Filing a defamation lawsuit is almost always a bad idea, and the usual talk with a would-be defamation plaintiff goes as follows:

Only a few people have heard the lies about you. If you sue, then the lawsuit will make the news. More people will hear those lies about you, and people aren’t always critical readers. They won’t remember that those lies were lies. They’ll only remember what they heard someone said about you.

Lawsuits also take years to complete. You are upset now. Are you really going to care about this three years from now when I’m still sending your bills?

Moreover, a lot of what people think of as defamatory is protected under the First Amendment as hyperbole. This is especially true when you’re being lied about on the Internet. If some 350-pound meth addict claims I threatened to rape her (which she did), will anyone believe her (no one did).

Defamation lawsuits cost a lot of money, take up a lot of time, and open your private life up to scrutiny. Lawsuits in general are to be avoided. I’ve never sued anyone for defamation even though people lie about me every day.

The Roosh rape hoax.

S. Jane Gari, a social justice warrrior and “journalist,” was reportedly in touch with a woman, Susan, who claimed Roosh raped her.

When I read the blog post accusing Roosh of being a rapist, I laughed out loud. As someone who has handled rape cases, I know what rape looks like. This is a rape fantasy from a no-talent writer:

Then he asked her to touch his penis. When she refused, Roosh grabbed her. Susan started crying and said, “Why are you doing this? You’re crazy.”

He laughed and overpowered her with force, saying, “All girls like this. It’s every woman’s fantasy. You don’t even know what you’re saying. You’re drunk, but I like drunk girls.”

And then, according to Susan, he raped her.

My best guess is that S. Jane Gari, the author of that 50 Shades of Boring knock-off, fabricated the story completely. If not, then she got trolled by someone who lied to her.

Roosh’s defamation lawsuit is a 1% exception to the rule.

In life we tend to think we are the exception to every rule. That is almost never true. Roosh’s case is different.

Given that defamation lawsuits are a bad idea, why was Roosh prudent to take legal action against a woman who created a rape hoax about him? Roosh is an exception.

Roosh is on the tipping point of mainstream appeal.

While Roosh’s audience will always be niche, his readership is growing. Millions of people visit his websites each month.

The media wants to stop Roosh. They tried having the man killed by lying about him. The rape hoax will be used to discredit him and his message.

How the “news” gets made.

Journalism does not exist in the West much anymore. Instead we have churnalism. Journalists churn blog posts, Reddit posts, and other online content into news stories.

Almost no journalist fact checks her stories, and journalists rarely contact the people they write about for comment.

If Roosh does not take action against this lying blogger, the Roosh rape hoax will be used by the media to label Roosh a rapist.

News stories will say:

S. Jane Gari, a journalist in South Carolina, spoke to one of Roosh’s rape victims.

We can all let stuff fall off our backs. Calling someone a rape advocate is annoying. Claiming someone is a rapist – with an actual victim – is intolerable.

Roosh’s lawyer hates defamation lawsuits.

Marc Randazza represents Roosh. for the reasons I mentioned above, and many more, Randazza hates bringing defamation lawsuits. He turns away 99% of people who want to sue for defamation.

Randazza’s involvement in this case signals that Roosh is wise to sue the woman who is lying about him.

In fact, Randazza helped win a similar defamation lawsuit in Canada. Known as the #TeamHarpy lawsuit, Randazza assisted Canadian lawyer Antonin Pribetic, who brought suit on behalf of a client who was falsely accused of being a sexual predator. Read more: #TeamHarpy: Another Ugly Story of ‘Progressive’ Vigilantism.

Public relations and leadership concerns.

Roosh is lied about daily, are as his many readers – including many of you. Roosh is not a pro-rape advocate, and Return of Kings is not a rape website.

Labelling Roosh a rape advocate isn’t defamatory under the law. Roosh can’t sue people who call him pro-rape for the same reason John Scalzi can’t sue people who call him a rapist. Calling Roosh a rape advocate is hyperbole and also based on a dishonest (but nevertheless defensible) reading of his articles. Writers have power, but that power can be turned against you. Your words can be taken out of context in ways that allow people to lie about you, but not in ways that allow you to sue.

A lot of Roosh’s fans want him to sue – to vindicate his name, to expose the epidemic of rape hoaxes in the West, and also to draw some virtual blood.

I’m one of the people who wants to see Roosh sue. Men are lied about in the meida daily, and there isn’t much you can do.

As S. Jane Gari’s blog post is a clear hoax, this is a lawsuit Roosh can win. Taking legal action against this liar is a way of demonstrating leadership.

It will be interesting to see what moves the SJWs make next.

Will they cry victim or censorship? Will they create a legal defense fun? Or will S. Jane Gari do the right thing and apologize for the rape hoax?