What follows is not legal advice, just an observation. Bill Schmalfeldt is suing people who write about him in part because of what he figures is false light. Brett Kimberlin sued under the same issues. In August 2014, he had his day in court. The following is from the transcript. The judge is addressing the issues of defamation and false light:
Brett Kimberlin had been mocked as the “Dred Pedo Kimberlin,” and had his non-profit groups connected with his previous life as a serial bomber.
Now, I didn’t do well on the LSAT (Law School entrance exam) so I never got to be a lawyer. And different judges view things differently. But assume for a moment these issues were dealt with in a similar manner in Schmalfeldt’s case.
- In both cases, the complaint is about writings directed at a mass audience about, but not to an individual.
- In both cases, the individual objects to the material, and claims their reputation has been harmed.
- Do the people being sued by Bill Schmalfeldt have a legitimate reason to believe as they do? Do they have photographic evidence?
- Has his reputation ban sullied? What was his reputation before the writings?
- Can Bill Schmalfeldt find anyone who will state that they held him in good regard, and now have a diminished opinion of him? Is that even possible?
- What activities has Bill Schmalfeldt participated in which might have caused his reputation to suffer? (I’m thinking here about writings which are still available online, comedy recordings written and produced by Bill Schmalfeldt, and statements he made on Twitter.)
- Would now be a good time for Bill to quit this madness, before everybody has been served?