There is something new under the sun: Ted Rall is offended.

Cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall has a three-word approach to subject matter: nothing is sacred. And to date, he has tackled subjects with a controversial flair, such as suggesting 9/11 widows were motivated by greed, and saying slain Army Ranger and ex-Arizona Cardinal player Pat Tillman was an “idiot” and a “sap.” Certainly he hasn’t won too many friends on the Right, and when critics protest his views, he shrugs it off as him expressing himself under the First Amendment.

Now, Rall is embroiled in a possible free speech issue involving conservative commentator Ann Coulter. In a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, on February 10th, Coulter referenced the recent contest Iran is holding for the best Holocaust cartoons, in response to the controversy surrounding the anti-Muslim cartoons appearing in a Danish newspaper. Coulter said, “Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the New York Times have made submissions.”

Given the context of the comment, Coulter was trying to be funny. But who wasn’t laughing? Ted Rall, the man whose motto is “Nothing is sacred.”

Rall issued the following statement his website on February 11, 2006:

She [Coulter] lied. I have not submitted anything to any Iranian publication. I have no intention of doing so. And I have said that in public repeatedly. Obviously, in making such a statement, Coulter crossed the line into outright libel — she intentionally stated a mistruth intended to harm my reputation. And obviously a libel suit is called for.

Since then, he has consulted with legal counsel and changed it from libel to slander, and has started accepting donations from his fans, but let me offer the following advice.

Putting Coulter’s statement in context, it was not meant as a statement of truth. It was by my reading a joke, a poor one I grant you, but a joke nonetheless. A joke by definition is not something to be taken seriously, and courts have ruled this way for years. To claim a joke is going to ruin Rall’s reputation is folly at best. Those who love Rall’s work will continue to love it. Those who hate it will continue to hate it. Those ambivalent about it will probably stay ambivalent. No jeopardy to his reputation equals no slander case.

Not to mention, Rall is considered to be a public figure. As such, the rules of slander change, introducing us to a concept called “fair comment.” In short, this means that public figures are expected to endure unflattering commentary as part of their choice to enter the public arena. Again, a joke at Rall’s expense would most likely fall into the “fair comment” category.

Finally, there are two conditions to prove slander: 1) the person writing/speaking the defamation must know the truth and choose not to tell it, and 2) there must be damage to the victim’s reputation. I’ve already laid waste to the latter, but what about the former condition?

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you Ted Rall in his own words from his blog site, dated Wednesday, February 8, 2006:

[Lindaman note: blogger name deleted for privacy] somewhat sarcastically notes:

If the Iranians are looking for: “A Few Good Holocaust Comics”. I just KNOW you’ll have a sweet submission.
You’re the only cartoonist I know of that can pull this off.you go boy!
I dunno about you but I’D take the Iranian prize money!!!
Ps. Between the Iranian reward and the Dutch uproar.you gotta be (from a creative standpoint) LOVING it!!!!

Truthfully, I never love it when people get killed in the streets. No fun, that. It’s obviously a little scary for a cartoonist to consider the potential for this sort of uproar. That said, as I’ve previously said in public, nothing is sacred. If I could think of a funny Holocaust comic, I’d draw one. So far, coming up blank. But hey, I’m only 42.

Hmmm. Let’s go back to what Rall said on his website just three days later: “I have not submitted anything to any Iranian publication. I have no intention of doing so. And I have said that in public repeatedly.”

On this point, any slander case against Coulter falls apart. After all, when Rall makes the statement that he would come up with a Holocaust comic that was funny, one could reasonably presume that Coulter may not have known Rall wouldn’t have submitted one. The timeline just doesn’t work out for him to have that strong a case.

As much as I would like to see Rall go through the trouble and expense� of filing a slander suit that would get nuked by the American Idol judges, let alone a real judge, I can’t help but think this is Ted Rall being Ted Rall. He thrives on stirring up controversy, as his body of work to date has shown. And who better to target than a conservative thorn in the sides of Rall’s pals on the left named Ann Coulter?

Although I admire his moxie for swinging for the fences, I have to question whether he can get any lumber on this fastball of jurisprudence. Judging from what I’ve seen so far, Rall will go down swinging, write or draw a scathing indictment of the judicial system, and go back into hiding until there’s another controversy to exploit.

And on a personal note, Ted, I find it odd that the man who says “Nothing is sacred” is so hyper-sensitive about Ann Coulter’s comments. If you were truly living by your standard, you would let Coulter’s comments slide off your back instead of running to a lawyer to help “restore your reputation.” What you fail to realize is that your reputation is based in large part� on the very tactics Coulter used against you. So, if you’re reading this, Ted, let me tell you that you got beaten at your own game, and you obviously can’t stand it.

I’d call you a hypocritical crybaby, but I wouldn’t want you to sue me for stating the obvious.