?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Boom-de-yadda
There were never any "good old days" — they are today, they are tomorrow
new rule: "disgruntled" is unavailable for use 
28th-May-2008 01:21 pm
owl-don't make me kill you
When I am Dictator of the Universe, I'm imposing a moratorium on use of the word "disgruntled". If you want to imply "this person's criticisms are petty, vindictive, and personally-motivated", you can jolly well come out and say so openly.

(Prompted by the White House spokesmouth's remarks about Scott McClellan's book and by several HR newsletters I've read over the past few days. Blech.)
Comments 
28th-May-2008 08:32 pm (UTC)
Yes, but "disgruntled" avoids a libel suit.
28th-May-2008 11:37 pm (UTC)
IANAL (just a poli-sci major with a focus on legal studies), but I'd be surprised if a US court were to rule that a statement like "we think Person X's complaint is vindictive and personally motivated" counts as libel. It's not any of the libel per se categories, and it would be hard to argue plausibly in 2008 that it would meet the definition of "tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others".

Besides, as the former spokesmouth McClellan is a public figure (or at bare minimum a limited public figure), and so would have to prove actual malice on the part of the person making the statement.
This page was loaded Nov 16th 2018, 2:42 pm GMT.