Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You've all seen the ubiquitous internet lists of Chuck Norris "facts" and probably laughed at them. A year ago, Norris said he was flattered by them; now he's suing over them for using his name and likeness. Here's my favorite part:
Norris, who rose to fame in the 1970s and 1980s as the star of such films as "The Delta Force" and "Missing in Action," says the book's title would mislead readers into thinking the facts were true.
Only if you assume that those who read the book are as stupid as you are, Chuck.
Comments
Only if you assume that Chuck Norris fans can read books...
Posted by: Emory | December 24, 2007 9:58 AM
That was my first thought as well when I first read this.
"Chuck Norris must think people are incredibly ignorant if he thinks people that read the book will think those things are true.
"Then again, Chuck Norris is living proof that people are ignorant. After all, he's a rightwing nutjob and Christian fundamentalist.
"And he supports Mike Huckabee."
Posted by: Kevin L. | December 24, 2007 10:02 AM
Oh yeah? Well Chuck Norris is so tough, he doesn't even need a brain, and neither do his fans, or Mike Huckabee.
Have a Safe and Happy Solstice Everyone!
Posted by: J-Dog | December 24, 2007 10:27 AM
He is suing? Suing is something effete liberals do. He should just roundhouse kick that book back into the Stone Age.
Posted by: carlsonjok | December 24, 2007 10:39 AM
He'll probably prevail on the name and likeness grounds, because an Internet meme is one thing, but a for-profit book is a horse with an entirely different paint job.
However, some jokes just write themselves. From the Yahoo story, the penultimate graf in its entirety:
Posted by: Pieter B | December 24, 2007 11:16 AM
Norris has NO case. Absolutely none.
Posted by: I said so | December 24, 2007 11:45 AM
Actually, if people are led to believe the facts are true, would they not enhance Chuck's public image?
By the way, Ed, if you haven't seen the Mike Huckabee/Chuck Norris campaign commercial, it is unbelievable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8
Posted by: FishyFred | December 24, 2007 2:16 PM
I noticed the book on the weekend and was mildly amused.
Yesterday I read the Reuters article on this which had me fits - "Chuck Norris sues, says his tears no cure for cancer"
No? Really?
Posted by: Nuytsia | December 24, 2007 7:44 PM
I remember Nuck Chorris. He once threw a fist or a foot into the camera, causing me to reflexively flinch from an illusionary threat. I'll never get over it.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 24, 2007 7:45 PM
"Have a Safe and Happy Solstice Everyone!"
You are a little early aren't you? I guess it not too bad if you are talking about Summer Solstice.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | December 24, 2007 8:39 PM
"Chuck Norris doesn't sue people, he..." oh, wait. I guess he DOES sue people. My bad.
Posted by: dnf | December 25, 2007 7:41 AM
Chuck Norris is so pissed off, he's going to rip his own head right off
Posted by: Richard | December 25, 2007 8:13 PM
It looks like he embraced these "facts" not too long ago on national TV. Here he is sharing the fun on a sports show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8QAeoFdM5g&feature=related
If he was fine with the same content before... that hurts his lawsuit, doesn't it?
Posted by: Jonathan Krivitzky | December 25, 2007 11:45 PM
Well, I'll go out on a limb and say that I think his response is perfectly consistent. Because having these "facts" passed around the Internet may be flattering, but having a book of them published -- without him getting a royalty -- looks like trademark infringement. And the bit about "misleading" seems to be standard wording in a trademark case.
But I think he'll lose, on the grounds that it's a fair use parody.
Posted by: Nemo | December 26, 2007 1:11 AM
He claims he's careful about the use of his name, but
1. He's endorsed Huckabee; and
2. He's endorsed the Constitution-hating Bible curriculum of the far right wing nutjobs, opposed to the Bible Literacy Project's Constitutionally sound curriculum.
I predict summary judgment for the defendants.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 26, 2007 2:16 AM
It sounds as though the basis for the suit is the so-called "right of publicity" (which is similar to trademark, but not exactly). But to prevail, he would have to show that he guarded the "right to publicity" fairly jealously over a number of years. I doubt that he can do that. And it is likely that parody (which a joke book basically is) would be exempt from that right.
Posted by: raj | December 26, 2007 8:15 AM
Hey, I respect Chuck for his abilities as a martial artist and athlete, and to a significantly lesser extent, his abilities as an actor, but because of this suit and other recent garbage spewing out of him, my respect of his opinions outside of those areas has pretty much disappeared.
Posted by: Dangerous Dan | December 28, 2007 1:24 PM
Gettin a little sensitive isn't he. More Chuck Norris jokes: http://chucknorrisjokesblog.blogspot.com
Posted by: Simmons | March 15, 2008 10:40 AM