Thread by @KathrynTewson

Oh my good gracious what a terrible idea

Yes, @TheBabylonBee, what you definitely want to do to bolster your reputation is to come across as dour morons who can’t take critique

babylonbee.com/pdf/demand-let…

Here’s the full letter, in case they come to their senses and take it down

Let’s look at this claim right here. Unless I read it wrong, @TheBabylonBee is saying that it is defamatory to claim that they are a “right wing misinformation site.”

I’m thinking that they might have a stronger claim if they didn’t make it expressly clear in their site’s terms and conditions that nothing they publish is remotely reliable

babylonbee.com/terms

(They wouldn’t have a strong claim, or anything other than a pathetic one, because “misinformation” is almost certainly opinion. But while I’m not a lawyer, I am pretty sure that “no, it’s all bullshit, it’s just a different kind of bullshit than you think it is” is…not strong)

So now let’s go to “far-right,” which the Bee also seems to feel is defamatory

(It’s not. “Far-Right” is an opinion. People can, and do, disagree on what that term exactly comprises.)

Pursuant to that, let’s take a look at the Bee’s About Us page.

babylonbee.com/about

Young-Earth Christianity, the NRA, Russia, organized crime, labor-rights violations, homeschooling, the military, and “owning the libs.” Gosh, @TheBabylonBee, how could anyone possibly have reasonably come to the conclusion that your site is catering to a right-wing audience?

That was a rhetorical question, btw, @TheBabylonBee. Ordinarily I wouldn’t bother making that explicit, because it takes some of the starch out of the joke, but looking at the next part of your letter, I’m not convinced you understand “rhetorical hyperbole” that well.

Perhaps the situation with Snopes was a misunderstanding. Perhaps it was a disagreement. However, it’s indisputable that 1) there as some sort of back and forth between Snopes and the Bee and 2) the interaction was notable enough for the Bee to reference it on their About page.

It’s not defamatory to describe such a tit-for-tat spat as a feud, @TheBabylonBee. Trying to do so just makes you look like dummies.

As for the TI claims, I don’t know enough about New York law on the topic to hold forth here — for that, I would defer to @AkivaMCohen. But I’m guessing that “we have contracts and you said things we don’t like” does not precisely establish the merits of such a claim.

Last but certainly not least, this hoary cliche of the last line here takes on a bit more added hilarity when you consider New York’s brand new and quite robust anti-SLAPP law.

I wonder if that law firm has a Twitter account.

Oh well, back to my exams.