I Will Sue Coulter, But I Need Your Help

Editor & Publisher has an update on right-wing author, syndicated columnist and frequent Fox News guest Ann Coulter’s campaign to equate my opposition to George W. Bush with anti-Semitism:

Some highlights:

Ann Coulter, in Her New Column, Repeats Holocaust Jab At ‘NYT’ and Rall
By Dave Astor
Published: February 16, 2006 4:30 PM ET

NEW YORK—In her latest print column, Ann Coulter repeats the verbal statement that caused much discussion in the blogosphere during the past week and drew a threat by editorial cartoonist Ted Rall to take her to court.

Coulter, a Universal Press Syndicate columnist, had said last Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.: “Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times have made submissions.”

In her latest column, posted today on AnnCoulter.com, Coulter writes that 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.)”

When asked for his response, Rall told E&P today: “Now it’s slander AND libel.” He added that Coulter’s decision to repeat her remark could make his case stronger.

As E&P reported earlier today, Rall said his attorney has told him he’d have a case if he sued Ann Coulter. But the cartoonist also said he’d need to raise more funds if he’s going to take legal action.

Rall — who, like Coulter, is syndicated by Universal — said his supporters have pledged about $7,000 so far. Asked how much he would need to file a lawsuit and pursue it to the end, Rall said he’s not sure yet. The cartoonist did emphasize that if he asks pledgers to actually send money for a lawsuit, the money would go straight into an account for his attorney. Rall said he would personally not touch that account.

If he won a lawsuit against Coulter, Rall said he would give any monetary damages to a political action committee or divide the money among those who donated to fund the legal action.

Some of the e-mails Rall received during the past week accused him of “dishing it out but not being able to take it.” In response, Rall told E&P: “I’m as much a free-speech purist as it comes. But in my opinion, this is not a free-speech issue. This is about hijacking my politics and trying to equate my opposition to the Bush administration with anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism. Ann Coulter is planting the seed among millions of readers that I’m a Holocaust revisionist, which I’m not. I’m not going to tolerate that.”

Many readers take the content of Coulter’s column seriously, said Rall, even if she has claimed at times to be “joking.”

Coulter’s current column — in addition to repeating the line about Rall, “Doonesbury” creator Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times — also seems to stereotype all Muslims as violent.

Not only did Coulter slander me in front of a thousand conservatives at a speech attended by Dick Cheney in Washington (the night before his hunting accident in Texas), she put it into print in her syndicated column. Make no mistake, there is a case. But this is going to cost major bucks to pursue correctly.

Insults, vitriol and snotty comments are all part of free speech. Deliberately misrepresenting a person’s opinions in order to shut them up is not. What we’re witnessing here is no less than a return to the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy during the 1950s “Red Scare”—which shouldn’t be surprising considering that Ann Coulter wrote an entire book whose thesis was that McCarthy was a great guy who ought to be loved and respected.

If you’re as tired as I am of Republicans smearing liberals and Democrats as traitors, un-American and sympathetic to terrorism, here’s an opportunity to draw a line, to say “here’s where it stops.” I have already raised about $7,000 through my pledge drive, but unless I receive a higher level of commitment from progressives to fight this battle I will only be able to start it. As you probably know, I’m a fighter—but I fight to win. That means all the way, no matter what it takes.

So here’s the deal. I am NOT asking those who have already made pledges to promise more. What I AM asking is for those who haven’t done so to step forward. Small contributions are of course welcome. What will get us there faster will be one or two people who have the financial means to do what conservatives do for their pundits all the time: commit to the long-term legal battle that will undoubtedly ensue. If rich liberals won’t help those of us who are down in the ideological trenches, they have no one to blame but themselves for yet another defeat.

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.