You’ll know what I’m doing as soon as I do. Meanwhile, the predictable flow of emails from (male) right-wingers calling for me to be anally raped has commenced. Why do right-wingers want to rape Americans so much?

“Transfer Tube”

That’s the new Bush Administration euphemism for “body bag.” Really.

(From someone who found out the hardest way possible.)

That Iranian Cartoon Contest

GOR P.J. somewhat sarcastically notes:
If the Iranians are looking for : “A Few Good Holocaust Comics”, I just KNOW you’ll have a sweet submission.
You’re the only cartoonist I know that can pull this one off…you go boy!
I dunno about you but I’D take Iranian prize money!!!
Ps. Between the Iranian reward and the Dutch uproar…you gotta be (from a creative standpoint) LOVING it!!!!

Truthfully, I never love it when people get killed in the streets. No fun, that. It’s obviously a little scary for a cartoonist to consider the potential for this sort of uproar. That said, as I’ve previously said in public, nothing is sacred. If I could think of a funny Holocaust comic, I’d draw one. So far, coming up blank. But hey, I’m only 42.

Hannity & Colmes Postscript

Caveat dessinator.

I’ve appeared on many television programs, including on Fox, and have made deals with producers prior to appearing. Before my appearance on “Hannity & Colmes” tonight, I negotiated the following terms:

1. No mention whatsoever of my cartoons, current or previous, or my work in general. I’m just there to discuss Tom Toles’ cartoon and the Danish Mohammed cartoon series.

2. Mention my radio show.

3. Show images of my book.

I know they did 3. They may have done 2. Number 1, on the other hand, they lied about. Halfway through the discussion, after only having discussed Toles (no Mohammed), Hannity began his simpleminded “you have no heart, you have no soul” routine while displaying a fuzzy version of my Pat Tillman cartoon. Boy, did I ever feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football while Lucy held it.

I certainly lit into Hannity, but that’s not the point. The point is, if you go onto that show, you cannot trust their producer. If they tell you you’re there to discuss a cartoon, they may ambush you with anything and anyone they want. Just as a fellow cartoonist warned me about Katie Couric’s ambushing tendencies–I refused her show’s invitation because of this–I’m warning you now.

“Hannity & Colmes” is much worse than a right-wing shoutfest for and by idiots (yes, including me). It is run by unprofessional liars.

P.S. The producer who made these promises, perhaps because he was a college classmate of mine, apologized for ten minutes after the show, saying he was shocked when he saw the Pat Tillman cartoon queued up on the control board because he had been specifically told that it wouldn’t be there. “Be prepared for a very angry guest,” he told the technicians. He was partly trying to diffuse responsibility, but there was likely some truth to his story.

Anyway, consider yourself warned.

Ted Rall Show Time Adjustment

This week’s show will air from 10 am to 12 noon West Coast time on 106.9 FM San Francisco, 1069free.com for livestreaming. Guests include Anya Kamewitz, who writes about the difficulties of making it as a Gen X or Y in the current American job market.

Ted Rall Returns to “Hannity & Colmes”

Last night’s appearance on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC show went awry when my limo appeared late. The driver attempted valiantly to get me to the studio on time, but alas—despite setting a new land-speed record—only managed to get me there in time to watch the end of “my” segment on Tom Toles’ controversial Washington Post cartoon on the monitor.

Tonight, however, I’ll be at Fox with plenty of time to spare, appearing on “Hannity & Colmes” to discuss both Toles’ piece and the Danish cartoons about Mohammed that sparked outrage in the Arab world. Tune in at 9 pm EST.

MSNBC, 10 pm EST

I’m booked on “Scarborough Country” to discuss the Tom Toles controversy tonight.

That Danish Cartoon Controversy

John is one of many readers who somehow felt I might have something to say about this:

I’m a weekly reader of your column and cartoon and I’m a fan of most of your writing. I just wanted to see what your opinion is of the recent blurbs about the Danish newspaper apologizing and the near unanimous backpedaling by EU members regarding backlash to the 12 editorial cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. I tred several cursory internet searches and couldn’t find heads or tails of the cartoons and was actually both surprised and impressed with the immediate and violent protest to this seemingly innocuous set of drawings. I think the difficulty to my internalization of this is the relative lack of sensitivity that I have as an American or westerner for outrage over symbols. Especially this level of outrage. Where does the difference in culture come from and if I can’t grasp that, how does an occupying army of 19 year olds grasp that? It seems that a set of 12 images on paper sparked a more violent protest than US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and in a much shorter time frame. The US government doesn’t even understand the culture of predominantly Islamic nations, let alone a reason for their own military actions.

I’m willing to bet that not a single major news outlet and possibly not even any blogs will dare to reprint those 12 cartoons today. That is fascinating and I can not grasp a single parallel in the US.

My first reaction is disgust. Why did the Danes apologize? They ought to have stood behind their cartoonist. And even if the cartoons were offensive to the point that they crossed the line (an impossibility as far as I’m concerned, but then I make my living because of freedom of the press), the editors who published them is wholly to blame. Artists create; editors censor. Once an editor signs off on a cartoon, it becomes his or her responsibility.

Sadly too few American editors seem to grasp that. They fire the cartoonist when it’s the editor who should step down.

I’m also disgusted at American newspapers who did not reprint the cartoons, if only to show their readers what the big fuss was about. How can readers judge a graphic without seeing it? I too have been victimized by this practice. My “cartoon FDNY 2011, about the firefighters after 9/11, was not nearly as offensive to actually see than it was to read about in brief excerpts.

More disgust: Why don’t press accounts reference the cartoonist’s name? They’re not “Danish magazine cartoons,” they’re cartoons by a Danish cartoonist that ran in a magazine. You see the same forced anonymity here, e.g., “a New Yorker cartoon shows a man…” There ARE no New Yorker cartoons. There are cartoons that appear in the New Yorker. It’s gross that word guys are so determined to turn cartoonists into non-persons. At least this guy might get a little PR out of this mess.

Even more disgust: Why are so many right-wing newspapers like France Soir and right-wing blogs up in arms over this act of censorship? Because it’s a chance to attack Muslims! Where were these advocates for free speech when I was dropped by newspapers like the New York Times because of my anti-Bush politics? Screaming for my head. Bunch of fucking hypocrites; they only favor free speech when they agree with it.

Which is why I refuse to join the media pile-on against the would-be anti-Danish censors: I don’t do media pile-ons, thank you. I don’t think those cartoons were particularly useful or even accurate depictions of Islam, yet I do think there’s nothing wrong with publishing them. But I’m not going to join the hounds posting them on my blog in order to seem all pseudo-brave and shit.