American Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah has filed a defamation lawsuit against a white supremacist website, the Daily Stormer, after it published an article accusing him of being the mastermind behind the terror attack in Manchester.

The Daily Stormer was recently kicked off of its domain on GoDaddy and was denied service by Google and a Chinese webhost. After the controversial website published a hateful, demeaning article about Heather Heyer, who was killed in Charlottesville last weekend, the website has been even more ostracized than before.

But on Wednesday, the site was live again for a few hours through a Russian domain. In a new article, the writers praised President Trump and claimed his relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin is responsible for the website’s new domain. But Roskomnadzor, Russia’s watchdog monitoring hateful content on the internet, requested the Russia Network Information Center to take it down, which it did.

Obeidallah filed his suit around the same time, alleging that the Daily Stormer caused him to receive death threats and suffer from emotional distress. The publication first started targeting him after he wrote a piece for the Daily Beast in 2015, in which he urged the Republican Party to speak out against the white nationalists who supported Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.

Today I filed a lawsuit against The Daily Stormer and Andrew Anglin for defamation – there are not two sides to white supremacy. pic.twitter.com/AZxysvqykt

— (((DeanObeidallah))) (@Deanofcomedy) August 16, 2017

In response, the Daily Stormer wrote an article calling Obeidallah a terrorist. Then in June of this year, Obeidallah wrote another article and questioned why Trump wouldn’t use the phrase “white supremacist terrorism.” In response, the Daily Stormer published a text with the headline, “Dean Obeidallah, Mastermind Behind Manchester Bombing, Calls on Trump to Declare Whites the Real Terrorists.”

After that article, some people actually believed Obeidallah was a terrorist, and he started receiving threats. The Daily Stormer even fabricated tweets to look like Obeidallah had written them, taking responsibility for the terror attack in Manchester in May. One of them praised Allah and another said he had fled to safety in Syria.

“Defendants took numerous steps, including mixing fact with falsehood, in an effort to create confusion and convince readers that the entirety of the Article is, in fact, true,” the lawsuit says. The Daily Stormer’s publisher, Andrew Anglin, and ten other people who republished the article are listed as defendants. None of them have responded.

“Right wing publications have come after me for years for everything from my progressive views to the fact I’m Muslim–that’s par for the course. But I had never, ever seen anything like this,” Obeidallah said.

The lawsuit also states that the Daily Stormer is among the 200 most frequented websites in America, with over 3 million monthly visitors. Though it claims to publish news stories, it intentionally spread false information, the lawsuit says. But maybe this suit can help other victims of defamation. “No one deserves to be defamed and threatened online by a racist neo-Nazi mob simply for expressing your ideas and beliefs,” Obeidallah said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comedian Sues the Daily Stormer for Accusing Him of Manchester Terror Attack appeared first on Law Street.

After a four-year hiatus, Kesha is finally back to belting out pop hits, but that doesn’t mean her legal saga with music producer Dr. Luke is anywhere close to being over. In fact, the contentious court battle has managed to entangle another female pop star: Lady Gaga.

In the latest series of events, Luke’s legal team subpoenaed Gaga to testify in his defamation lawsuit against his former protégée, after several unsuccessful attempts to get her testimony on the record.

Gaga was subpoenaed in relation to a text message conversation between her and Kesha that was submitted into evidence last year, in which Kesha allegedly asked “The Cure” singer to join a “smear campaign” against him. Luke’s lawyers claim Gaga even spread a statement urging Sony Music to cut ties with Luke, according to court documents.

“Dr. Luke’s counsel served a subpoena on Lady Gaga because she has relevant information regarding, among other things, false statements about Dr. Luke made to her by Kesha,” Luke’s lawyer said in a statement on Saturday. “This motion has become necessary because Dr. Luke’s counsel has not been able to obtain, despite repeated request, a deposition date from Lady Gaga.”

Dr. Luke, real name Lukasz Gottwald, sued Kesha for defamation after she claimed he drugged, raped, and emotionally abused her. Gaga showed public support for Kesha throughout her years-long sexual assault case against Luke–including tweeting the popular hashtag #FreeKesha.

There are people all over the world who love you @KeshaRose. And I can say truly I am in awe of your bravery.

— xoxo, Gaga (@ladygaga) February 19, 2016

Gaga’s legal team responded to the subpoena with the following statement to Variety over the weekend:

As Lady Gaga‘s legal team will present to the court, she has provided all of the relevant information in her possession and is at most an ancillary witness in this process. Dr. Luke’s team is attempting to manipulate the truth and draw press attention to their case by exaggerating Lady Gaga‘s role and falsely accusing her of dodging reasonable requests.

Unfortunately, we can’t look at the text exchange for ourselves, because the judge sealed the messages between Gaga and Kesha, making the content confidential.

Now that the subpoena has been issued, Gaga will be required to set a date to appear in-person for a three-hour deposition. Many other celebrities are expected to provide testimony as well in the case.

In July, Kesha made a triumphant return to music with her emotional first single “Praying,” which appears to be inspired by her conflict with Luke. The track will appear on her brand new album “Rainbow”–her first in five years–which is expected to be released in August.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lady Gaga Dodges Dr. Luke Subpoena in Kesha Defamation Case appeared first on Law Street.

It has been nearly 10 years since then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin could not name a single newspaper that she read to stay informed in an interview with Katie Couric. But it appears that she has learned to occasionally peruse national publications since then, as the former Alaska governor filed a defamation lawsuit Tuesday against the New York Times in response to an editorial that linked her to the 2011 shooting of Democratic Representative Gabby Giffords.

Palin’s lawyers claim that the connection was published “knowingly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs. Palin, or in blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm.” They also added that by keeping the editorial up, the Times “violated the law and its own policies.”

The editorial in question–titled “America’s Lethal Politics”–drew a parallel between the June 14 shooting that injured Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) and several others at a baseball field in Alexandria, and the 2011 shooting in Arizona. The piece said that both attacks were incited by political rhetoric which has become a “sickeningly familiar pattern.”

“Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs,” it read at one point. It also went on to draw connections between that advertisement and the shooter’s motivation to attack Giffords, despite a Times article from earlier this year that rejected that notion. The Times’ opinion section corrected these concerns the next day and later tweeted out an apology.

The $75,000 defamation suit claims the newspaper’s correction and subsequent apology were “devoid of any reference to Mrs. Palin” and were “woefully insufficient.”

Essentially Palin is arguing that the editorial published by the Times was libelous. Because the defamation in question was published as a written work, the suit would have to follow the legal standards of a libel case. Palin is a “public figure”–specifically an “all-purpose public figure”–meaning she is someone whose fame or position regularly puts them in the public eye. The courts decided in the 70s–ironically through a case that also involved the Times–that public figures have to prove “actual malice”–meaning the statements about the person were published with reckless disregard for whether they were false or true. In other words, Palin’s lawyers need to show that the alleged false statements in the editorial were published intentionally, or with total disregard for the truth.

If it seems like this is a high standard that is tough to prove, it’s because it is. Especially given this situation. Most statements made in editorials are defended as opinion. Even if the court does not consider the statements to be opinions, it might be even more difficult to prove her reputation was damaged. When Sarah Palin’s contract with Fox News ended in 2015, FiveThirtyEight found that her favorability rating was at an all time low, even among Republicans. It is difficult to defame the character of someone who is already not viewed too highly, especially when the average Times reader is left-leaning. Some might even argue that this situation has made Palin more sympathetic. While it was expected that conservatives would cheer the lawsuit, even the Washington Post was quick to call out the Times for its mistake.

There is a chance, as there always is, that she could win this case. Palin’s legal team includes one of the lawyers from the famous case in which Hulk Hogan sued Gawker into oblivion for publishing his sex tape. The Columbia Journalism Review referenced this case–among others–as “evidence that the growing unpopularity of media may translate into less-sympathetic jury pools.”

Regardless of how this case turns out, the Times publishing a debunked talking point is far from a good look for the publication. At best, the editorial board lazily tried to remind readers that Sarah Palin did put out an ad with crosshairs of a gun sight over districts with Democrats that voted for the Affordable Care Act with the phrase “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”, and the next day vandals happened to smash in her office’s windows. At worst, the board committed libel against a woman who promoted birtherism and claimed that former president Barack Obama spent $2 million to hide his real birth certificate.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Sarah Palin’s Defamation Suit Against the New York Times Succeed? appeared first on Law Street.

Rebel Wilson, the Australian comedienne known for her roles in movies like “Pitch Perfect” and “Bachelorette” has spent the last few days in an Australian courtroom. Wilson has sued the parent company of Australian Magazine Woman’s Day, Bauer Media, for defamation. She claims that the magazine published false claims that she had lied about a variety of facts of her life–including her age and upbringing–and that as a result, she has lost work opportunities.

In 2015, Woman’s Day released a series of eight articles in three days about Wilson. The first, which was headlined “Just who is the REAL Rebel?” claimed that she had fabricated some of the details of her life, and according to Wilson’s lawsuit, essentially painted her as a serial or pathological liar. The articles specifically suggested she lied about her age, her real name, and her upbringing. But there doesn’t appear to be evidence that Wilson ever misrepresented her age, and she has been open that “Rebel” is not her birth name, but a nickname that she later changed her name to. The articles also claimed that she had attended an elite boarding school when she was younger, while Wilson has maintained that she was raised in a more rural area.

According to the lawsuit, the information used for the articles came from an anonymous source who claimed to have gone to school with Wilson. The writer of the articles, Shari Nementzik, saw an online comment made by the anonymous source on another Woman’s Day article, and reached out to her. Emails between Nementzik and the source revealed that the source was looking for money to talk about what she “knew.” Originally, it appears as though lawyers told Woman’s Day the story was too risky, legally speaking, to publish. But the information was still published in 2015.

Wilson claims that after the articles were released, her career took a hit. She testified in court earlier this week that she lost roles in the animated films “Trolls” and “Kung Fu Panda 3” after the articles came out, and she has struggled to find work ever since. The trial is ongoing, and Wilson is seeking unspecified damages.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rebel Wilson Sues Australian Magazine for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

“The Watcher” is back. The mysterious stalker who sent letters to a New Jersey couple a few years ago, claiming to be watching them, has sent a fourth letter after a new tenant moved into the house in February. The stalker was apparently not happy about this and seems to think that the house rightfully belongs to him.

Apparently the new letter was even creepier than the previous ones. “This letter contained specific threats and was more derogatory and sinister than any of the previous letters,” the family’s attorney Lee Levitt wrote in a brief filed earlier in March. Police are currently investigating the threats, but that’s pretty hard to do, as no one knows who the stalker is–or where he is.

In 2014, Derek and Maria Broaddus bought the six-bedroom house for $1.3 million. But then they started receiving letters. One of them said that the stalker’s family had been watching the house for generations: “My grandfather watched the house in the 1920s and my father watched in the 1960s. It is now my time… I have be (sic) put in charge of watching and waiting for its second coming.”

“The Watcher” stalker sends fourth, “more sinister” letter to New Jersey home https://t.co/IUlZIzm4HF pic.twitter.com/4I42S8yDYk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) March 30, 2017

The stalker soon got the nickname “The Watcher.” Another letter described how the windows and doors of the house allowed him to track the family members as they moved through their house. But one of the creepiest lines must be: “Have they found what is in the walls yet? In time they will. I am pleased to know your names and the names now of the young blood you have brought to me.” As if this wasn’t horrifying enough, he followed up with: “Who has the rooms facing the street? I’ll know as soon as you move in. It will help me to know who is in which bedroom then I can plan better.”

NJ Family Getting Creepy Anonymous Letters From Mystery Stalker ‘The Watcher’ https://t.co/YajhdOiNhA

— Xoobug Feed (@xoobugFeed) March 30, 2017

The Broaddus family didn’t feel like sticking around to find out. They also have three young children, which probably made the part about the young blood especially disturbing. So instead they tried to sell the house, but obviously no one felt like moving into a home that comes with a deranged stalker. So the Broaddus couple sued the people who sold them the house, John and Andrea Woods, for not telling them about “the Watcher.’ The Woods had admitted to having received at least one letter themselves, but they still countersued the Broaddus family for defamation.

After that, Derek and Maria Broaddus tried to get a permit from the township to tear the house down and build two smaller houses on the property. But the request was denied, since two smaller houses wouldn’t fit the street’s image, according to residents and township officials, who were determined to protect the “beautiful street.” But the family filed another lawsuit in the beginning of the month, aiming to overturn that decision.

For now, the Broaddus couple is stuck with renting out their house while living somewhere else. It’s uncertain if we’ll ever find out who the actual stalker is. And now most of us want to know–what exactly did that latest letter say?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “The Watcher” is Still Out There, Sending Creepy Letters to New Jersey Families appeared first on Law Street.

Catch up on the stories you may have missed by checking out Law Street’s best of the week!

What Does it Take to Become an Entertainment, Arts, or Sports Lawyer?

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Shortly after refiling a $150 million defamation lawsuit involving claims that she worked for an escort service, Melania Trump has reached a settlement with one of the defendants named in her original defamation suit.

According to Trump’s lawyers, Maryland-based blogger Webster Tarpley–who published the escort claims on his website Tarpley.net–has “agreed to pay her a substantial sum as a settlement.” However, the specific amount of money remains unknown.

Tarpley wrote an article including the escort rumor in August, but had retracted it before Trump sued him in September. The article also included claims that she suffered from a nervous breakdown

Additionally, Trump’s suit named Mail Media, the company that owns the British newspaper Daily Mail, which printed similar rumors. Though a Montgomery County Circuit Court  judge dismissed the Daily Mail case on February 2, because the case does not fall under that court’s jurisdiction, Trump was allowed to move forward with the Tarpley suit.

On February 6, she re-filed the suit against the Daily Mail in New York, where Mail Media has corporate offices. In the suit, Trump claims that the article hurt her potential business interests, including the opportunity to “launch a broad-based commercial brand” that would sell clothes, accessories, and cosmetics.

Trump’s actions have attracted criticism for ethical reasons. Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, told the Washington Post: “There has never been a first lady of the United States who insinuated that she intended to make a lot of money because of the ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ opportunity of being first lady.”

Painter is among a group of lawyers currently suing President Donald Trump for allowing his businesses to receive money from foreign governments, which they say violates the Constitution and poses a conflict of interest.

The First Lady and her husband have a history of threatening media outlets with legal action. In October, Donald Trump vowed to sue the New York Times for libel when they published an article about two women alleging he had groped them. On the campaign trail, he pledged to loosen libel laws to make suing media outlets easier.

After a writer for People published an article about being sexually harassed by Donald Trump, Melania Trump tweeted at the magazine that she would “consider her legal options” over details from the story that she claimed were false.

! @people #NatashaStoynoff pic.twitter.com/zXNm6boveP

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) October 13, 2016

Representing Trump in her libel cases is Charles Harder, the same attorney who helped wrestler Hulk Hogan win $140 million in his defamation case against Gawker Media, an outcome that resulted in Gawker declaring bankruptcy and shutting down.

Lawsuits like Hogan’s and now Trump’s spark fears about allowing wealthy individuals to cripple media organizations with costly legal proceedings, a precedent that could endanger the Freedom of the Press.

But the Trumps don’t always go to court with the intention of winning. In July, a USA Today report found that Donald Trump didn’t proceed with most of the defamation lawsuits he filed.

Evan Mascagni, a policy director at the Public Participation Project, told the outlet:

Donald Trump has repeatedly attempted to silence his critics over the years through frivolous lawsuits. If you really examine some of these cases, it becomes pretty obvious that Trump didn’t file these suits to seek justice. Rather, he filed them to intimidate, harass and silence his critics.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Melania Trump Settles With One Defendant in Defamation Battle appeared first on Law Street.

Frank Ocean’s estranged father is suing him…again. According to a TMZ report, Ocean’s father, Calvin Cooksey, is filing a defamation lawsuit against his son. The $14.5 million lawsuit is a response to a Tumblr post that Ocean wrote after the Orlando nightclub shooting that had the “Blonde” singer, who infamously took to Tumblr to discuss his sexuality in 2012, recounting the time his dad used a homophobic slur. In the post that led to the defamation lawsuit, Ocean wrote:

I was six years old when I heard my dad call our transgender waitress a f****t as he dragged me out a neighborhood diner saying we wouldn’t be served because she was dirty. That was the last afternoon I saw my father and the first time I heard that word, I think, although it wouldn’t shock me if it wasn’t.

Cooksey, who considers himself to be somewhat of a multihyphenate, claims that the story never happened, and that it has caused damages to his aspiring career in film and music. This isn’t the first time Cooksey has filed a lawsuit–in fact, it’s not even the first time he’s filed a lawsuit against his son.

In 2012, Ocean took to his since-deleted Twitter account to reveal that his father was suing him for $1 million. “Father wanna sue me for a million. Like I owe him back child support. Weak individual bought me a swiss knife at 6yrs old then dipped on me,” Ocean tweeted.

In 2014, TMZ reported that Cooksey hit rap mogul Russell Simmons with a $142 million lawsuit, claiming that Simmons’ hip-hop culture website GlobalGrind unfairly painted him as horrible father. Like his current lawsuit, Cooksey sued Simmons for damages to his future income. In the lawsuit, according to TMZ, Cooksey claimed that Ocean’s “Money Grubbing mother” hid his own son from him and didn’t give Cooksey the chance to be a father. Ocean, who is notoriously private, maintains a close relationship with his mom. In October, Ocean brought her as his date to the final Obama White House state dinner.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity has been sued by their own father. Just last year, actor Christian Slater was involved in a $20 million lawsuit that his father, who is also an actor, filed against him for defamation of character. In the suit, as Entertainment Tonight reported, Slater’s father claimed that comments his son made in an interview claiming that he suffered from mental health issues “ruined his career in the stage, motion picture, and television industry.” The lawsuit was tossed out in July.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Frank Ocean’s Father Sues Him for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

CBS is being sued for defamation after a TV special on JonBenét Ramsey argued that her brother, Burke Ramsey, was responsible for her death.

Burke has requested $750 million from the network in his lawsuit, in response to the airing of the TV special “The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey,” which investigated the murder of six-year-old child beauty pageant star JonBenét on the 20-year anniversary of her death. The case remains an unsolved mystery, but the CBS special that aired in September attempted to cash in on the current popularity of “true crime” entertainment by using experts such as detectives and forensic pathologists to theorize on possible causes and culprits. It was accused by some critics of being “exploitative” and a re-hashing of old material.

The program included an “experiment” conducted to support the theory that Burke could have committed the murder at age nine. The lawsuit accused the show of conducting a “sham investigation,” according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

While DNA testing conducted by the then-district attorney exonerated the Ramsey family in 2008, the current district attorney has allegedly re-ordered DNA tests and claimed that the exoneration was premature. While Burke was largely kept out of the public eye following the death of his sister, he gave an interview to Dr. Phil earlier this year where he continued to deny any involvement in the murder.

In October, Burke filed a lawsuit for $150 million against Dr. Werner Spitz, the forensic pathologist who appeared in the program, for comments he had made saying he was “sure” that it was Burke who committed the crime. Spitz responded earlier this month, saying that the comments were simply “speculation” and that he expressed his opinion under his First Amendment rights.

While it is unclear if we will ever find out the truth of what happened to JonBenét, the CBS special, as well as Burke’s emergence into the public eye, have reinvigorated interest into one of the most infamous unsolved murder mysteries of this era.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Brother of JonBenét Ramsey Files Defamation Lawsuit Against CBS appeared first on Law Street.

Attorneys for Rolling Stone magazine and a former administrator at the University of Virginia completed their closing arguments on Tuesday, in a defamation case brought against the magazine for an article it published two years ago about now-debunked rape accusations. Seven jurors will begin deliberating the case on Wednesday in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Nicole Eramo, the former associate dean of students at UVA, also in Charlottesville, is suing the magazine for $7.5 million for its November 2014 story, “A Rape on Campus.” Eramo says the writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, unfairly portrayed her as a villain, and as an administrator protecting her institution rather than her students. The story centers around “Jackie,” a student who alleged she was gang raped and beaten at a fraternity party in 2012.

Tom Clare, Eramo’s attorney, argued that Erdely set out to tell a story of “institutional indifference,” and had a preconceived agenda that directed her reporting. He said she ignored key sources and facts that ran counter to her narrative, asserting “once they decided what the article was going to be about, it didn’t matter what the facts were.”

After the Rolling Stone piece thrust the case, and campus sexual assault more broadly, into the national conversation, a police investigation largely debunked the story “Jackie,” told Erdely. Rolling Stone issued an apology in December 2014, and the story was retracted in April 2015. To prove her case, however, Eramo must show the magazine intentionally acted with “actual malice.” 

Rolling Stone defamation trial nears end as lawyers say facts of UVA case ignored https://t.co/3nkzmG6woo

— The Guardian (@guardian) November 2, 2016

On the other side of the aisle, Rolling Stone’s lawyer, Scott Sexton, said there is no evidence that the magazine was aware of the story’s falsehoods before publication. “Everyone who encountered this young woman believed her,” he said. “Yet we are the ones, in a sense, being tried for having believed her.”

The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism was commissioned by Rolling Stone after the story’s retraction in 2015 to study how the article was reported and where it failed. The commission called Erdely’s piece “a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable,” encompassing “reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking,” especially concerning the writer’s reliance on a single source (“Jackie”), and her failure to corroborate details with friends or interview the accused attackers.

The trial has lasted over two weeks, as 10 jurors–the seven who will decide the case and three alternates–reviewed 11 hours of video testimony, a score of eye witnesses, and 300 exhibits. “Jackie” will be providing a recorded deposition, and will not show up in court.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Rolling Stone Defamation Case is in the Jury’s Hands Now appeared first on Law Street.

Katie Couric, famous journalist and current Yahoo! Global News Anchor, now faces a $12 million lawsuit for her recent documentary “Under the Gun.” The plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League who were interviewed for the movie and claim that their representation in the film was unfairly edited and amounts to defamation.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), as well as two of its individual members, filed a lawsuit against Couric and others that produced the film in a U.S. District Court in Richmond, in which they argue that a clip of the movie was edited unfairly and constitutes defamation. The lawsuit reportedly seeks $12 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages per plaintiff.

The segment in question involves Couric’s interview with several members of the VCDL, specifically the clip involving a question about their views on background checks for gun purchases. The clip was edited to make it appear as though the plaintiffs were unable to answer a question, when in fact, they quickly responded to Couric.

Here’s the clip as it appeared in the movie:

And here’s the audio from the actual interaction given to the Washington Free Beacon:

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue,

The fictional exchange is defamatory because it holds the Plaintiffs up as objects of ridicule by falsely representing that, as experts in their respective pro-Second Amendment trades, they had no basis for their opposition to universal background checks.

It’s pretty obvious that the movie’s editing amounts to a dishonest representation of what happened. The film makes it look like Couric’s question–which asks whether background checks are necessary to prevent terrorists and criminals from purchasing guns–completely stumped the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League whom she was talking to. But when you listen to the actual audio, you notice that the interviewees almost immediately provide a rebuttal. Moreover, the film was edited to show b-roll footage of the VCDL members sitting still for about eight seconds after they were asked the question prior to cutting to the next scene. This added to viewers’ perceptions that they were stumped by the question when, in fact, they quickly responded.

This is also something that Couric herself has admitted. In a statement on the documentary’s website, Couric wrote, “I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.” She continued: “I went back and reviewed it and agree that those eight seconds do not accurately represent their response.”

Although everyone can agree that the clip was misleading, the question that remains is whether it amounts to defamation. Defamation lawsuits are not easy cases to win. The plaintiffs will need to prove that Couric and the other producers acted with “actual malice.” This means that not only was their work false or misleading, but it also intended to do reputational harm to those in the clip.

A misleading portrayal of someone may be less likely to be considered defamatory compared to showing something insulting about a person that is verifiably false. Defamation claims also need “clear and convincing evidence” to support their claims, a relatively high standard for the burden of proof.

In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Stephanie Soechtig, the movie’s director who is also named in the suit, told CNN:

It’s ironic that people who so passionately defend the Second Amendment want to trample the rights guaranteed to a filmmaker under the First. Stephanie stands by ‘Under the Gun’ and will not stop her work on behalf of victims of gun violence

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Katie Couric Faces $12 Million Defamation Lawsuit for Gun Documentary appeared first on Law Street.

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is threatening to sue rapper Azealia Banks after a mixup over a satirical article spawned a profanity-laced Twitter feud that is definitely NSFW.

The feud probably came as no surprise to hip hop fans, since the “212” rapper’s fledgling music career has easily been overshadowed by her propensity for internet trolling.

When Banks isn’t calling flight attendants “f*ggots” or renaming Iggy Azalea “Igloo Australia,” she lets her “trigger fingers turn to twitter fingers” by inciting nasty feuds with celebrities seemingly at random.

However, the normally unapologetic rapper may have just swallowed a bit of her pride after Palin threatened to take legal action if Banks didn’t issue a public apology.

But before we get to that, let’s recap the bizarre timeline of events that got us here.

March 31:

A satirical website posted an article with a clickbait title claiming to quote Palin as saying “Even The French Understand That Slavery Wasn’t Our Fault, Because The Negroes Liked It.” Fake Palin went on to say,

I’m going to say it once again loudly and clearly: Negroes loved being slaves and they were doing just fine under our rules. So, you see, you can’t really blame us for any of it, not legitimately.

April 3:

Banks presumably stumbled upon said article (clearly not knowing that that it is fake), and launched into one of her notorious Twitter rants.

The tweets have since been deleted, but not before someone at the Media Research Center quickly managed to snag screenshots that can be seen here.

***Warning: This is where the NSFW part comes in

Banks writes:

12:42 am

Sarah Palin needs to have her hair shaved off to a buzz cut, get headfucked by a big veiny, ashy, black dick then be locked in a cupboard.

12:44 am

Hideous. At least suk a nigga dick or summ’ before you start talking shit about “black people willingly accepting slavery”. Least she can do

12:46 am

Honestly… Let’s find the biggest burliest blackest negroes and let them runa train on her. Film it and put it on worldstar.

April 4

Breitbart publishes an article titled “Rapper Azealia Banks Calls for Sarah Palin to Be Gang-Raped by Black Men.”

April 5

(This is point where deciphering the timeline got a little bit messy, so I’m going to break it down by event.)

Palin Responds on Facebook

Palin responds to the article by writing an open letter to Banks on her Facebook, in which she writes,

Hey Female Rapper – listen up, little darling. No one has any idea what you’re wigging out about in these bizarre, violent rants against me, but you’re obviously not exercising enough intelligence to acknowledge you’ve been sucked into believing some fake interview in which I supposedly offered comments representing the antithesis of my truth.

Palin then promises to check her daughter’s playlist to make sure none of Banks’ “anti-woman, pro-rape garbage” is on it.

Legal Threats Are Made

Taking Trump’s lead, Palin then tells People Magazine in an interview that she plans to take legal action against Banks “on behalf of all reasonable women of every age, race and political leaning” if Banks doesn’t issue a public apology.

Banks Responds on Twitter

LOL, if Sarah Palin actually decides to sue me i’ll only use the controversy to make myself an even larger American Cultural Figure.

— AZEALIABANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) April 5, 2016

The Sarah Palin page in history will be condensed to a footnote in the Azealia Banks chapter. Well behaved women seldom make history.

— AZEALIABANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) April 5, 2016

Everyone can tell you’re spreading them cheeks for Mr. Trump Sarah….. you ain’t got to lie.

— AZEALIABANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) April 5, 2016

Then She Kinda Apologizes

In a now-deleted letter posted to her Tumblr, Banks combines a mix of flattery and insults to pen what very well may be the strangest apology ever. At one point Banks attempts to explain to the 52-year-old politician the distinctions between “running a train” on someone and rape, as well as ends the letter by saying that “if Bristol Palin listened to my music she probably wouldn’t have all those cotdamn kids!!!! ;-P #sis #iud #stayinschool #causeitsthebest””

So…now you should be all caught up.

It’s extremely doubtful that Palin will actually accept Banks’ apology, especially since the rapper’s recent Twitter feed has become largely devoted to mocking Palin. That being said, a legitimate lawsuit doesn’t necessarily seem all that likely either. For now, all we can do is sit back and wait for Palin’s response.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Azealia Banks’ Feud With Sarah Palin is Bizarre and Definitely NSFW appeared first on Law Street.

In a world where over-the-top celebrity Twitter beefs are commonplace, we should never forget that you can still get in trouble for spreading lies about someone. This is especially true in the case of former “mononymous” music couple Ciara and Future, whose less-than-civil uncoupling has led to a $15 million defamation lawsuit.

Ciara reportedly sues Future for $15 million. https://t.co/eHOECVqzd7 pic.twitter.com/ZWmhQnSuVH

— Complex (@ComplexMag) February 9, 2016

Ciara filed the slander and libel suit against her former fiancé and son’s father after he made multiple “false and defamatory statements” criticizing her parenting skills and relationship with Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russel Wilson. If you’re on social media and stay relatively informed on pop culture, it’s not hard to figure out exactly which statements she’s referring to.

In January, Future went on a Twitter rant that started with a classy subtweet that read, “This bitch got control problems.” He then went on to write, “I gotta go through lawyers to see babyfuture…the fuckery for 15k a month.”

Before that Future had publicly bad mouthed his ex in July on the popular radio show “The Breakfast Club” after photos surfaced of Wilson pushing his son in a stroller. Around that same time, Future also appeared in an interview with HuffPost Live, where he overshared about his and Ciara’s sex life after Wilson had publicly divulged that the couple was abstaining for religious reasons. Future said, “God told me something else. He ain’t tell me to wait. I guarantee you that.” He then added, “We prayed afterwards though. After we did it, we prayed. That’s a true story.”

In the lawsuit Ciara states that Future’s defamatory statements were “clearly published with actual malice,” and  were  publicity stunts to promote his album release and tours. Ciara also claims Future made said comments in an attempt to disparage her character, destroy her reputation as a good mother, diminish her brand, and impair her professional career in the entertainment industry.

As a result she’s asking a judge to order Future to stop publishing personal information regarding their relationship and their son online, and delete the aforementioned tweets with a public retraction. She’s also asking that her lawyers fees be paid for and that she be awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.

while Future was running his mouth, Ciara was gathering all her receipts for this 15 million dollar lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/5T6ze9wFqi

— CHRIS. (@chrissayssoo_) February 9, 2016

Not surprisingly, the large asking price has many fans divided on the issue, especially on social media. But the fact of the matter is that if Ciara does end up wining it’s unlikely she’d receive the full asking amount. However, from the sound of it, Ciara could end up having to pay Future himself after rumors began circulating that the rapper may countersue claiming Ciara made money off of badmouthing him.

If their history is an indicator of what’s to come, we can confidently conclude that things are about to get real ugly. Hopefully everything works out, for their son’s sake, the pair is stuck dealing with one another for 16 more years.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ciara Files $15 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Ex-Fiance Future appeared first on Law Street.

Bill Cosby.

You used to be able to say that name and conjure up happy memories of family-friendly sitcom episodes, flamboyant knitted sweaters, or pudding pops. But not anymore.

Now America’s former “favorite dad” has become synonymous with drugging women with quaaludes and raping them, after more than 50 women came forward to accuse the comedian of sexual assault. As a result, Cosby is lashing out by filing a defamation lawsuit against seven of his accusers, claiming they ruined his reputation for “financial gain.”

The lawsuit filed Monday is a counterclaim to a civil lawsuit filed by Tamara Green, Therese Serignese, Linda Traitz, Louisa Moritz, Barbara Bowman, Joan Tarshis, and Angela Leslie. The seven women had joined together in a defamation suit initially filed last year by three accusers against Cosby in a federal court in his home state of Massachusetts. According to USA Today, it is currently the largest of the half dozen civil lawsuits filed against Cosby in recent months.

In a statement tweeted Monday, Cosby’s lawyer Monique Pressley wrote,

Mr. Cosby states plainly that he neither drugged no sexually assaulted the defendants and that each defendant has maliciously and knowingly published multiple false statements and accusations from Fall 2014 through the current day in an effort to cause damage to Mr. Cosby’s reputation and to extract financial gains.

My statement re today’s lawsuit filed by @BillCosby against all 7 accusers in Massachusetts lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/XRYoV4gXpC

— Monique Pressley (@MoniquePressley) December 14, 2015

Cosby’s lawsuit comes across as a last-ditch effort to save himself from shelling out a fortune to the dozens of women who claim he assaulted them in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Statutes of limitations for rape prevented the 78-year-old from facing any legal charges for the assaults. Therefore many of his accusers have now opted to file civil lawsuits instead. Cosby, however, has repeatedly denied claims of any wrongdoing.

According to unsealed court documents, Cosby testified in 2005 that he had obtained the sedative drug Quaaludes, with the intention of giving them to young women in order to have sex with him. This revelation came as shock to many who had came to the defense of the former star amidst the allegations.

While we’ll never see Cosby criminally charged with assaulting these women, there is some hope for justice in the civil cases currently pending. However, his defamation suit makes it clear that he doesn’t plan to go down without a fight.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Cosby Countersues Seven Rape Accusers For Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

Last week the “Today” show warned viewers of a possibly dangerous brand of exploding firearm targets that are sold over the counter, calling them a potential tool for terrorists. But, it turns out that likening these targets to bombs has seriously angered the product’s manufacturer, causing it to take action. Tannerite Sports filed a libel and slander suit against NBC Universal News Group, alleging that the Today Show’s “Bombs for Sale” print and video segments reported by NBC News national investigative correspondent Jeff Rossen were defamatory.

The video segment ran last Monday in conjunction with an online news story titled Bombs for Sale: Targets Containing Dangerous Explosive Being Sold Legally. The segment was part of “Rossen Reports,” an investigative unit that provides segments for the Today Show, NBC Nightly News, and Dateline NBC. The segment alleged that a brand of exploding shooting targets called Tannerite were, essentially, bombs for sale.

Tannerite is a brand of binary explosive targets that are intended to detonate when shot by a high-velocity firearm bullet. The product has become a hit with gun enthusiasts, because it explodes when you hit the target, letting you know if you’ve made the shot. The product is able to be sold without the usual restrictions that apply to explosives based on a technicality; they separate the two ingredients in its explosive that are sold together–ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder. Individuals must combine the substances in the container themselves for the product to be active. Rossen stated that ammonium nitrate is the same substance that was used in the Oklahoma City Bombing, as well as IEDs used on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The report reiterated the potential dangers of the product, citing a 2013 FBI intelligence bulletin, which issued a warning that exploding targets have “potential use as explosives in IEDs by criminals and extremists.”

When NBC contacted Tannerite Sports LLC, for comment makers of Tannerite said:

No additional regulations are needed beyond current laws because the product is safe when used correctly. The only injuries that have ever happened were results from the shooter misusing the product. Only girly-men want to regulate Tannerite Rifle Targets.

That highly offensive “girly-men” comment may have been directed towards the concerned folks over in Maryland, since the state is currently the only one to ban the purchase of the exploding targets without an explosives license.

What the issue really boils down to is whether or not Rossen’s reporting was defamatory or accurate?

From what I can tell from the lawsuit, Tannerite is taking offense mostly to its product being referred to as a bomb, which the company says it is not. A bomb can be defined as “an explosive device fused to detonate under specified conditions.” Tannerite is a container that is designed to explode on impact with a high-velocity firearm bullet. It can be destructive–in one woman’s case caused her to nearly lose a hand. Keeping that in mind, Rossen’s reporting doesn’t seem inappropriate.

Rossen’s report may have resulted in the company’s reputation being altered, as well as caused Tannerite some economic loss, but that’s what happens when consumers react to information. It’s tough to see his reporting as being either malicious or reckless, but we’ll have to wait and see what’s decided if this case even goes to court. Ultimately this lawsuit’s semantical debate over the word “bomb” may end up doing little to help Tannerite’s PR predicament.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NBC Sued Over “Bombs for Sale” Story appeared first on Law Street.

Actress Lindsay Lohan and her mother Dina filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Hannity’s guest commentator Michelle Fields on February 2 over allegations that the mother and daughter did cocaine together.

The alleged statements occurred on a February 4, 2014 Hannity episode where Fields and Hannity discussed celebrity drug overdoses. Fields can be heard saying, “Lindsay Lohan is doing cocaine with her mother.”

Mediaite.com has a clip of the segment, which you can view here.

The Lohans are seeking compensatory and punitive damages and “will continue to suffer severe mental and emotional distress; embarrassment and humiliation; pain and suffering; and economic loss, including loss of income, entertainment and acting contracts, present and future diminished income and economic opportunities,” according to E!.

Moreover, E! further reports that a Fox News spokesperson issued a statement saying, “We will defend this case to the fullest. The remark about which Lindsay and Dina Lohan complain was made on live television by a guest nearly a year ago. We removed the segment from our archives altogether last February and also apologized on-air. At that time, the Lohans did not make any demands for money, and we are surprised they are doing so now.”

A big issue in the case will likely surround when Fox News took down the segment. Nevertheless, I want to talk about a more elementary, and arguably more interesting, area of defamation law that will have an immediate effect on the case’s outcome.

In slander cases, the first question that needs to be asked is if the statement is true or false. If the statement is true here, then Lohan’s case will not succeed.

If the statement is false, victory or defeat in slander cases comes down to various burdens of proof that a potential plaintiff needs to prove. Burdens of proof in a slander case vary depending on whether the plaintiff is a private citizen or public figure. Since the younger Lohan is a global celebrity, she will likely qualify as a public figure, and in particular a general purpose public figure. Being a general purpose public figure, she will have to prove that Fields’ statement was made with knowledge that the statement was false or that Fields said the statement with a reckless disregard to the statement’s falsity. In other words, Lohan will have to prove that Fields made the statement with actual malice.

Lohan’s mother may classify as a different type of public figure, that is, a limited purpose public figure. A limited purpose public figure is someone who is a private citizen who thrusts herself into a public controversy. Limited purpose public figure must also prove that a defamatory statement was made with actual malice. Nevertheless, an argument can be made that Lohan’s mother is a general purpose public figure because of her Living Lohan fame.

Regardless, given the recent multimillion dollar libel verdict in favor of Jesse Ventura, I doubt that Fox News will want to prolong this issue all the way to trial, despite its statement that it will defend the case to the fullest. I will be surprised if the case is not settled out of court.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article referred to Lohan’s suit as libel; the suit is one of defamation.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lindsay Lohan Sues Fox News Over Cocaine Use Statement appeared first on Law Street.

The legal side of book and magazine publishing has been off to a fast start in 2015. Check out updates below on three of the most recent cases.

Cosmopolitan Magazine

Andrew Cerett, a former Temple University football player, filed a lawsuit against his ex-girlfriend, Emily Frazer, and Cosmopolitan magazine for defamation, claiming that the magazine ruined his reputation and his potential NFL career after publishing an article entitled, “My Ex Threatened to Kill Me. Why Wasn’t He Expelled,” which appeared in the October 2014 issue.

Cerett and Frazer met each other at Temple University where Cerett was a punter on the school’s football team and Frazer played on the volleyball team. Cerett’s complaint, however, centers on the end of their relationship. Cerett states that Frazer wrote the article with freelance writer Roxanne Patel Shepleavy, which included a photo of Cerett as well as a fictionalized story of how they ended their relationship “at an alcohol-fueled weekend dorm party on or about January 21, 2011,” according to the complaint.

In his own story, however, Cerett claims that both parties became angry with each other, and although Cerett slammed his fist on a kitchen table, he never harmed Frazer. Campus officials arrested Cerrett, but they did not press charges against him. The campus board found Cerett guilty of intimidation and disorderly conduct but did not charge him with stalking or harassment.

Frazer’s article contends that after the breakup, Cerett had a mission to destroy Frazer, and the complaint states that the article portrayed Cerett as a violent thug. In light of the recent domestic violence cases against several NFL players, most notably Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, Cerett believes that the Cosmo article may prevent him from pursuing his lifelong dream of becoming an NFL player because NFL teams would not want to draft him or sign him as a free agent.

HathiTrust

Last week, the Authors Guild dropped its lawsuit against HathiTrust. In 2011, the Authors Guild sued HathiTrust because it believe it created a database that included millions of unauthorized scans created by Google. The federal district court, however, sided with HathiTrust, and the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals soon reaffirmed the district court’s decision.  Publishers Weekly noted that HathiTrust would notify the Authors Guild if it decides to change its practices in the next five years.

Georgia State University

In a related case that publishers have been keenly watching in Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff publishers’ request to hear the case en banc by every judge in the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit originally only had a panel of three judges hear the case. The request was unusual because the three-judge panel held in favor of the publishers after reversing the federal district court’s decision. The suit originally commenced when three academic publishers, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publications, sued Georgia State University for allegedly engaging in authorized copying and distribution of copyrighted works by the publishers through GSU’s e-reserve system.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2015 Is Off To A Fast Start for the Legal Side of Publishing appeared first on Law Street.

Matthew Bissonnette, a former Navy SEAL who wrote the book “No Easy Day,” is suing his former lawyers for malpractice.

According to CBS New York, Bissonnette, whose pen name is Mark Owen, alleges that his former attorneys told him that the federal government did not need to perform a pre-publication review of his book, which describes the 2011 raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. He later relied on their advice that they told him they had performed pre-publication review themselves and removed all classified and sensitive government information. Bissonette alleges that his former attorneys’ guidance “prompted a Pentagon inquiry that evolved into a criminal probe by the Justice Department,” which “tarnished his reputation, cost him his security clearance and caused him to surrender much of the book’s income to the government,” as well as ruined his “‘exemplary military record’ by the false accusation that he sought to profit from disclosing military secrets.”

Bissonette claims he had to forfeit $4.5 million to the government for following his attorneys’ advice and publishing his book without the government’s permission.

The former Navy SEAL seeks unspecified compensatory damages, but claims his losses are at least $8 million, partly because he believes his tarnished reputation will cause him to lose consulting positions, speaking engagements, and other future employment opportunities.

Since book publishers are in the book business, they are not strangers to pre-publication reviews, which are reviews undertaken by attorneys to prevent defamation lawsuits. I have had the privilege of assisting in pre-publication during some of my internships, and it’s quite an interesting process, during which an editor will ask an attorney to read a manuscript for any libelous statements. The attorney looks for any false statements of facts or opinions that may be construed as false statements of fact.

Pre-publication review can be implemented for both fiction and non-fiction books; however, from my experience, I have noticed that editors request more non-fiction books for pre-publication review. This may be because non-fiction books are about real events and real people, and reported facts can sometimes also be false. A potentially defamed person can easily point to the words in the story and claim, “I’ve been defamed. It says so right there in this book.” This may be harder in fiction where the author can presumably make anything up, notwithstanding that fiction authors can still be sued for defamation (e.g., a person believes he or she is a particular character that portrays him or her in a false light). Nevertheless, pre-publication review is quite common in book publishing.

Moreover, when publishers attempt to publish books about the government, there is a second stage to pre-publication review in which the federal government routinely vets manuscripts in order to redact any classified or sensitive information that may harm national security.

Thus, I would like to know why Bissonnette’s attorneys supposedly advised him that the government did not need to perform a pre-publication review, especially considering that he participated in the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden and “decided to write the book after realizing that others who did not know the accurate facts were writing about and discussing the daring May 2011 raid by SEAL Team 6 in Pakistan that resulted in the killing of the head of al Qaeda and inspiration behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” They knew the government would want to make sure that Bissonnette’s version of the 2011 raid did not hamper national security, and they had nothing to gain from advising Bissonnette to forgo pre-publication review. Their alleged misstep could easily have been avoided.

I will be eagerly waiting to see what happens in this case.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Navy SEAL Author of Bin Laden Raid Book Sues Attorneys for Malpractice appeared first on Law Street.

Sometimes in life you hear stories to which the only way you can respond is to say, Huh? Maybe even, What? How? Why? I am sure this has happened to all of you before, and everybody should know exactly what I mean. So, this week’s post addresses this very issue with bad lawsuits that make you say all of the above — What? How? Why?

What?!: Me, Myself, and I

A city employee in St. Paul, Minnesota, while performing her duties, hit and damaged Megan Campbell’s car. As most reasonable people would, Campbell expected the city to pay for the damage and, to further this point, she filed a claim asking for reimbursement of it. Sounds reasonable, right? Nobody in his right mind could deny the validity of of this claim. This should be an open-and-shut case, but if I have not already convinced you of this, let me add some details for you.

Megan Campbell, a St. Paul Parks and Rec employee, was driving a supply van for the city when she turned and hit a parked car belonging to one Megan Campbell. Campbell was upset that the city would hire such reckless drivers, and she was angry that Campbell was allowed to drive a city vehicle. Campbell decided that she would not get much from Campbell, so she went after Campbell’s employer.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Following?

In case you are having trouble, let me clear up the details for you: city employee Megan Campbell hit her own personal car while driving a city vehicle and then filed a claim saying she thought the city should pay for the damage since it was a city employee who hit her car. What?

How?!: This Club Is on Fire

Katelyn Sobon is proof that with enough effort you can definitely heat up a dance floor. Sobon was sitting at the Trilogy Nightclub and Hookah Lounge in Philadelphia while people danced wildly on the nearby stripper pole — which, as the club later clarified, was not actually a stripper pole, but a regular pole that patrons — specifically girls — could pose in front of and take pictures looking like a stripper; but, again, it was not a stripper pole. In their gyrating, one of the dancers hit the leg of Sobon’s table, knocking the hookah over and spilling hot coals down the front of her top, causing her breasts to be burnt. I’m sure this is not what she wanted people to mean when they said, “You look hot in that dress.”

Sobon is suing for the pain and embarrassment of the whole situation, but the club manager does not buy it. He wants to know why she has come back to his club several times since the incident, asking for free admission in lieu of a lawsuit — even after she filed — if she was so embarrassed. I don’t know who will win, though I have my guesses, but I do know that Alicia Keys said it best when she sang, “This girl is on fire.” But really, how does stuff like this happen?

Why?!: Micro-Management

When it comes to microwave journalism, you had better do your research. You wouldn’t want to mess that stuff up. The makers of the movie “American Hustle” are learning that lesson the hard way. I’m about to tell you about a scene from the movie, but if you have not seen it, note that this is in no way a spoiler: at one point in the movie, Jennifer Lawrence’s character said she does not believe in the technology behind the microwave. She claimed that contraption just zapped the nutrition out of the food, and she had proof: an article written by Paul Brodeur. She even hands the magazine with the article over to Christian Bale’s character.

Who cares, you ask? I’ll tell you who. Paul Brodeur cares, that’s who. The real journalist behind the real article stomped his foot, crossed his arms over his chest, and said with a poked out lip, Hey! That’s not what I said. You lied! I said that the technology was shaky and unproven not that it zapped out the nutrition. I’m gonna tell on you. Now all the scientists hate me and nobody wants to play with me and it’s all your fault. I hate you! I hate you! I hate you! And then flung himself to the floor before filing a million dollar lawsuit for libel and defamation. (Disclaimer: this is in no way a direct quote or reaction from Paul Brodeur. Mr. Brodeur, please do not sue me. I do not have a million dollars to give you.)

My final thoughts: really, Brodeur, really? Just … why?

Courtesy of Giphy.

So there you have it. The what-how-why stories from the legal world. I just don’t even know what else to say.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have an Irrational Hatred of Your Microwave? This Bad Lawsuit’s For You appeared first on Law Street.

On August 21, 2014, Pulitzer Prize-winning architect Zaha Hadid, who designed the stadium for the 2022 World Cup, sued the New York Review of Books and its critic, Martin Filler, for defamation. Hadid claimed that Filler defamed her in his June 5, 2014 article, “The Insolence of Architecture,” in which he reviewed non-party Rowan Moore’s book Why We Build: Desire and Power in Architecture. Hadid asserted that Filler’s following passage defamed her:

“However, despite the numerous horror stories about this coercive exploitation, some big-name practitioners don’t seem moved by the plight of the Emirates’ imported serfs. Andrew Ross, a professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University and a member of Gulf Labor, an advocacy group that is seeking to redress this region-wide injustice, earlier this year wrote a chilling New York Times Op-Ed piece. In it he quotes the Iraqi-born, London-based architect Zaha Hadid, who designed the Al Wakrah stadium in Qatar, now being built for the 2022 World Cup. She has unashamedly disavowed any responsibility, let alone concern, for the estimated one thousand laborers who have perished while constructing her project thus far. ‘I have nothing to do with the workers,’ Hadid has claimed. ‘It is not my duty as an architect to look at it.‘”

Hadid contends that Filler defamed her because workers have not begun constructing the stadium, and no workers have died. Moreover, the passage implies that she is indifferent to the workers’ deaths. Architectmagazine.com reports that Hadid’s complaint seeks “a withdrawal of the article from publication, a retraction, unspecified damages from the defendants, full payment of legal fees, and ‘any further relief as justice may require.’”

On August 25, 2014, Filler retracted his statement in a letter to the editor entitled, An Apology to Zaha Hadid, which is also added to the end of the review online. The Los Angeles Times reports that Hadid’s legal team received Filler’s retraction but has yet to respond.

Although Hadid obtained Filler’s retraction, it may be difficult for the architect to receive any other relief that she seeks in her complaint if her lawsuit reaches the trial stage. Since Hadid is a Pulitzer Prize-winning architect, she will likely be deemed a public figure, and consequently, she has to prove that Filler acted with “actual malice” when he wrote his article, which is a difficult standard to prove, as explained in this post about celebrity defamation suits.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Phil Gyford via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Review of Books Retracts Defamation Error appeared first on Law Street.

This summer has been filled with celebrity defamation lawsuits, particularly against video game makers.  Early last month, Lindsay Lohan filed suit against the makers of Grand Theft Auto 5, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and its subsidiary Rockstar Games, claiming that they used Lohan’s likeness without her permission.  Two weeks later, Panama dictator Manuel Noriega filed a legal action against Activision, the maker of Call of Duty: Black Opps II, also claiming that it used Noriega’s image without his permission.

Courtesy of [Chris Alcoran via Flickr]

The book publishing world also felt the sting of defamation lawsuits this summer brought by Hollywood starlet Scarlett Johansson and former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura.

In May 2013, Scarlett Johansson filed a libel lawsuit against French novelist Gregoire Delacourt for using Johansson’s name and image without her permission and for making false statements about her personal life in his best-selling French novel, The First Thing We Look At. The novel contains a scene in which the female protagonist, a French model who looks identical to Johansson, seeks the help of the lead male protagonist, a mechanic who mistakes the French model for Johansson. The character then has two affairs as Johansson, but her name is later revealed to be Jeanine Foucaprez. Johansson’s lawyer claimed that the two affairs that Jeanine had were untrue, and that the novel depicts Johansson as a sex object. Delacourte argued, however, that Jeanine was meant as a “tribute” to Johansson.

Courtesy of [pop torrent via Flickr]

Last month, a French court ruled in favor of Johansson and ordered Delacourt to pay damages in the amount of 2,500 euros (approximately $3,400) for his demeaning portrayal of Johansson.  Although Delacourte had to pay damages to Johansson, it seems that Delacourte’s publisher, J-C Lattes, won at the end of the day because the court denied Johansson’s attempt at an injunction to stop translations and film adaptations of the novel.  According to the Guardian, Emmanuelle Allibert of J-C Lattes said, “The book has already been translated into German and Italian and there has been interest in translating it into English, but publishers were waiting for the outcome of the case. Now we are open to offers.”

Across the pond in the United States, another defamation case unfolded this summer in federal district court in Minnesota, which book publishers took note of nationwide. Former Navy SEAL, pro wrestler, and Minnesota governor, Jesse Ventura, sued the estate of Chris Kyle for libel in Kyle’s book American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History¸ published by HarperCollins. Kyle’s book contains a chapter entitled, “Punching Out Scuff Face,” which detailed a California bar fight that Kyle had with a celebrity in 2006. Ventura was not mentioned in the book, but Kyle said in interviews after HarperCollins published his book that Ventura was “Scruff Face.”  Ventura acknowledged that he was in the bar with Kyle but did not say that the Navy SEALS “deserved to lose a few,” nor did Kyle punch him in the face as Kyle alleged in his book. The district court in Minnesota favored Ventura and awarded him $1.8 million consisting of $500,000 for damages and $1.3 million for unjust enrichment.

Courtesy of Pesky Librarians via Flickr

Ventura’s award may be surprising due to the higher “actual malice” standard that public figures face in prevailing in libel actions throughout the United States. In libel lawsuits, public figures are placed in two categories: public figures and limited-purpose public figures. Public figures are people who are of great public interest (e.g., President Obama, Michael Jordan, Julia Roberts, etc.). Limited-purpose public figures are people who thrust themselves into a public issue or controversy to try to influence the resolution of that issue (e.g., guests brought on national news networks like MSNBC and Fox News to argue about ways to resolve various issues). In this case, being an ex-governor of Minnesota categorized Ventura as the former. Since Ventura was deemed a public figure, he had to prove that Kyle wrote false statements of fact about him that were made with “actual malice” (i.e.,  Kyle knew the statements he wrote were false, and Kyle deliberately or recklessly disregarded the false statements and published them anyway). Ultimately, the court believed that Ventura overcame the difficult “actual malice” burden of proof and awarded him damages.

The case isn’t quite over, however, as  on August 19, 2014, Kyle’s widow, Taya Kyle, filed a lawsuit in Dallas County Court against her attorney, Christopher Kirkpatrick, for malpractice. She claims that Kirkpatrick was negligent in his legal services and did not explain or disclose to the Kyles the various conflicts of interest that he had.

Ventura’s verdict is disconcerting to U.S. book publishers not only because of Ventura’s million dollar verdict, but because the lawsuit against Kyle’s estate could possibly have been avoided.   Publishers routinely tell authors to edit their respective manuscripts in order to avoid potential libel lawsuits (e.g., referring to Ventura by a different name, “Scruff,” and not mentioning Ventura’s name in the book). Kyle’s publisher, HarperCollins, likely did not bet on Kyle’s admission in an interview that “Scruff” was Ventura. Kyle’s confession serves as a warning to publishers that they cannot be too careful in fact checking and advising authors during the pre- and post-publication processes.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured image courtesy of [Clyde Robinson via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2014 is the Summer of Celebrity Defamation Suits appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a rough week for Thomas M. Cooley Law School. I really don’t know which was a harder hit, canceling enrollment for an entire incoming class of first year law students, or losing a $17 million defamation appeal.

A group of legal professionals founded the independent graduate school in 1972 in memory of Justice Thomas McIntyre Cooley. Cooley Law is home to the nation’s largest J.D. program, with four campuses located in Michigan (Ann Arbor, Auburn Hills, Grand Rapids and Lansing) and one campus in Florida (Tampa Bay.) The school released a statement on July 1 outlining its new “aggressive financial management plan.” Due to low enrollment and increasing costs, the institution could no longer maintain its imbalanced budget, and was forced to close admission to its Ann Arbor campus.

The downward trend in law school enrollment is not unique to Cooley Law–this is a nationwide phenomenon. According to The National Law Journal, 132 of the 199 schools accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA) saw declines in their 1L classes in the last 12 months. The ABA published enrollment data shows that Cooley Law’s first year enrollment dropped by 35 percent last year–from 897 students in 2012 to 582 students in 2013. This drastic change caused Cooley Law to make budget cuts by closing off its Ann Arbor campus to new students, and they still haven’t disclosed what will happen to those who were planning to enroll at that campus. They’re also planning faculty and staff layoffs, though no specifics were given about which campuses would see losses.

This news was confirmed the same day as Cooley Law was alerted of its loss in a defamation suit in which they had claimed $17 million in losses. Cooley Law filed to sue a New York law firm for falsely accusing the school of inflating its post-grad employment statistics. It’s a pretty tangled web of lawsuits–but essentially the firm and Cooley Law had brought dueling suits accusing each other of making false statements. The New York judge dismissed the case on July 2, 2014–the same day the school announced its closure of the Ann Arbor Campus to new enrollees.

This isn’t the first time Cooley Law’s employment statistics came into question. Back in 2012, a group of 12 graduates from Cooley Law tried to sue the school for misrepresenting its post-graduation employment statistics. The grads said they wouldn’t have attended the school had they known the real numbers and sued for reimbursement of their purchase. Though the case was dismissed, a few ugly truths were made public during the ruling:

• US News & World Report ranked Cooley Law with the lowest admission standards of any accredited or provisionally accredited law school in the country.
• In 2010, Cooley Law accepted 83% of all applicants.
• In 2010, Cooley Law’s average admissions score was 146 – a national low.
• In 2010, Cooley Law’s average GPA was 2.99 – also a national low.
• In 2008, about 32% of the 1,500 first year students at Cooley Law did not return.

All of these revelations about the recent history of the nation’s largest law school does not bode well for its future But we should use this as a learning experience. First of all, I encourage all current and prospective law students to do their homework. Know your school, and know what you’re paying for! Take into account all aspects of your law school experience. Where is your school located? Is there an easily accessible alumni network? Does your school offer judicial clerkships, externships, clinics, pro bono practice opportunities, and study abroad programs? How much is your tuition, and how does that compare with your anticipated salary? These are all things you should take into consideration before signing up for something that can put you into some serious debt.

Don’t want to end up like the debt-riddled, unemployed Cooley Law grads who couldn’t win a lawsuit against their notorious alma mater? Look past the numbers and the statistics and look into the experience. The judge who ruled against the graduates, Gordon Quist, wrote in his decision that the grads made poor decisions, stating, “with red flags [waving] and cautionary bells ringing an ordinary prudent person would not have relied on the statistics to decide to spend $100,000 or more.”

The closing of Cooley Law’s Ann Arbor campus to new enrollment could indicate a future trend in law school actions nationwide. The decline in law school enrollment is no surprise, and law grads are struggling to find work. But would the industry improve by reducing the number of law schools? I think it would be best for students to be extra diligent in their enrollment decisions. Then by natural selection the weakest law schools that produce the most unsuccessful attorneys would be knocked off the map. It’s not a perfect formula, but there’s definitely a need for some big changes.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) 

Image courtesy of [Matthew DeWaal via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Hot Water appeared first on Law Street.

Conservative media personality Glenn Beck has been known to make outrageous statements. But now, one of his assertions could land him on trial.

A 20 year old Saudi Arabian student, Abdulrahman Alharbi, has filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Boston charging Glenn Beck with defamation. The international student was a survivor of the Boston Marathon bombings, and was questioned (along with others) by authorities after the incident and was found to be uninvolved with the violent plan and was released.

However, even after Alharbi’s release and the identification of the Tsarnaev brothers as the true suspects of the terrorist attack, Glenn Beck used his radio show to urge the U.S. government to release information on the supposed third suspect, Alharbi. Beck claimed the student was affiliated with Al Qaeda and ‘the money man’ behind the attacks. He also claimed that Alharbi had been officially deemed a terrorist by the U.S. All of the above accusations are, of course, untrue.

What is the legality of defamation, and can Beck be convicted?

According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell, in order to prove defamation has occurred, four criteria must be met:

1. A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity.

2. Publication or communication of that statement to a third person.

3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence.

4. Some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

With this information in mind, it seems that Abdulrahman Alharbi has a good chance of receiving justice from Glenn Beck’s slanderous comments.

Glenn Beck’s comments about Alharbi were stated as facts. Beck labeled the student as an ‘al Qaeda control agent’ and claimed that Alharbi was the source of money behind the Boston Marathon bombings. He clearly labelled Alharbi as a terrorist, an assertion of a factual statement that in actuality was untruthful. In fact, the FBI had interrogated Alharbi and found him to be completely innocent. Therefore, Beck created a falsely factual statement about Alharbi.

Glenn Beck communicated his statements about Alharbi to a third party: his radio listeners. Beck did not only state the above falsehoods about the muslim student, but he publicly communicated them to the listeners of his radio broadcast. In making his assertions known to others, he caused his listeners to be influenced by his statements, and many of them may have believed him (though why anyone would believe Glenn Beck is a true mystery). The second criterion for the proof of defamation has been met.

Glenn Beck is clearly the one at fault for his statements, whether they were made intentionally or with negligence. Glenn Beck has said a lot of crazy things throughout his career as a media personality. He has espoused ridiculous conspiracy theories, called President Obama both Hitler and a communist, and list continues. Sometimes, it can be difficult to determine whether he says all of these things for entertainment value or whether he truly believes what he states on the radio or television. Nevertheless, whether Glenn Beck intended to target an innocent individual or failed to properly research and establish if there were any merits to his claims, Beck is liable for defamation. Beck has continually failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support his assertion that Alharbi was a terrorist involved in the Boston Marathon bombings. Unless Glenn has miraculously found some evidence that the FBI has overlooked, it’s not looking good for him.

Finally, but most importantly, there has been some harm caused to Abdulrahman Alharbi due to Glenn Beck’s wrongful statements. Alharbi’s lawyers have stated that “Alharbi’s reputation has been substantially and severely damaged” by Beck’s assertions. The student has received many harmful and accusatory messages after Beck publicly and falsely accused him. Beck’s claims have wrongly led others to believe that Alharbi was involved, and although no threats or physical harm have come to fruition, the student has suffered great emotional distress. The fourth criterion in establishing defamation has been met: Beck’s falsehoods have impacted the personal life of Alharbi and changed how others view him.

As all four criteria for establishing defamation can be proven in court, Glenn Beck is clearly liable for the defamation of Abdulrahman Alharbi. The student deserves justice and payment for the damages that Beck’s lies have caused him.

After the news of Alharbi’s filing in court broke, Glenn Beck has been unusually quiet. He has refused to comment in newspapers, and even his twitter account has fallen silent. Perhaps this means that for once, Glenn Beck realizes that he has gone too far.

[Washington Post] [Politico] [Cornell]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Hey, Glenn Beck It’s Time to Pay Up appeared first on Law Street.

This week Law Street broke the story of the FBI’s latest violent crime data — if you haven’t checked it out yet you definitely should. This week, though, I want to talk about crimes of defamation, because though they are rarely discussed, they have similar ability to do serious harm to a person’s life. These are caused by careless, negligent, and often malicious words of one person against another. Some of these people are just talking to hear their own voices, and some are liars — there is a special place in hell for liars.

Crimes of defamation are rarely talked about on a large scale because, really, how do you quantify them?  Where do we draw the line between “Freedom of speech” and “defamatory content?” The area between the two is gray, but the laws exist to determine what is casual conversation and what is illegal.

The Supreme Court defines defamation as a four-element offense, which requires:

1. A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity;
2. Publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence;  and,
4. Some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. 
   

Some states, like New York, take these federal guidelines a step further and determine various rules for defamation depending on the person being defamed. The first category is for “private” people — a group into which most of us fall. Private people are more broadly protected. If you negligently say something that is defamatory against me, and the above four elements are met, you’ve broken the law. It’s that simple!

New York also has two other classes: public official and public figure. President Barack Obama is a public official; Kim Kardashian is a public figure. (Get the difference?) These people have taken steps to thrust themselves into the public consciousness, and with widespread notoriety comes widespread ridicule and judgment. I believe the legal term is “Mo Money, Mo Problems.”

When dealing with Kim Kardashian, President Obama, or any other public person, New York mandates that a fifth requirement must be met: the defamatory speech must be malicious. Malice requires a specific intent to cause harm to a person — it’s a tougher hurdle to jump, but the rewards are much greater. When a U.K. newspaper claimed that Liberace was gay in the late 50s, he sued it for defamation and libel and was awarded a large amount of money. Tom Cruise won a similar suit, and let’s not forget when Lindsay Lohan tried to sue E-Trade for their drunk baby named “Lindsay.”

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

The law says that truth is an affirmative defense to any claim of defamation. That is, if the defamatory statement is based on a true story, the speech is within the bounds of the law. This makes sense, right?  If you are a known thief, and someone tells their best friend that you steal, that is totally okay.

What’s not okay is when the defamation occurs and is based on untrue information. The law recognizes that the power of words and one’s reputation can carry a person very far, and does its best to protect an otherwise innocent person from being victimized by lies and rumors.

The point of these defamation laws is to combat that victimization. Because of these laws, an unfairly accused or viciously maligned person can stand firm in her innocence or his correct assertion. An easy way to do this is to have an adjudicatory decision in your favor, i.e. you’ve gone to court and won. In other words, proof is of paramount importance when attempting to bolster one’s argument in a defamation case.

“Show Me the Receipts!”

There are various ways to determine if something is true or false, and one of the easiest ways to make that determination is to review the record. Courts and triers of fact rely on hundreds of thousands, likely even millions, of pages of documents annually in order to parse out the truth from all of malarky. That is why law schools across the country focus on organization, meticulous record keeping, and the importance of creating a paper trail. It’s why we create elaborate filing systems, why every document is backed up, and why everything is committed to writing. The quickest way to piss off a lawyer is to make an assertion without substantiating evidence.

50 Cent, the Poet Laureate of the early 2000s, put it best when he said, “I talk a lot of shit, but I can back it up.”

The moral of the story is that crime is a problem, but we need to broaden the discussion. All criminal activity is reprehensible, and when the law is broken there need to be consequences. The law exists so that criminals don’t do whatever they want to do, and the same preclusions apply with words.

And if all else fails, don’t lie.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [Angie Linder/Christina via Flickr]

The blog that feeds my insatiable hunger for “RHONJ” .gifs: RealityTVgifs

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Liar, Liar Pants on Fire appeared first on Law Street.

In the moment, it may seem harmless to share a provocative photo with a significant other during the comfortable times of a relationship. However, when in emotional turmoil these photos can spread across the internet like wildfire, ruining your reputation and in some cases your life. There is one specific type of public humiliation with regards to nude photos and while not everyone may be aware of this new trend called revenge porn, others are reaping the legal ramifications for it. Revenge porn consists of sexually explicit material shared publically through the media and is often posted by either exes or in some cases hackers. Before rushing to Google to make sure that one of your own compromising photos has not been leaked across the web, you can feel some comfort in the fact that one of the key contributors for these revenge porn sites was arrested by the FBI on Thursday, January 23, 2014.

Hunter Moore, created a business out of revenge porn through the foundation of his website IsAnyoneUp.com, lasting for sixteen months. This site was originally intended to be an outlet for angry exes to post nude pictures of their previous partners, accompanied by the subject’s full name, city of residence, profession and links to their social media profile. As if all of this humiliation was not enough, Moore would also guarantee that the posted photos be displayed across Google for everyone to see, including bosses, professors or even parents. In its prime, IsAnyoneUp.com boasted around 350,000 views daily and 15 to 30 unlucky victims featured on the site per day ranged from infamous celebrities such as the real housewives to mothers and schoolteachers. All of this spiteful sharing of photos, has earned Hunter Moore the title; the most hated man on the internet. Not to worry though, this revenge site was shut down in April 2012, when it was bought by Bullyville.com

Moore and his hacker associate Charles Evens, spent their work days not only receiving photos of unfortunate victims but also hacking into the email accounts of chosen victims to steal sexually explicit photos to fuel their website. The two are currently facing the consequences as they are being charged with a 15 count indictment, involving identity theft, conspiracy and computer hacking. If the pair of hackers are found guilty of the accumulation of charges, they have the possibility of facing up to 42 years in prison.

The specific date of this hacking has not been completely uncovered, but there is email evidence dating back to October 2011. This emailing back and forth between Moore and Evens consisted of conversations regarding how to hack email accounts as well as plans to exchange up to $250 for nude photos of 6 males and 6 females. It is documented that as the ringleader of the website, Moore paid his hacking assistant up to $900 in individual installments through March 2012.

Officially, the indictment involves seven counts of unlawful entry into a computer to obtain personal information, seven accounts of identity theft and charges the two men with conspiracy. The indictment includes a list of seven victims, identified by their initials, all of whom had email accounts containing “among other things, nude pictures of themselves and others.” The indictment is signed by four attorneys within the United States, working in intellectual, cyber and property crimes as well as the United States attorney’s Criminal Division.

Those affected by Moore are not the only ones facing an issue with publicized explicit content on the web. Embarrassing situations revolving around the topics of sexting and nude photos have become a point of debate across the United States legal system. Many victims are attempting to eradicate revenge porn sites, such as Maryland woman, Annemarie Chiarini. On January 28, 2014 Chiarini begged the Maryland House Judiciary Committee to create new criminal laws preventing revenge porn, after her ex boyfriend published her explicit photos across the internet. Actions are actually being taken to prevent the defamation faced by victims such as Chiarini, as Dels. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D- Montgomary) and Jon S Cardin (D- Baltimore County) are attempting to extend protection against sexual harassment on the Internet. Such legislation would stop someone from sharing explicit material featuring another person without their consent as well as requiring proof that publicizing this content was meant to cause emotional pain. Chiarini is pushing her state to move forward in revenge porn legislation, while other states such as New Jersey and California have labeled this type of public sharing of explicit photos as a crime.

These cases present the idea that not everything on the internet is private and something shared in confidence can easily become publicly viewed. It is ridiculous to me that a revenge porn site that was secretly stealing nude photos from email accounts could even last for sixteen months. The government is supposedly watching everything that is happening online so why did this slip past their view for so long? Privacy needs to remain sacred over the internet. The fact that images of your body can be exposed to the public without your consent makes me question what else can be so easily leaked about you. Just imagine what other information that you believed to be private is actually floating around the web at this very moment. While some states such as Maryland have begun creating legislation regarding revenge porn, others have fallen completely behind or believe that certain cases of sharing explicit photos do not fall under the category of crime. This is neither right nor just. Legislation regarding revenge porn and maintaining the privacy of Internet users needs to happen, now.  It just makes sense that if a picture or private information is being shared without your consent and with the intent to undermine someones career or reputation, steps need to be taken by the court. Victims of this injustice should be allowed the right to fight back against wrongdoing. Embarrassment is one thing, but an alteration in your entire lifestyle for the worst is another. This violating action happened to innocent victims, that never believed their information would be spread online. It could have been anyone and one day if the courts do not step in, it could be you.  

[Rolling Stone]  [The Guardian] [The Washington Post]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Cory Doctorow via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Finally Takes Action on Revenge Porn: Sign of Things to Come appeared first on Law Street.