The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Strangers on the Internet" Podcast Ep. 42: Dilan Esper on Joshua Wright's Defamation Lawsuit
A seasoned litigator dissects the defamation complaint that Josh made against two of his alleged victims
The 42nd episode (Apple Podcasts link here and Spotify link here) of "Strangers on the Internet" features attorney Dilan Esper.
In the fourth part of this coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations against ex-George Mason University law professor and former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright (part 1 with Prof. Christa Laser is here, part 2 with Prof. Brandy Wagstaff here, and part 3 with Aliza Shatzman here), I have a conversation with Dilan Esper, an experienced litigator in areas that include defamation law and the First Amendment. Dilan walks listeners through Josh's highly unusual defamation legal complaint against two of the women who accused Josh of misconduct, Elyse Dorsey and Angela Landry.
Dilan and I focus on some of the most controversial parts of this legal document, and Dilan explains how Josh likely fails to meet the standard to get past a defendant motion to dismiss. Dilan also shows why things will probably get even worse for Josh if he does make it past such a motion, quite possibly resulting in more damaging materials and testimony appearing during the discovery process.
Come find out why Dilan says that despite reading thousands of complaints in his career, Josh's complaint is unmatched in the extent to which it opens a window into a man's dark soul.
Note: According to a statement printed in the media by Lindsay McKasson, counsel to Joshua Wright at Binall Law Group "all allegations of sexual misconduct are false," "These false allegations are being made public after unsuccessfully demanding millions of dollars behind closed doors," and "We look forward to total vindication in court." According to a tweet by Prof. Christa Laser, "I don't appreciate that his attorney falsely suggests we are all lying (1/2 was in writing!) & want $ (this is a lie–I only want him gone)."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"opens a window into a man's dark soul"
Women have far darker souls -- trust me!
The only thing more comical than the comment itself is serial fabricator Dr. Ed saying "Trust me."
anyone who thinks women are angels compared to men is either lying or hasn't actually met very many.
Dr. Ed 2 : "Women have far darker souls — trust me!"
Crime stats suggest otherwise.
Women start the trouble, men go to prison for it.
Go on…
Is this about the cute girls in graduate school who bogarted all the perks?
Always great insights here at the Incel Gazette.
So crime stats are valid again now that we've moved from race to sex?
Exactly....
Exactly what? Sorry... I mean exactly whatabout.
leftists have spilled oceans of ink about the inaccuracy or misleading biased nature of crime stats. How are these awful biased inaccurate misleading figures suddenly 100% accurate and trustworthy now?
If you had an actual issue with the relevant stats you'd make it, rather than this lazy rhetorical dodging.
AmosArch : “leftists have spilled oceans of ink about the inaccuracy or misleading biased nature of crime stats”
We seem to be in agreement crime stats must be rigorously analyzed to prevent facile conclusions and identify primary and secondary underlying factors. On the other hand :
“A 2000 global study on homicide by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that men accounted for about 98 percent of all homicide perpetrators worldwide”
I’m not sure how far secondary factors will take you on this one, AmosArch….
Is this the Dilan Esper?
Is there another?
It’s just that for some reason the commenters (like you) seem to live in a world I live in while the people being blogged about live in another.
Anyway no offense intended!
It’s like you’ve broken the fourth wall of blogging.
Hey, he's not the first VC commenter to make the big time.
For that matter, some VC commenters have been plucked from the chorus to become legends.
The serial killer one.
Not funny.
Your record of being funny when you don't mean to be, unfunny when you do, calling things funny which aren't, and unfunny when they are, is unblemished.
It seems to that if whether a sexual relationship constituted sexual harasssment or not is not a question of fact, then people claiming to have been harassed have no right to seek judicial redress. The Due Process Clause prohibits depriving somebody of life, liberty or property based on nothing more than somebody’s non-falsifiable opinion. If whether harassment occurred or not is opinion, then harassers get impunity.
And if we accept that whether harassment occurred or not is a question of fact, then harassment claims are capable of a defamatory meaning and hence are susceptible to defamation lawsuits.
That doesn’t mean that a plaintiff will win on the merits. Indeed, a law professor who has affairs with students would seem to have something of an uphill battle to fight, given the inherent power imbalance and its potential for creating an atmosphere of coercion.
While most of us cower behind the shield of anonymity, Dilan has his picture proudly displayed here. Have to admire that, even from someone who thinks it's okay to say 'The' Talking Heads.