“‘Just sue. Just do it. Sue, sue, sue. Do it. Go, go, go, go.’ — Actor Tom Cruise in Details magazine, revealing how he instructs his lawyer to deal with libelous remarks about him in the press.” (“Names and Faces”, Washington Post, Dec. 17) (via Gawker)
Posts Tagged ‘libel slander and defamation’
Tough on mushroom crime
“Stephen Fletcher II tried to grow some psychedelic mushrooms in his Lawrence apartment. Tremain V. Scott shot and killed a man at close range during an armed confrontation, then, according to an eyewitness, took the victim’s gun and shot him with it as he lay on the ground. An autopsy showed the victim had been shot 18 times.
“Both Fletcher and Scott are in their early 20s and have little or no criminal-conviction record, their attorneys say. So who’s facing the stiffer sentence? Fletcher, by double.” (Eric Weslander, “Mushrooms v. murder: Sentences in Kansas don’t all fit the crime”, Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World, Nov. 30) (via Free-Market.net)
Update: ABA Journal settles “fixer” libel case
The American Bar Association Journal will publish a half-page apology, as well as pay an undisclosed sum, to settle attorney Richard A. Sprague’s claim that he was defamed when the magazine described him as “perhaps the most powerful lawyer-cum-fixer” in the state of Pennsylvania. (Dec. 5-6, 2001) Although the word “fixer” is widely employed to describe political wheeler-dealing of a lawful sort, a judge had ruled that it might also convey the impression that Sprague improperly “fixed” court cases. “In its answer to the suit, the ABA attached a list of more than 100 examples of prominent lawyers described as ‘fixers’ in such publications as The New York Times and the Washington Post.” (Shannon P. Duffy, “ABA, Sprague Agree to Settlement”, The Legal Intelligencer, Nov. 21).
Anthropologist feud thrown out of court
Over the years, Professors Fikes and Furst have been feuding over their respective scholarship over the Huichol Indian community in northern Mexico, in a dispute reminiscent of the cliche referring to academic politics and small stakes. The two had threatened each other with libel lawsuits, but Fikes went through with his; it was litigated up to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which threw out the case Friday. (AP, Nov. 22; Simon Romero, “A real-life feud springs from peyote’s hallucinations”, Arizona Republic, Sep. 17).
Stallone sued over Rocky movies
I bet you didn’t know that the original “Rocky” movie was inspired by journeyman boxer Chuck Wepner’s 1975 fifteen-round loss to Muhammed Ali in 1975. Which doesn’t bode well for Wepner’s lawsuit: he seems to think he’s entitled to a $15 million cut for that movie and its four sequels for misuse of publicity rights. (A look at Wepner’s web site seems to indicate the ex-con benefits more from publicity from Stallone than Stallone has from publicity from Wepner. I didn’t see any references to Mr. T, however.) One looks in vain for an acknowledgement by the press coverage that the lawsuit has less of a chance than Wepner did against Ali–though readers of Professor Volokh’s weblog know better:
No, it’s not legally actionable for a writer to use your name in honestly describing the inspiration for his work. Even if Stallone is intentionally trying to “capitalize” on this story (not terribly likely, I think, but say it’s so), he’s perfectly entitled to do so, just as biographers or journalists are perfectly to “capitalize” on others’ names and stories when writing their works. Wepner wouldn’t be entitled to get damages from someone who wrote a biography of him (unless the biography was libelous, which isn’t an issue here). He’s likewise not entitled to get damages from someone who was inspired by him in making a movie, and who reveals this inspiration in discussing the movie.
(Dave Anderson, “Bayonne Bleeder Throws a Punch at the Italian Stallion”, New York Times, Nov. 16; Steve Springer, “The Eye of the Lawsuit”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 13; AP, Nov. 13; Eugene Volokh blog, Nov. 10).
Not the date they expected
Latest tabloid/reality TV case apparently headed for court, this time from the U.K.: “Six men who competed for the affection of an attractive brunette called Miriam for a reality television program have threatened legal action after discovering that the object of their attention was a transsexual.” The male contestants, who are said to have signed release forms before the show’s filming, “were invited to pick the most attractive woman from a line-up. They were then filmed on dates with her. All of them chose Miriam, who, unknown to them, was born a man.” To make matters worse, some of the men “are believed to have been intimate with Miriam before discovering at the end of the show that she was a pre-operative transsexual. … Lawyers for the six men have written to Sky and Brighter Pictures accusing them of conspiracy to commit a sexual assault, defamation, breach of contract and personal injury.” (Catriona Davies, “TV suitors shocked as dream girl turns out to be a man”, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 31). Update Nov. 5: more links via Curmudgeonly Clerk and May 26: cases settled.
Conspiracy to keep you scared and silent?
Economics commentator Donald Luskin, who operates a website entitled The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid, is known for his furious and unremitting attacks on New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman. So furious and unremitting have these attacks been as to raise the question of whether Luskin was actually daring Krugman to sue for defamation, as when Luskin declared on “Hannity and Colmes” Oct. 27 that Krugman “masquerades as an economic scientist” (whatever one thinks of his politics, Krugman is exceptionally well credentialed as an academic economist; by comparison, columnist Robert Novak let himself in for years of hard-fought litigation when he printed an assertion that Bertell Ollman, a much less well-known economic scholar, “has no status within the profession”). And two months ago Luskin alleged (“Lights-out economics”, National Review Online, Aug. 20) that a statement by Krugman about the Northeast electrical blackout was “one of the few truthful statements I can ever recall him uttering” — inevitably recalling, for defamation-law buffs, Mary McCarthy’s talk-show gibe at Lillian Hellman, which led to one of the American literary world’s most bitter and celebrated lawsuits: “Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’ ”
Now, however, it seems that Luskin pictures himself appearing in court as a plaintiff rather than a defendant. Recently he was verbally savaged in the comments section of the left-wing anonyblog “Eschaton” (http://atrios.blogspot.com) and now attorney Jeffrey J. Upton, claiming to represent Luskin, has (“http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_10_26_atrios_archive.html, scroll to Oct. 29) written to that site’s proprietor (“Atrios”) demanding that the entire comments section in question be taken down within 72 hours on pain of “further legal action”. The threat has provoked a widespread outcry in the blog world, with dozens of sites commenting since yesterday (examples: Mark A.R. Kleiman, Armed Liberal, David Neiwert, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler). We don’t know how much money Luskin has made on Wall Street, but we would be nervous on behalf of his prospective targets if his pockets prove deep. More: Jack Balkin points out that courts have found website proprietors not liable for hosting outsiders’ libels in their comments section, which leaves us wondering all the more about what happened to AVWeb, above. Stuart Levine discusses possible homeowner’s insurance coverage. (& welcome Curmudgeonly Clerk readers) Update Nov. 5: dispute settled. (& letter to the editor Aug. 16, 2004).
Fear of litigious diploma mills, cont’d
“Under pressure from administrators at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, [tenured physics professor George Gollin] has shut down a Web site he created to make information available about the unaccredited distance-learning institutions often referred to as ‘diploma mills.'” (Andrea L. Foster, “U. of Illinois Administrators Ask Professor to Remove Web Site About Diploma Mills”, Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 13; “Cracking Down on Diploma Mills”, CBS News, Jul. 25). Some of the alleged diploma mills cited by Gollin had threatened to sue the university, and Eugene Volokh (Oct. 25) finds it a fair inference that fear of litigation contributed to university administrators’ wish to be rid of the site. However, the state of Oregon accreditation office soon agreed to put up Prof. Gollin’s material on its own site (Office of Degree Authorization). On earlier suits and threatened suits by these enterprises, see our Apr. 28-20, 2000 entry.
Bin Laden’s gift to lawyers
“Say what you like about Osama bin Laden. He’s done wonders for the defamation bar,” says a British barrister. A group of wealthy Saudi businessmen are engaging in “libel tourism,” suing in British courts to silence American critics. British libel law, unburdened by the First Amendment, puts the burden on defendants to prove that their stories are true; the threat of libel suits often acts to deter journalistic inquiries, but now suits are being aimed at American publishers. The Wall Street Journal faces two lawsuits for a February 2002 report on Saudi support for terror that was reprinted in its European edition. (Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball, “Libel Tourism”, Newsweek Web, Oct. 22). (via Postrel)
“High school coaches file suit against irate parent”
Virginia: “Three high school girls’ basketball coaches filed a defamation lawsuit against the parent of a player who tried to get them removed by questioning their coaching tactics and alleging physical abuse. The suit was filed by Rockbridge County High School girls’ basketball coach Mike Hamilton and two assistants against Roger Koehler of Lexington, the father of a junior who has played on the varsity team for two seasons.” (AP/Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, Aug. 8; Robert Anderson, “Coaches turn tables on parent by suing him for $4 million”, Roanoke Times, Aug. 8).