The Minister of Police sued the citizen because the latter considers him stupid, or, if I remember correctly, the stupidest in the entire government. Well, people often say that to each other, even more often about each other, and yet it doesn't reach the court, and why, well, because, at least I would say, that the court would be faced with a task that it cannot solve, cannot wrap it up. The citizen presented her position on the minister's stupidity to the public, and tried to explain it, well, that's why she might be brought to justice.
♣
I also have it in writing that - and only on the Internet, where there are countless other media and places over which I have no control or insight - several hundred people consider me stupid, corrupt, and even boring. Most of them signed with a pseudonym, the judicial authorities would have their hands full catching all those who insulted me, today, fortunately, there are those who disparage me by signing their full first and last name, along with a selected selfie, so that the party supervisors could see how well they fulfilled their duty. but let's say I name them all and accuse them - how would I prove in court that they were wrong about facts, logic or ethics?
How does the Minister of Police imagine a court process in which the judge opens the citizen's eyes by force of law and proves to her that she was wrong, that her intention was not Christian, and that her words were blasphemous and above all untrue? Will the court call MENSA as a court expert? "Mr. Minister, after this test you were accepted into our membership, you were placed among the first twelve of our sharpest members..."
Even a public measurement of the minister's intelligence would not be enough to convict the citizen accused of ruining her reputation and send her to a penal institution, because the court would have to compare the mental capacity of the offended party with the mental capacity of the other ministers: turned out to be incorrect claims that the Minister of Police is the stupidest in the entire Government. Although due to the protection of personal rights, we will not publish how many points the prosecutor scored on the test, he is 17% more intelligent than the Minister of Health, 24,2% than the Minister of Labor, and even 60,7% more than the member of the government whose department will remain in the court files as a state secret …”
If we think that people are not all equally stupid, then in every group someone is the brightest, someone is the slowest, so why would it be an insult to be dumber than fifteen or sixteen colleagues? Someone has to be it, it is up to the others to help him overcome the material and other difficulties.
♣
An even worse task for the court is to define reputation, to prove and measure how reputable the injured party actually is, how he gained such reputation, and how much that reputation has been damaged or even shaken by someone's misjudgment. Finally, if someone maintains, and even announces, that the police minister seems to be the stupidest in the government, is the entire government seen as a collection of lackluster minds, and the police minister is the dullest in such a society? Then why doesn't the whole government, or its Creator himself, sue the citizen?
I would defend her in court pro bono, but I have not passed the state exam, nor the other exams from the law school, and yet, I would refer to the case when the prime minister says that he has not heard anything as stupid as what the three scientific workers said about the doctorate of his, well, the minister of police: what would happen if they sued the prime minister? How would the court prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the minister certainly heard this and that, then and then, and what, again beyond any reasonable doubt, is even more stupid than what the plagiarism hunters wrote!
If he called their report more stupid than anything he had ever heard, the insulter did not claim that they constantly write so stupidly and that they are constantly and incurably stupid, but in their case. St. possibilities, he sewed something that should have hurt them, but it was over!
♣
In the vastness of the Internet, maybe ten years ago, I came across the words spoken about my insignificance by a person in a position so high that it would make your head spin if you tried to imagine that position, then she was a senior runner in a grotesque, pest party, and she said, and I mean the candle. a stranger ritual: "What does that wretch want?!"
Maybe it was already out of date by then, but even if it was fresh, how soon would my team of lawyers run to the judge? So didn't I, albeit unsuccessfully, dissuade the court from proceeding when a journalist was accused of calling church dignitaries horsemen of the Apocalypse: I held, and still hold, that the prosecutors were compared to something that does not exist in reality, and it was certainly a stylistic figure ( of which there are better figures, but a rhetorical failure or failure should not lead the author to the abyss), and with this wretch, perhaps the speaker wanted to say: "What does that poor man want?! There is no reason to bite him, and he bites better than himself, instead of looking for the causes of his permanent poverty, both spiritual, physical and material, within himself..."
Well, here I am looking for them, and I advise the court to dismiss the minister's lawsuit as risky for himself: if the outcome of the court process is not known in advance, it could turn out that the defendant was right.
