There's a kind of hush ...

I mentioned in my last post that truth is an absolute defense to libel. What does that mean in the context of Heidi's counterclaim against those involved in the Kimkins Lawsuit and Roes 1-100, which presumably means people like me who blog about it?

You can read a pretty good definition of defamation here, but what it boils down to is this -- in this country, the onus is on Heidi to prove that:

1.) What we've said about her is false, or even if not technically false, is misleading.

Well, good luck with that one, Heidi. Are you going to present proof that you DID lose 200+ lbs on your own diet, that you ARE a "diet expert" by virtue of training and experience, that your diet HAS been proven safe, that NO ONE was harmed by your diet, that those Russian Brides WERE real success stories, and that you DIDN'T lie about any of all that?

2.) That information revealed about her was not of public concern, and that a "reasonable person" would be offended by its release.

Given that her business was founded on a lie -- that she lost approximately 200 lbs in 11 months -- and that she herself has not experienced the "turbo weight loss" she claims her diet can achieve, I don't think any "reasonable person" would be offended by the release of such information. Nor, given the fact that she's running a business, information about any alleged past scams or misdeeds relating to business or financial practices. In other words -- posting pictures of her showing she's not lost weight or pointing out message board postings she's made about how she defaulted on a student loan? Not offensive. Something a reasonable person would want to know before they handed over money for an alleged "service."

3.) That even if all the above were true, which it isn't, she somehow lost money as a result or those she filed a counter-claim against directly profited from it.

The fact that Woman's World Magazine printed a retraction/apology and Consumer Affairs published a story about this, to say nothing of the television coverage of this scam by Good Morning America and The Mike and Juliet Show, among others is going to make it very, very difficult for Heidi to claim OR prove that she lost money as the result of the anti-Kimkins bloggers activities. It's newsworthy, after all, and if Heidi thinks that GMA, for example, are so desperate for stories that they'll take anyone's word at face value (like Women's World apparently did), she's sorely mistaken. I get 100-150 readers on an average day, and I imagine most anti-Kimkins bloggers get about the same -- some more, some less. How many viewers does GMA have? The Mike and Juliet show? How many people read the Consumer Affairs website?

Pathetic.

As for any profits generated from anti-Kimkins blogging -- well, I guess we're doing it wrong because no one that I know of is profiting from it. By that definition, no newspaper or television show would dare report anything, since they really do make money from it. I'll cop to "self gratification" because it is gratifying to know that you're helping to stop what you consider to be a scam. But, given that this is coupled with telling the truth, it's not actionable.

But, by all means, keep trying. Every dime you spend on this case is a dime you don't get to spend on yourself. And I have no problem with that.

Elle