Somewhat ironic given the defendants “named” in the lawsuit, eh? Besides, the plaintiff’s veil of anonymity is made of gossamer, ragged at that, given that their names were already directly associated with Autoadmit before the suit was filed, including in the Discussion page on the Autoadmit’s entry on Wikipedia.

. . .one thing puzzles me. Could one of you lawyers explain why people call the case of Jerry Falwell suing Hustler magazine, for printing a cartoon depicting him sodomizing his mother in an outhouse, a First Amendment case? I don’t understand how the government was involved there. Hustler won, as I recall.

I’m not a lawyer, but I believe this is because lawsuits involving libel and slander do still involve the government, and thus the First Amendment, because in such suits this winner collects money from the loser through the action of the government. Such suits could be used to stifle speech if, for example, Bush were allowed to sue me for saying that he was running an illegal wiretapping program. So libel and slander still involve First Amendment issues, most strongly when the person allegedly libeled is a “public figure,” such as Bush or Falwell.

As mythago says, this does not mean you can say whatever you want. I’m pretty safe saying that Bush is running an illegal wiretapping program (whether or not he actually is at this point), but not saying that Hector B. is running an illegal meth lab, since (I assume) you are not a public figure. Nor would it be a good idea to send an e-mail to the White House stating that you plan to rape President Bush, and then claim that you’re just exercising your First Amendment rights.

What part of “common sense” leads you to believe that no judge would ever allow evidence of law firms’ hiring practices to be introduced as evidence?

No, common sense. Another thing, if [redacted - ed.] and [redacted - ed.] so feared for their safety, why didn’t they press for criminal charges of terroristic threats?

Where did they say that they feared for their safety? The legal standard of a “threat” does not require that the person being threatened live in fear.

And can you imagine the reaction from people like yourself if they had filed a criminal complaint about terroristic threats?

And you know this because your magical wishful thinking tells you so?

No, common sense. Another thing, if [redacted - ed.] and [redacted - ed.] so feared for their safety, why didn’t they press for criminal charges of terroristic threats?

How, absent a knowledge of th e facts (easily found in the complaint) can you cavalierly 1: dismiss it out of hand as frivolous (ignoring that the question in Falwell v Flynt was one which related to a public figure who had taken stands on political issues; and so was injecting himself into the arena in which his protections from ridicule, and where the standards of what is libelous are changed) and 2: assert that all judges are going to engage in a venal refusal to look at the merits of the case because it touches on some of the ugly aspects of the old boy practices of the legal profession?

Damn, but that’s some view of the world you’ve got, a combination of privilege (wherein you can be right from a position of declared, and even wilful, ignorance) and an opinion of lawyers which is at least as low as those who take Shakespeare out of context.

Actually, the terms ( conditions, weapons, point at which satisfaction was considered reached; and so no question about finish, etc.) were negotiated by the seconds. Prior to the privatisation of duels, they were mandated by law (though judicial duels were rare, and pretty much died out in the 13th century).

The terms started pretty loosely, often with everyone who was there getting into a huge street-brawl.

As time went on, and swordplay became less everyday, pistols became something of a default, and a demand for swords might be seen as an attempt to take advantage of the other party, and so be; quite strenously resisted.

Reasons for choosing one over the other (in France, where duelling persisted the longest, as a socially accpeted behaviour) ended up, in later days, as a means of separating the mere social offense, from mortal insult; because the norms moved to first blood with swords.

That, greatly, reduced the number of fatal injuries (Germany’s “korpsbruderen” were a different thing altogether, as they were social clubs for a stylised blood-sport, more like boxing than duelling, for all that they are called, “Duelling clubs” in English, but I digress), and so things which really were offensive enough to be willing to risk one’s own death over, were moved to pistol.

And a second could have lots of influence in preventing an actual fight.

de Maupassant was a fiendishly good shot. A friend of his was challenged to a duel. He wasn’t a very good shot. de Maupassant was the second, and arrange to meet the other fellow’s second, at the de Maupassant’s principle’s apartment. He arrived early, strewed a couple of his own practice targets about the table, and left.

When the other second arrived, and de Maupassant came to let him in, he saw the targets, assumed they were the principle’s, and told his guy to apologise.

*golf clap*

I’m cheering the well-deserved takedown of Althouse, but this is the comment that made me snort ginger ale through my nose.