“In Nebraska Law Review: Bulletin, Professor Michael Conklin writes that the use of the small penis rule would be ineffective to defend against defamation lawsuits. The reasons given are that the statement that a person has a small penis can be taken as defamatory in itself; the use of the rule is effectively an admission that defamation did occur”
Not only those points, but there’s another obvious reason it couldn’t work, too.
For any libel case to be successful, the key premise is clearly to show “This person described in writing is obviously meant to be me”
Unless you are someone whose penis size is public knowledge, then describing it as big or small doesn’t contradict other identifying details because nobody knows how big it really is.
So you can safely say “I actually have an enormous penis, your honour, but the defendant, the writer, was likely unaware of this”
Oh, absolutely. My line to the court was rather dramatised for effect :)
What you’d really argue is that since your penis size is not public knowledge, then no matter whether your actual penis is big or small, the writer’s description has no bearing on the ability of the public to recognise the person being defamed as clearly you. Therefore, the accuracy or inaccuracy of the size described in writing can be simply dismissed as immaterial, with no need to inspect your pants for the truth.
But it’s not about a legal defense. It’s trying to convince the potential plaintiff not to file for fear that the public will associate them with having a small penis
Add comment