Ron Livingston Lawsuit Discussion, the beginning of the end? Options

[ColScott]

Moderator's Note: A full narrative of this story may be found on our Opinions and Editorials page. However, this thread contains somewhat more detail, if that's even possible.


Let's discuss this lawsuit. Malicious lies intended to damage a reputation? Check. A systematic pattern of abuse- check.

We'll see if WP stays clean... but for certain they will have to reveal the editor. And once one loser editor is taken down, legally, how many more will grow up and run?

[Tarc]

I hate to interrupt the pack mentality here, but aren't we at the point...40 years after Stonewall and well into the 21st century...where being called "gay" is no longer considered defamatory?

This sort of thing shifts over the years, as it was once ruled defamatory for saying a white person had "Negro blood", to be labeled a Communist, etc... and though Cruise won such a "OMG don't call me gay!" suit a few years ago, I believe it was simply a default judgment since the defendant didn't defend himself.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Mon 7th December 2009, 2:24pm

[Doc glasgow]

I hate to interrupt the pack mentality here, but aren't we at the point...40 years after Stonewall and well into the 21st century...where being called "gay" is no longer considered defamatory?

This sort of thing shifts over the years, as it was once ruled defamatory for saying a white person had "Negro blood", to be labeled a Communist, etc... and though Cruise won such a "OMG don't call me gay!" suit a few years ago, I believe it was simply a default judgment since the defendant didn't defend himself.

No.

We keep hearing this - I was removing unreferenced stuff about someone being a gay porn star to be grabbed by a member of the liberal pc brigade and told "being a gay porn star isn't negative - so it doesn't fall under BLP"

The fact is that lots of people who are not gay don't want to be called "gay". In many parts of the world it is a criminal offence, and in many sub-communities it leads to condemnation and ostracism. But even beyond that, people have the right not to be labelled as something they are not.

Most people would believe there is nothing intrinsically negative about keeping Jewish food laws. It is a perfectly sociable thing to choose to do. However, if I put on the biography of a leading Catholic that they do so, I may seriously defame them.

Likewise calling someone gay can cause serious stress to that person. Even if they themselves are liberal in their attitudes.

[Tarc]

We keep hearing this - I was removing unreferenced stuff about someone being a gay porn star to be grabbed by a member of the liberal pc brigade and told "being a gay porn star isn't negative - so it doesn't fall under BLP"

I really don't care to quibble over wiki-politics and BLP, I was more addressing the real-world implications of suing someone for calling someone a homosexual. That this happens to involve everyone's favorite punching bag for a website is incidental. Even a blowhard like Joseph Farah of WND didn't actually carry out his threats to sue over his article last year.

The fact is that lots of people who are not gay don't want to be called "gay". In many parts of the world it is a criminal offence, and in many sub-communities it leads to condemnation and ostracism. But even beyond that, people have the right not to be labelled as something they are not.

What the hell, are you channeling Mary Whitehouse? People do not have the right to walk through life unoffended. Saying someone is gay when they aren't may be wrong, it may be devoid of ethics, but trying to call it specifically defamatory in 2009 is becoming almost impossible to substantiate in a day where more (US, at least) people support gay rights than do not. The holdouts in flyover country aren't enough to matter.

[ColScott]

I really don't care to quibble over wiki-politics and BLP, I was more addressing the real-world implications of suing someone for calling someone a homosexual. That this happens to involve everyone's favorite punching bag for a website is incidental. Even a blowhard like Joseph Farah of WND didn't actually carry out his threats to sue over his article last year.

You may actually be too stupid to live. The man is an actor. He will claim he is a leading man. He will state that Hollywood will not hire him as a leading man if he is gay. He will then claim millions in damages because of these false allegations which seem designed to hurt him.

You sir are a moron.

[Doc glasgow]

You may actually be too stupid to live. The man is an actor. He will claim he is a leading man. He will state that Hollywood will not hire him as a leading man if he is gay. He will then claim millions in damages because of these false allegations which seem designed to hurt him.

You sir are a moron.

Maybe not a moron, but naive in the extreme (or blinded by his own cultural prejudices).

Defamation does not only equal "being called something that most liberal Americans think is a Bad Thing"

DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation.

All you need to show is that someone maliciously or negligently stated an untruth and that untruth has caused you harm, disadvantage or quantifiable distress.

If you falsely alleged that I'm am a woman, and get me kicked out of the "male internet user's club", I have a case for defamation. That does not mean woman are inferior.

And the fact is that EVEN in the US, EVEN in 2009, people thinking you are gay can cause you substantial harm in various contexts - even if it is just in you attempts to get laid in a heterosexual singles' bar. But defamation is not just about what might cause you harm in the cultural mainstream - if it causes you embarrassment in your conservative evangelical church meeting, you may still have a case for defamation.

10 years ago Jason Donovan won £200,000 libel damaged from "The Face" when they alleged he was gay. He was accused of homophobia when he launched the suit - but there's no evidence he was - and he won.

(I wonder how long before a gay man wins libel damages against someone for calling them "straight"? When it happens (as it probably will) it will prove my point).