July 5, 2026
A tiny loophole, huge comment chaos
Small Penis Rule
The legal loophole everyone’s laughing at — and lawyers say might totally flop
TLDR: The article explains a famous publishing trick: make a fictional character humiliating enough that the real person may avoid suing. Commenters mostly mocked it, arguing judges wouldn’t fall for such an obvious stunt — while others turned the whole thing into an unstoppable joke thread.
The internet has discovered one of publishing’s most wildly awkward legal folk tales: the so-called small penis rule, the idea that writers can dodge libel trouble by giving a suspiciously familiar fictional character one deeply embarrassing detail so the real person won’t dare claim it’s them. On paper, it sounds like a sneaky courtroom hack. In the comments, though, people were split between “this is absurd” and “oh, that’s obviously not how law works.” One of the strongest reactions came from readers rolling their eyes at the whole premise, with one saying judges surely wouldn’t just accept such a well-known trick to “skirt law.” In other words: nice try, novelist.
Then came the actually, let’s be serious for a second crowd. One commenter argued people are taking the phrase too literally, saying the real tactic is broader: pile on enough exaggerated or humiliating details and the target may be too embarrassed to sue, even if everyone knows who it’s about. That sparked the main drama of the thread: is this a real shield, or just a bullying tactic dressed up as clever writing? Meanwhile, the joke machine was running at full speed. One commenter immediately demanded “pictures,” another dragged South Park into it, and a third delivered the thread’s most committed bit by insisting, repeatedly, that this was definitely about “not me” while volunteering for a courtroom pants-drop. So yes, the legal theory got discussed — but the comments turned it into a full-blown snicker-fest with side-order outrage
Key Points
- •The article defines the small penis rule as an informal tactic authors use to try to reduce the risk of libel claims from fictional portrayals.
- •A 1998 New York Times article is cited as describing the rule through comments attributed to Mr. Friedman.
- •Professor Michael Conklin argues in Nebraska Law Review: Bulletin that the tactic is not an effective legal defense against defamation.
- •Conklin says the statement itself may be defamatory, may imply defamatory intent, and does not require the plaintiff to admit the trait to claim damages.
- •The article cites examples involving Michael Crichton’s novel Next and Peter James’s novel Not Dead Yet as instances associated with the rule.