[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
If I belt the living daylights out of OP because he is the biggest wanker on OOT, will my defence of "he is a douche" stand up in my local court? If not, then I need a new lawyer, because he told me this is true (the douche part, not whether or not it will hold up)

[/ QUOTE ]

I know its not a serious question, but here is a serious answer: No. In fact, your "defense" might make things worse depending on which jurisdiction this happens.

For example, in California we have Civil Code 51.7 called the "Ralph Act." This is essentially a freedom from violence/intimidation statute which operates to protect from hate crimes.

To state a Ralph Act claim, the violence or intimidation by threat of violence must have been committed "because of" one or more of the claimant's protected characteristics. The statute identifies those protected characteristics as "race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives [the plaintiff] to have one or more of those characteristics." The key element of this cause of action is that the use of violence or threats of violence must have motivated in part by animus towards one of the victim’s perceived protected characteristics. It has been held that the enumerated characteristics are “illustrative rather than restrictive” and such protected characteristics “represent traits, conditions, decisions, or choices fundamental to a person's identity, beliefs, and self-definition." Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 824, 842-43.

The statute authorizes a private action for actual damages, punitive damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, and attorneys' fees, for each violation.

So, because the statute is loosesly written, being a "douche" may qualify as a protected characteristic and in addition to being criminally liable, you may open yourself to additional liability in the thousands of dollars.