A revived Fairness Doctrine might just do it (Brian Anderson & Adam Thierer, New Criterion, Sept.)(h/t Erin C. on Facebook).

Investigative journalism by the TV networks has been in decline, per Broadcasting & Cable, and the networks’ general enfeeblement is only one reason: targets of hostile journalism are now more apt to sic their lawyers on news operations. What gets chilled is not just the shoddy litigation-sourced reportage typified by the NBC “Dateline”-GM trucks scandal, but also more aboveboard and defensible coverage of business failings:

In 2003, “A Dangerous Business,” a [PBS "Frontline"] report examining the water and sewer pipe industry in Texas, kicked off a four-year legal battle. Reported by Bergman and accompanied by a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times series, the report detailed egregious workplace safety violations that caused systemic maiming and, in several cases, gruesome deaths of workers.

“That was a great drain and if it wasn’t for The Times, I fear that we might have been in a position where our insurance company would have said, why don’t we just settle this?” says Frontline executive producer David Fanning.

A Texas judge dismissed the suit last year. But Fanning and Bergman are now working to establish a pro-bono team of lawyers to help insulate Frontline from legal threats.

“It’s not that we’re not careful,” Fanning adds. “It’s a question of what it does to you the next time round. Do you find yourself pulling back? Do you find yourself looking over your shoulder?”

(Marisa Guthrie, “Investigative Journalism Under Fire”, Jun. 22).

Aaron Ferguson, who used to work as an accountant for the popular cooking show, says executives there made caustic comments about the skinny physique of the show’s executive in charge. These comments apparently wounded and offended Ferguson, who says that he himself suffers from the eating disorder anorexia. There’s a retaliation claim, too: Ferguson says that after he went to HR to complain, his boss began to treat him badly. (”Rachael Ray Employee Claims Anorexia Bias”, CBS/AP, Jul. 3; “Rachael’s Show Hates the Skinnies”, TMZ, Jul. 3)(via PopeHat).

“A Doctor Who fan who gave away knitting patterns which created vague recreations of the programme’s aliens has been threatened with legal action by the BBC for copyright infringement.” (Andy Bloxham, Daily Telegraph, May 14). More: Times Online.

Updating a Feb. 28 post:

The Supreme Court of Georgia has said “no deal” to a team of Columbus lawyers representing a proposed class of people seeking to recover money they spent participating in a feature of the NBC hit show “Deal or No Deal.”

The suit filed in federal court had contended that the Lucky Case Game — in which viewers, like the contestants on “Deal or No Deal,” try to pick a lucky suitcase — ran afoul of Georgia law because participants were charged 99 cents to play through their cell phones. The plaintiffs based their suit on a colonial-era Georgia statute that allows gamblers to recover their losses through lawsuits.

(Alyson M. Palmer, “Luck Runs Dry for ‘Deal’ Plaintiffs in Lawsuit Against NBC”, Fulton County Daily Report, Apr. 22).

Legally hazardous for a US-based website to make itself available for British readers to visit? “[Attorney Giovanni] Di Stefano claims that he has consulted several QCs and has been told that British authorities could have powers to act against foreign-based broadcasters and websites and issue a European arrest warrant. They could be liable for breaching an English court order guaranteeing anonymity to the blackmail victim and witnesses if their speculation reached Britain.” (Adam Fresco and Dominic Kennedy, “Charge anyone naming Royal ‘victim’, says accused’s lawyer”, Times Online, Oct. 31).

Beldar doesn’t hold back (Sept. 22) from telling us what he thinks:

Rather’s case — as incredibly, stinkingly, appallingly, cosmically bogus as it is — nevertheless has some considerable settlement value: Not because CBS is likely to lose to Rather if the truth is confirmed in court, but because individual decision-makers within CBS may have overwhelming vested interests in ensuring that the facts are not thoroughly probed in court.

Earlier: Sept. 19. More buzz: Howard Kurtz/WaPo, Eugene Volokh, New York Post “Page Six”, Bertovici/Portfolio.com.

He says they scapegoated him over the discredited show on the National Guard service of President-to-be George W. Bush. He wants $70 million. (TMZ.com, Sept. 19). More: WSJ law blog has a copy of the complaint (PDF). And: Michelle Malkin, Kevin Drum, Beldar (”‘garbage’ is about the nicest term that can be applied to this pleading”), Althouse.

“We were issued a writ because, God bless America, if the toilet paper is not thick enough and you come out with a rash on your ass [you’ll get sued].” — Scottish celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay, who is being sued over his upcoming reality-TV show “Kitchen Nightmares”. Martin Hyde sued Ramsay and the show’s producers after being fired during the filming of a “Nightmares” episode which depicted unsafe and unsanitary conditions at the Manhattan restaurant Hyde managed (which was closed by the city health board shortly after the taping); Hyde claims aspects of the show were staged, which Ramsay denies. (James Hibberd, “Ramsay Blasts ‘Kitchen Nightmares’ Lawsuit”, TV Week, Aug. 28).

The debate sparked by David N.’s post of last week on the Don Imus defamation suit has drawn 62 reader comments so far, a veritably Althousian volume. As I’ve noted before, it seems the best way for me to enliven the site is to go off on vacation.

P.S. More at Beldar’s.

In April, Don Imus infamously called the Rutgers Unversity women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos.” After a week of controversy, criticism, and grovelling apologies, he was fired from his job by CBS radio. Imus threatened a lawsuit, and yesterday he settled with CBS. That should have been the end of the story. But of course, if it were, then how would the poor trial lawyers feed their families? Now that Imus’s settlement is final, he has money to burn. So, just a few hours after the settlement was announced, the first Rutgers player rushed to the courthouse to file suit against Imus and the other deep pockets:

“Imus lost four months of employment and gained $20 million and a new platform. But what about these young women? How does Imus’ big payday affect their self-esteem?” said Vaughn’s lawyer Richard Ancowitz.

The suit, which also named CBS, MSNBC and Imus sidekick Bernard McGuirk, did not ask for a dollar amount. There was no immediate comment from the defendants.

“The kind of sexist and bigoted attack these young women and Kia in particular suffered demands more than lip service,” Ancowitz said. “She wants the court to recognize that Imus slandered her.”

I haven’t seen a copy of the complaint yet, but it’s hard to imagine that it is anything other than utterly frivolous. Imus’s comments might have been nasty and uncalled for, but calling someone a “nappy headed ho” is not defamatory unless it is interpreted as an actual accusation that the person is a prostitute. No reasonable person could interpret it that way. That’s without even getting to the issue of lack of actual damages.

Update: AP provides the money quote from the complaint, and unless there’s a lot more they failed to mention, it’s exactly as frivolous as I expected:

The Vaughn suit claims that the comments were made in the context of a news or sports report and therefore Imus had certain standards to abide by but ignored them. The suit reprints the script from the “Imus in the Morning” show on which the comments were made.

“The … false, defamatory, sexually denigrating and slanderous statements and comments against the women athletes of said basketball team were heard, believed and understood by millions of listeners … as factual pronouncements concerning the character, chastity and reputation of the plaintiff,” the lawsuit says.

I’d tell you what I think of a lawyer that actually tries to make such a claim with a straight face, but I’m afraid he’d sue me for challenging his character, chastity, and reputation.

A judge has dismissed a case filed by five orphaned siblings against ABC Television based on the aftermath of their appearance on “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”. The Higgins siblings said they expected to wind up with a new home after the show’s filming, but later disagreements with the couple who had hosted them, and who held title to the newly built mansion, led to their departure from the house. Awarding summary judgment, Judge Paul Gutman threw out the siblings’ case against ABC, the reality-TV producers and the homebuilder, saying that their remedy, if any, could be only against the host couple, Phil and Loki Leomiti. (AP/ABCNews.com, Jul. 17). Our earlier coverage: Mar. 4, May 17, etc.

The left-wing websites parroting Senator Durbin’s demand for a return to the bad old days of the Fairness Doctrine might want to consider the slippery-slope repercussions; as Rasmussen reports, “Thirty-four percent (34%) believe the government should ‘require web sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints.’” More: Fred Thompson, Brian C. Anderson, Jesse Walker, John Berlau, Mike Franc, Adam Thierer. Bush has stated that he would veto any such measure.

Reuters reports on a nuvo-media catfight — and just look who the cat drags in:

Google Inc. took a swipe at media conglomerate Viacom Inc., which is suing the Internet search leader and its video sharing site YouTube for $1 billion over “massive copyright infringement.”

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, speaking with reporters at a hotel bar at the 25th annual Allen & Co. moguls meeting, said litigation was the foundation of the company that owns the MTV Networks, Paramount movies studio, and video game developer Harmonix.

“Viacom is a company built from lawsuits, look at their history,” Schmidt said on early Friday.

He makes that sound like a bad thing!

For a brief period in 2004, Jessica Cutler was the hottest story in Washington. Cutler was the Senate aide who blogged at Washingtonienne about her sexual experiences with various Beltway insiders. After being exposed (pun intended), Cutler parlayed her notoriety into a six-figure book deal and Playboy photo shoot.

Unfortunately for Cutler, she had provided enough details in her blog for people to deduce the identity of some of her sexual partners. One of those, Robert Steinbuch, decided to sue her for $20 million for public disclosure of private facts (i.e., “invasion of privacy”) — thereby becoming only one of many recent examples of someone complaining about publicity… by filing a lawsuit that publicizes the acts he allegedly wants to keep secret.

In any case, Cutler began running into problems with her lawyers — namely, that they wanted her to pay them, and she had a different idea. We covered this in June 2006 (and see the Wonkette link in the comments). Now Cutler has filed for bankruptcy. Of course, we don’t know where all of her money went, but we know a good chunk of it went to her attorneys. Good luck collecting that $20 million, Mr. Steinbuch.

(As for collecting, Steinbuch had added some deep pockets to one of his lawsuits against Cutler — Hyperion Press (which published Cutler’s book), Disney (which owns Hyperion), HBO (which purchased the television rights to her story), and Time Warner (which owns HBO) — but that lawsuit, which Steinbuch filed in Arkansas, was dismissed in February on the grounds that it didn’t belong in Arkansas. Steinbuch has appealed, but his chances of success appear low, and his claims against HBO, Time Warner, and Disney are completely meritless anyway.)

Fortune is reporting that Don Imus has hired a lawyer and is planning to sue CBS for the 40 million left on his contract. The argument would apparently be that Imus was only doing what CBS hired him to do, and therefore it was a breach of contract to fire him for his statements. He may well have a plausible case.

But Imus has hired one of the nation’s premiere First Amendment attorneys, and the two sides are gearing up for a legal showdown that could turn on how language in his contract that encouraged the radio host to be irreverent and engage in character attacks is interpreted, according to one person who has read the contract.

The language, according to this source, was part of a five-year contract that went into effect in 2006 and that paid Imus close to $10 million a year. It stipulates that Imus be given a warning before being fired for doing what he made a career out of - making off-color jokes. The source described it as a “dog has one- bite clause.” A lawsuit could be filed within a month, this person predicted.

If he does proceed, it won’t be the first Imus-related suit filed since his firing; that honor goes to CBS itself, which sued a Southern California radio station for copyright infringement for rebroadcasting Imus shows after it was pulled from the air. The case settled a week later, with the station agreeing to stop and CBS agreeing not to seek damages.

Free speech survives intact: the Washington Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that radio talk show hosts’ urging of listeners to support a ballot measure does not constitute a “contribution” to the yes side for purposes of mandatory reporting under campaign finance law. (Ryan Sager, New York Sun blog, Apr. 26). We covered the charges against KVI hosts Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson Jul. 11 and Jul. 19, 2005. Eugene Volokh has extensive coverage of the new decision. A concurring opinion by Justice James M. Johnson, joined by Justice Richard B. Sanders, terms the enforcement a case of “abusive prosecution”. More: Michelle Malkin; John Fund, OpinionJournal.com, Apr. 30.

In many if not most cases, lawsuits that are held up to scorn on this site are filed by people who, in their heart of hearts and however misguidedly, believe in the justice of their cause.   Those people can and should be criticized when their cause is misguided, or when it camouflages some other agenda, or when their only real impact is the introduction of unjustified costs, frictions, and obstacles in to the path of valuable and legitimate economic or creative activity (not to mention the unjustified enrichment of a small class of my fellow attorneys). 

Worse than these, though, in many ways, are wealthy and/or powerful egotists who use the legal system on a whim, as their personal payback mechanism or as a means of venting their pettiest grievances.   At the risk of fatally lowering the tone of Overlawyered and of prematurely ending my tenure as a guestblogger, I note the latest example, a tiff between two deeply unpleasant but inescapable self-anointed celebrities: Rosie O’Donnell and Donald Trump (MSNBC, "Trump to Rosie O’Donnell: You’re sued!", Dec. 21).

Earlier this afternoon Trump announced he is filing suit against the TV talk show host. ‘She says things that come to her mouth, she’s not smart, she’s crude, she’s ignorant and to be honest I look forward to suing Rosie,’ he told our cameras. ‘I’m gonna sue her and I look forward to it.  She’s really very dangerous for the show.’

Trump declined to elaborate on the details of his proposed legal filings, but added O’Donnell will understand his reasoning.  ‘Rosie will find out what we’re suing her for.  She knows what we’re suing her for,’ he said adding the lawsuit is already in the works.  ‘It’s something I look very forward to,’ he added.

If ever there was a case for "loser pays," this is it.   Trouble is, with relentlessly meaningless suits like this one gumming up the works, we’re all the losers.

Of Related Interest: The scurrilous Los Angeles gossip site, Defamer, has the Trump video from which I have drawn the post title (Dec. 20).   Not that I would recommend watching it, of course.