This post is not a joke.
I just received the following message from Otto Penzler:
“If you don’t remove this TODAY, I will sue your ass. I have already discussed this with my lawyer who agrees it is actionable. You may find this humorous–I don’t. I do have your address and you will be served with a cease and desist order, plus a liable suit, copyright infringement suit, and some other stuff as we think of them. NOW, Mr. Champion.”
Mr. Penzler takes apparent umbrage to several recent posts that satirize and parody his New York Sun columns. To prevent any confusion, I have removed the photos of Mr. Penzler and have added a visible disclaimer that these posts are parodies for the uninitiated (which apparently includes Penzler) about a character named “Otto Peltzer,” not Penzler. Other than this, the posts, for the moment, remain unchanged.
Being Wrong by Kathryn Schulz: Being wrong, as it turns out, isn't just the other variable in a binary opposition. Indeed, the relationship between our beliefs and the vast body of knowledge is one of humanity's big problems, but, at times, one of its great virtues. This thoughtful volume outlines numerous examples of human folly, from end-of-the-world prophets to ocular misperception, and makes a strong case for becoming more transparent about human fallibility, even when the results can be quite deadly. (
The Invisible Bridge by Julie Orrigner: This sweeping epic, which has been rightly identified in some corners as a "Holocaust page turner," puts to rest any and all rumors that the historical novel is dead. Orringer's great talent for balancing fine Romantic details, a vigorous synthesis of prewar Paris and Magyar strife, and Nazi brutality demonstrates a remarkable evolution from her previous short story collection, How to Breathe Underwater, and makes this a must read. (
If I Loved You, I Would Tell You This by Robin Black: Forget Wells Tower. Robin Black's marvelous short story collection, which has been needlessly ignored by The New York Times and The Washington Post, is very much on the level: far better than anything written by that lumbering Young Turk. These subtle stories have the maturity to avoid belabored metaphors and neat conclusions, revealing numerous nuances about the human condition in its careful use of understated language. (
Some other stuff? That sounds kinky.
What’s a “liable suit”? Is it one you can depend on?
I continue to be amazed at the angry and litigious reaction of newspaper columnists and other traditional media types to obvious satire. Sad really.
Is it really any different from what Larry Flynt did with Jerry Falwell? I thought the law was pretty clear cut in this area.
And for those needing a refresher on Hustler v. Falwell:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hustler.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
Welcome to the big time!
Sounds like you still have a bit of a rat problem.
I’d never heard of Penzler until I read about him here. Out of curiousity I googled him and took a look at his writing. My first impression: maybe he should sue himself.
Well, that’s one store in Tribeca I’m not patronizing next time I’m in town.
I don’t want to have to organize a “Free Ed” campaign. I hope your “ass” has a good lawyer just in case.
Isn’t “Libel” spelled thus? Sorry for the hassle Ed.
In keeping with 17 U.S.C. § 107, the Sumpreme Court has already noted artists’ attitudes toward parodies. They found that it was unlikely that any artist would find parody a lucrative derivative market, as artists “ask for criticism, but only want praise.” (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. ’94)
Still, this situation is why I only parody dead writers. Good luck with it.
If this foolishness gets to the point of requiring a legal defense fund, I’m down for a contribution.
If somebody whose public image rested upon his status as a publishing industry luminary decided to sue a blogger for making fun of him, I would totally lap up the opportunity not to have to go looking for stories to comment upon in my blog covering the publishing industry! Nor would I be afraid to express my opinion about the matter!
If Otto Penzler had in fact spoken to an attorney, he would not be writing you himself. You would get a lawyer’s letter. (And Otto would be getting billed for $600 an hour!)
As a rule, defamation cases are difficult to win and damage awards tend to be small. It would be very unusual for an attorney to be willing to take a defamation case on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action usually exceed the total recovery.
A good attorney would tell Mr. Penzler to forget about it, as everyone else would have if only he hadn’t sent his unfortunate threatening email.
Mmmm..she’s hot.
Oh! Wait. You said Otto Penzler, not Miranda Otto.
He’s not hot at all.
>My first impression: maybe he should sue himself.
Excellent point, Finn! Thinking of one of my favorite Patrick Kavanaugh poems: maybe he should sue God:
“He had the knack of making men feel
As small as they really were
Which mean as great as God had made them.”
Richard is wise. And in the event that Otto is crazy enough to sue, I’m good for cash as well. (Really, you can trade me for cash.)
“My first impression: maybe he should sue himself.”
That would make him go blind and grow hair on his lawyer’s palms.