Alleged “Hot Chicks” Dismissed With Prejudice
In a striking blow for Free Speech and the validity of mocking choadscrotes and the women that love them, the case of “Alleged Hot Chicks vs. HCwDB” concluded with total vindication.
Many of you may have read about the lawsuit filed by three New Jersey women last October against a pic I used in my book, coincidentally titled Hot Chicks with Douchebags.
The case was dismissed by the judge with “prejudice” on all counts. You can read the judge’s response to the plaintiffs here.
If you’d like to see the Plaintiffs’ plain tiffs, here’s the writeup on The Smoking Gun.
If you’d like to read the always feeble Gawker’s coverage, you can do so here. Once again proving Gawker is where jaded hipster sarcasm goes to die. Hey look! Hugh Grant is at the Dean & Deluca on Spring Street! Keep up the endless whine, Gawker. Sorry you writers took the stock options, but think of the bright side. You have a place to vent about your own thrwarted dreams of getting your Brooklyn Eggers-esque hybrid docu-novel published.
But back to the case.
I’m pleased to report that the judge did not find the hot chicks to have merit in their protestations about potentially being called hot chicks, which has a backwards compliment sort of logic to it if you think about it. Nonetheless, chalk up a solid victory for the First Amendment. My unfettered right to critique the cultural hottie/douchey plague will continue, unfettered and unFederlined.
I especially enjoy the Judge’s analysis of my writing on pages 4-5, and offer him major respek for correctly spelling “douchebag” as a single word.
Justice was served.
My boobie lusting, alcoholism and rampant disgust for all things douchescrotey shall carry onward until dawn by the light of the silver moon. With dancing rhesus monkeys. And a roadie named Bart.
