I'm pissed at myself for allowing the stress at my last job to lead to an excuse to pick up smoking again after two fucking decades.
As I think about how to wind down again towards quitting and my general lack of self control, would any smokers out there buy this? You stop 1/2 way if you want.
![Screenshot from Gemini which reads: Dear [Attorney Name or Celebrity Name],This letter responds to your recent cease and desist demand regarding an online comment in which my client referred to [Voice Actor's Name] as a "piece of shit." This statement constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as it is a non-literal, hyperbolic insult that cannot reasonably be interpreted as a statement of objective fact. Therefore, your claims of defamation or actionable tort are entirely without legal merit, and no further action will be taken.Under long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence, vulgar insults, name-calling, and generalized pejoratives do not constitute actionable defamation. To sustain a defamation claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the statement at issue asserts a provably false statement of objective fact. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) that speech is constitutionally protected if it "cannot 'reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts' about an individual."Calling an individual a "piece of shit" is a classic example of non-literal rhetorical hyperbole and a "vigorous epithet." No reasonable reader interpreting the comment in its digital context would conclude that the speaker was making a literal, biological assertion about [Voice Actor's Name]’s physical composition, nor would they interpret it as a specific accusation of criminal or professional misconduct.The Supreme Court has consistently protected similar vituperative speech under the rhetorical hyperbole doctrine. In Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n v. Bresler (1970), the Court held that characterizing a developer's negotiating tactics as "blackmail" was not defamatory because even the most careless reader would realize it was merely a vigorous epithet. Similarly, in Old Dominion Branch No. 496, National Association of Letter Carriers v. Austin (1974), the Court ruled that using the word "scab"—defined in …](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:dnrzh3u3q7pzaysrb3sas3x7/bafkreig6r6fmfjsg7yg5d2d54y3mkgpdjdmto5e4jfd62pjjp55cvugtsm)
