rightly insulted...

There is currently this case with this lawyer, I think his name starts with a N, and this judge, her name starts with a B. Well, it's about a case of how this lawyer insulted the judge by calling her, I cannot remember exactly, but I think it went something like prostitute of the ruling party.

I think in today's boardsheet, you'll find an article in which the lawyer claims that he couldn't have insulted her as it would only have been an insult if the statement were false.

It got me thinking. Can this statement be true? That it can only be an insult if the statement were false? The lawyer claimed that the definition of 'insult' from dictionary.com, a website I frequent really often, is 'to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.' The lawyer added that it must also be untrue. Although I couldn't find where in the world he had managed to convince himself that that is part of the definition.

If that definition were true, we would soon have an obsolete word in 'slander'.

Well. Back the the topic at hand. Can we insult and get away with it just because it's true? I seriously do not think so. Just because people do stupid things, doesn't give you the right to call them stupid, does it? I thought the lawyer just shot his mouth off and now he's in a tad of a tight spot. However, that doesn't mean it gives me the right to call this lawyer a loose cannon who is suffering from verbal diarrhea. I might be right, but it's still speaking insolently with contemptuous rudeness, in other words, being insulting.