Rachel Lea Hunter Defends DR MARY ON SMEAR NET ATTACK

I have read the threads in question and offer the following comments:

1.  Whatever happened to "free speech?"  While TruBlu has a right to express his/her conclusion, free speech is a two-edged sword.  TruBlu has a right to make idiotic comments.  However, he/she must expect the consequences thereof if he/she insists on spewing forth remarks before engaging his/her brain.  The right to free speech only gives one the right to express his/her opinion, not to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater and certainly not to defame.

Dr. Johnson has a case for libel (written defamation).  I don't think Dr. Johnson is a public figure so as to trigger New York Times v. Sullivan.  Damages should be presumed, as TruBlu made no bones about impugning the good doctor's mental instability and making comments designed to further tarnish her reputation.  With a bit of energy and money, Dr. Johnson can subpoena the internet provider/server and find out TruBlu's real identity.  Should she suffer any financial loss because of this nonsense, she will certainly be well within her rights to sue TruBlu.

2. Another cause of action is one for tortious interference with contract.  Current or prospective employers reading these comments may have some reason to call into Dr. J's mental stability and decide not to hire her or to let her go.  Far-fetched, perhaps, but it can and does happen.  And in this day and time, employers are looking for any excuse not to hire.  She can sue for that too.

3. Please reveal your credentials TruBlu.  What qualifies you to diagnose psychiatric illness without ever seeing a person?  Where in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does one find wack- or whack-job?  What are the symptoms of such a disease?  Further, although I have never met her in person, I have corresponded with Dr. Johnson on numerous occasions and can discern no mental instability.  Sure, she is understandably pissed off over what was done to her.  As a person who is being given similar treatment, I can understand and appreciate that.

However, Dr. Johnson appears to be oriented to person, place and time and suffers from no hallucinations or delusions or any of the recognized symptoms accompanying a mental disorder.  On what facts do you base your medical conclusions or are you as qualified as Ed Cone to make such pronouncements?

3. Dr. Johnson has expressed her story ad nauseum to anyone who cares to review the history.  Why then is she to be threatened by a complaint to the medical board, i.e., by loss of her right to earn a living, by those who disagree with her right to speak out?  She is harming no one and is in no doctor-patient relationship with TruBlu.  Nor is she otherwise harming the public.  Why would the medical board care?

I have found that as Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "sunlight is the best disinfectant."  Expose TruBlu to sunlight.  Let his/her comments shine forth like a beacon and bear testament to the consummate idiocy espoused therein.

Rachel Lea Hunter