I can't imagine judges would normally except this especially since it seems to be a known way to skirt law.

Sigh. Reductionist thinking again. Yes, of course, if you literally say “small penis” the plaintiff would rightfully cite this history.

But it’s not meant to be taken literally, like those are magic words. You say “he failed upwards, funded by family wealth and connections, despite everyone thinking he was an idiot who could barely string a sentence together”

The point is to emphasize, even exaggerate, low-status negative qualities.

Where are the pictures to see what exactly is the problem?

I'm sure South Park had no idea about any of this

If you accuse someone (not me) of having a small penis (I don't) they (not me) don't have to show that they (not me) have a large penis (like me). Just the accusation they made (to you, not me) is slander enough. But I'd gladly drop-trousers in a court.

Then again, money.

> A jury in New Mexico awarded $412 million to a man who sued over what he said were unnecessary erectile dysfunction shots that decimated his penis

On the one hand, now you're famous for having a dick that doesn't work, on the other hand, $412 million.

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article296...

Another day in Everything is About Mate Suppression