The award for “most creative vandalism” may have to go to Minnie Driver–the actress has been accused by her neighbor of throwing “baby food jars filled with black paint” against the walls of his property, according to TMZ. Daniel Perelmutter has filed a lawsuit against the “Good Will Hunting” actress, claiming that she has been interfering with construction on his home and causing him a great deal of stress. He also accuses the actress of blocking access to a shared electric gate in front of his driveway.

The baby food paint grenades are just one part of what seems to be an ongoing, bizarre war between Driver and Perelmutter. Driver was granted a temporary restraining order against her neighbor last year, and last week Perelmutter pleaded not guilty to a contempt charge after Driver accused him of “yelling profanities, scaring her children and jumping in front of her car,” according to KABC-TV.

Cops also had to come by and break up a fight between the neighbors last week, after Perelmutter’s delivery truck blocked Driver’s driveway.

Perelmutter fired back against the claims and spoke in front of the courthouse last week, telling a reporter that the actress has wished death upon him multiple times and that she needed to be “institutionalized.” Perelmutter, who recently had a heart transplant and was holding a cane while speaking to reporters, pointed out that he was “in no condition” to leap in front of her car, and alleged that Driver herself was the one who tried to hit him.

Before rushing to judgment, it seems that this isn’t Perelmutter’s first time fighting with a neighbor over property. A 2008 filing shows that he fought with previous neighbors over access to a shared driveway, a case which he appears to have lost.

It remains to be seen who’s truly at fault in this “he-said, she-said” situation, but with a trial set for August, this totally bizarre case is worth keeping an eye on.

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 Minnie Driver And Her Neighbor Are In a Bizarre Legal Dispute Involving Baby Food Jars appeared first on Law Street.

With the recent attack on Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris, freedom of speech at large was assaulted. To show that freedom of thought has not–and will not–be eliminated, I thought I would illustrate several recent court decisions across the globe that have advocated for freedom of expression.

Joseph Stalin’s Grandson

According to the Russian News Agency, Joseph Stalin’s grandson had his defamation lawsuit complaint dismissed, which claimed that the newspaper Novaya Gazeta defamed his grandfather in a 2009 article. Yevgeny Dzhugashvili filed a lawsuit against the Novaya Gazeta in 2010 for publishing articles about shooting prisoners in 1940 in Katyn, Poland.

In explaining its decision, the European Court of Human Rights claimed that the article “concerned an event of significant historical importance and that both the event and historical figures involved, such as the applicant’s grandfather, inevitably remain open to public scrutiny and criticism.”

South Korean Journalists

Two South Korean journalists were acquitted Friday of charges that they defamed the South Korean president’s brother, Park Ji-man. The journalists, Choo Chin-woo, a reporter for SisaIN, and Kim Ou-joon, a host of a political podcast, stated that Ji-man might have been involved in the murder of Ji-man’s relative, according to The New York Times.

Choo and Kim were originally acquitted in October 2013, but prosecutors appealed the verdict. The prosecutors sought long prison terms, and several free speech organizations protested the second trial, claiming that the prosecutors were causing the journalists to censor themselves.

This win is big for freedom of expression advocates because of South Korea’s perceived lack of tolerance for dissent among critics. In particular, critics point to the burden of proof in defamation cases within South Korea, which is placed on the defendant, rather than on the prosecution.

Super Bowl Prostitution

Earlier this week, Janice Lee, who was the subject of a TMZ article last year entitled, “Super Bowl Prostitution Bust,” sued several media outlets, most notably TMZ and the New York Daily News, for defamation.

Lee’s complaint claims that TMZ’s article contained false statements of fact, such as Lee’s business was a front to funnel profits from pimps, according to Entertainment Law Digest. Lee’s complaint alleges that she sells wigs and has “never touched illegal drugs and has never engaged in prostitution or the operation of a prostitution ring.”

TMZ’s article also stated that Lee was in a “a small army of Asian hookers … who take credit cards.” Moreover, the article included her picture and referred to her as an “arrested prostitute.”

Lee says in her complaint that she has been “humiliated among millions of readers and all of her community as a criminal; as a prostitute; as a gang member and as part of an organized criminal enterprise.” Lee is seeking an injunction that would cause the media outlets in her complaint to clarify and retract any false statements about her.

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 Recent Defamation Decisions Show Freedom of Speech is Alive and Well appeared first on Law Street.

Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice has been removed from his team and suspended indefinitely by the NFL. The move came after a video surfaced of Ray Rice hitting his then-fiancee in an elevator. She was knocked unconscious in the February 15 incident, and then was dragged out of the elevator. She has since married Rice, but the video just made its way into the public consciousness.

The video is below, but I do have to warn you that it’s pretty disturbing.

Now when allegations of domestic abuse first surfaced against Rice, he was originally just suspended for two games. The NFL claims that they didn’t know the full extent of the incident between Rice and Janay, now his wife. “Claim” is the important phrase there. There’s some speculation that the NFL did have access to the damning video, but at this point it’s unknown whether that’s true or not. Sports Illustrated’s Peter King, one of the most well-known sports reporters around, claimed earlier that the NFL had seen the video; he has since recanted that statement. Chris Mortenson, from ESPN, references that this video existed back in July, although he doesn’t confirm whether or not NFL or Ravens officials had seen it.

So, to sum up, we’ve known this video existed for a while. The Ravens and/or NFL officials claim they didn’t see it, despite making inquiries to the police. However, a member of the Ravens’ PR team did send an email to Deadspin, saying:

Only thing we know for sure is that police who arrested Ray and Janay and then let them leave together that night saw the video.

The meaning behind that statement isn’t hard to figure out. The Ravens were essentially saying, “Well we have no idea what happened, but he was allowed to leave with her, right guys???”

That’s pretty crappy logic, and it’s especially bad logic on which to base a punishment. Before the outcry when this video was released, the NFL gave Rice a two-game suspension. They didn’t have all the facts, they didn’t have that video, but they clearly knew it existed. So instead of waiting for the evidence, and playing it safe in the meantime, they just went ahead and arbitrarily created a punishment for him. At least that’s what they expect us to believe, and I understand why, because its certainly better than the alternative — that they knew exactly what had happened in that elevator, gave him a measly two-game punishment, and then rolled it back after their PR nightmare.

No one should be applauding the Ravens for cutting Rice, or the NFL for suspending him indefinitely. They’re doing that to, for complete lack of a better term, cover their own asses. They’re trying to hide the fact that the they either a) didn’t do their jobs and look into the incident appropriately or b) suspended him for only two games despite having seen the evidence. Either way, they do not deserve our applause.

It shouldn’t be a surprise — the NFL is, after all, a business. They’re going to do what serves them the most profit, and avoids the most bad publicity. That’s profit driven too — the worse your publicity, the more you have to pay people to handle it, the more people complain, the less satisfied your customers are. It’s similar to Donald Sterling’s situation with the NBA — they didn’t do anything until the public outcry developed.

The NFL deserves no praise for the way they’ve handled this. They did their job belatedly and poorly. Instead of applauding them for their actions over the last year, we should demand that they do it right if there is, god forbid, another incident like this.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [m01229 via Flickr]

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 Job Poorly Done: The NFL’s Handling of Ray Rice appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that many Americans feel there are too many lawsuits in this country. If you’ve ever been selected for jury duty, then you know that one of the most common questions asked before sitting on a civil case is whether or not people sue too often. The answer back to the attorney is often “yes,” not just because the panelist is seeking to avoid jury service, but because that’s the view espoused by many when reflecting on the American zeitgeist.

This sentiment is caused, or at least reinforced, by the media’s reporting of lawsuits. The headlines that make the largest waves are often based on huge, seven-digit verdicts. Laura Beth Nielsen and Aaron Beim alluded to this correlation in a recent paper claiming the courts are not as favorable to plaintiffs as the media often portrays, yet the media’s reports are what the public absorbs. Neilsen and Beim’s chief example is a Boston Globe report of an MBTA worker who was awarded a $5.5 million discrimination verdict. The verdict was later reduced by 80 percent on remittitur, an important detail the Globe did not feature as prominently as the original verdict. It seems that cases alleging discrimination in the workplace carry a stigma with the public and media.

Just as the figures of a verdict can be lost on the average American, so too can the merits of the underlying discrimination case. In 2009, former Los Angeles Clippers executive Elgin Baylor sued team owner Donald Sterling alleging racial discrimination. A jury of 12 unanimously rejected Baylor’s suit, and many called the hall of famer’s action frivolous.

Cases alleging tales of sexual discrimination are no different. This year alone, cheerleaders from three different NFL teams have sued their employers, often alleging sexual harassment among a variety of different wage claims. Knee-jerk reactions to such suits are often negative, as evidenced in the comments section of ESPN articles covering the matter.

A closer look at both situations may evoke a more tolerant response. Since his lawsuit, Elgin Baylor’s former employer has allegedly been caught on tape making racist comments against African Americans, and some former Clippers aren’t surprised by his discriminatory tendencies. Details have also emerged in the cheerleading case of the Buffalo Jills, whose employer allegedly instructed them on how to control their menstrual cycles and how to wash their “intimate areas.”

In sum, it’s never a bad idea to reserve judgment on a lawsuit that appears in the news or on TV, even one alleging discrimination. In fact, suits alleging workplace discrimination often already have safeguards in place against frivolous litigation, like the EEOC’s Right-To-Sue-Letter. But even absent an EEOC investigation, plaintiffs should be afforded a blank slate. Few things in this country are as ubiquitously opposed as prejudice and discrimination. Those who decide to sacrifice time, money, and privacy to personally combat these evils in a public court should be heard with an open mind.

____

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [BuffaloProCheer via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Rethinking Discrimination Suits in Light of Buffalo Jills, Donald Sterling appeared first on Law Street.