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).
Posts Tagged ‘broadcasters’
Dan Rather vs. CBS, cont’d
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.
Dan Rather sues CBS and Viacom
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.
Gordon Ramsay on U.S. litigation
“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).
“Nappy-headed ho’s” = defamation?
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.
Imus in the Courtroom, Update
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.
Update: Judge rejects “Extreme Makeover” lawsuit
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 Fairness Doctrine
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.
Building from the bottom up
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!
15 Minutes of Fame + Lawyers = Bankruptcy
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.)