WebProNews

Tag: libel

  • Sammy Hagar: What He Said About the Playboy Bunny That Got Him Sued

    Rocker Sammy Hagar has been fighting a lawsuit from an unnamed former Playboy Bunny who claims that she had his baby. The current incarnation of the lawsuit is mainly focused on what the Jane Doe considers libelous statements made about her by Sammy Hagar in his autobiography Red: My Uncensored Life in Rock.

    We’ve reported on the specifics of the case before. Now we’ll show you exactly what Hagar said that has led to this lawsuit.

    You’ll notice that he never names the woman in his book. The problem is that, even if 99% of the people who read Hagar’s book don’t know who this woman is, there is a number of people who are familiar with her who do know.

    The Jane Doe now lives in Iowa. Circuit Judge Myron Bright explains how that plays into the case against Hagar.

    “Under Iowa law, an accusation that a person is a liar is defamatory as a matter of law,” Bright wrote. “Indeed, Hagar’s statements regarding Doe’s criminality, dishonesty, and sexual exploits have a natural tendency to provoke Doe to wrath or expose her to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule within the community of individuals that recognize her as the subject.”

    The important phrase here is “within the community of individuals that recognize her as the subject”. Even if only a handful of people — perhaps even people she has told — recognize that the following passages were about her, that is enough to trigger possible culpability on the part of Hagar.

    Hagar is an astute businessman who knows how to handle himself.

    Without further ado, here is the passage that got Sammy Hagar sued, in its entirety, which will be presented as evidence in this case.

    On the tour, there was a former Playboy bunny from California hanging around, who used to see one of the other guys in my old band. Somehow she hooked up with [Hagar’s manager, Ed] Leffler, although she had always been after me. She was good-looking, but there was just something about this chick that was not to be trusted. She saw my name on Leffler’s rooming list and came knocking at my door in the middle of the night in Detroit. I answered the door without any clothes—I sleep naked—and she pushes the door open, throws me on the bed, and starts blowing me. That’s kind of tough to get up and walk away from. “Son of a bitch,” I was thinking, “I’m fucked now.” And sure enough, I was.

    About ten days later, Leffler gets the phone call. She’s pregnant. I smelled a setup. I was so pissed off. Betsy would commit suicide. We hired an attorney and started dealing with her. I knew it was not my baby. It was extortion.

    She wanted an apartment in New York and anything for that kid that my children would have. I didn’t want to pay a penny, but Leffler convinced me the smart thing to do was give her the money until the baby was born and see what happened at that point. She was living with her boyfriend, a musician in New York, in the apartment when she had the baby. She called Leffler from the hospital. “Tell Sammy to call me,” she said. I didn’t want to talk to her, but Leffler talked me into it. She tells me the baby is so cute, looks just like me, she’s madly in love with me, she’s so sorry, shit like that.

    A couple days later, Leffler gets another call. The baby died. I don’t believe that she ever had a baby. She may have had an abortion early on. Marshall Lever, my psychic with the sleeping dog, told me about it. “It’s not your baby,” he said. “She’s living with her boyfriend in New York. She has a boyfriend that’s a musician and this is probably an extortion case. Don’t worry, just relax, and once she has the baby, it’s all going to go away.”

    I never heard from her again. Obviously, it wasn’t my baby, and they knew it. They just extorted me as long as they could. No one ever saw her again. — excerpt from Red: My Uncensored Life in Rock, Chapter 7, “5150”, by Sammy Hagar.

  • Sammy Hagar, Lawsuits, and the Playboy Bunny’s Baby

    The Red Rocker, Sammy Hagar, has seen his share of ups and downs in life. He was tapped by the Van Halen Brothers to replace David Lee Roth after he left the band. Hagar took the Van Halens to their first number one single and album.

    Eventually, Hagar and the Van Halens had a falling out, tried to make it work, but eventually gave it up for lost. Van Halen is now back with Roth and rocking well.

    But during those years, and even in his years prior with Montrose and solo, Hagar had one adventure after another. The man is an entrepreneur, investing in fire sprinkler companies, a tequila, and a nightclub, among other ventures. And he’s had his share of the ladies.

    One lady was an unnamed Playboy Bunny that Hagar allegedly met in the 80s. This woman claims that she became pregnant with Hagar’s child in 1988. She reportedly told Hagar that the baby was his, but it died five days after being born. The thing is, Hagar was married at the time.

    Hagar told his side the whole story in his autobiography “Red: My Uncensored Life in Rock”. He said he was not the baby’s father, that there was no paternity test, and that he was encouraged by his manager to pay the woman to keep quiet. Read exactly what Sammy said about the woman here.

    But this is one woman who was not going away. She has been trying to sue Hagar ever since the book came out, demanding restitution for libel, invasion of privacy and breach of a confidentiality agreement.

    It turns out, the woman has moved to Iowa. Circuit Judge Myron Bright explains how that plays into the case against Hagar.

    “Under Iowa law, an accusation that a person is a liar is defamatory as a matter of law,” Bright wrote. “Indeed, Hagar’s statements regarding Doe’s criminality, dishonesty, and sexual exploits have a natural tendency to provoke Doe to wrath or expose her to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule within the community of individuals that recognize her as the subject.”

    What this all boils down to is that the legal fight rolls on for Hagar.

  • Conor Oberst Files Libel Suit After Rape Claim

    Bright Eyes frontman Conor Oberst has filed a libel lawsuit against a woman who claimed he sexually assaulted her.

    On Wednesday an attorney for the singer-songwriter filed the civil suit in a federal court in Manhattan. The suit claims that last December a woman made “despicable, false, outrageous, and defamatory statements” about Oberst.

    According to the suit the “woman posted accusations that Oberst raped her a decade ago in North Carolina after his brother, her middle school English teacher, introduced the two at an Oberst show.” The suit also says she was 16 at the time and that Oberst also punched her in the face.

    The suit also notes that the woman accusing Oberst of sexual assault said she did not come forward about the assault because of the way her family and friends reacted. At her husband’s suggestion she posted the accusations about Oberst 10 years later to help others who have been sexually assaulted. The woman wrote, “Conor took a lot from me including my virginity, my dignity, and self-esteem.”

    However Oberst’s suit is claiming that recently the woman has written posts on social media praising Oberst and Bright Eyes.

    Oberst says the media coverage of these accusations have damaged his career, especially in New York. He also claims he was with “his brother, bandmates or then-girlfriend” at the time the woman claims the assault took place.

    It seems there is a mixed crowd of people on Twitter. Some believe the woman’s accusations, while others believe Oberst is innocent.

    Oberst is seeking monetary damages, attorney fees and other costs in his suit.

    Image via YouTube.

  • Virginia Yelp Review Suit Goes To Trial

    A little over a year ago, a Virginia judge ordered a Yelp user to change a negative review on the site. Jane Perez was sued by Dietz Development, a building contractor who claimed to have lost business because of her negative postings on the site (as well as on Angie’s List). He sued for $750,000, and claimed that he lost $300,000 because of her words.

    Perez claimed in her reviews that the contractor had caused damage to her home, trespassed and stole jewelry. The judge granted a temporary injunction, and ordered Perez to change parts of the review, specifically the accusations of theft.

    The following month, the Supreme Court of Virginia overturned the injunction, ruling that it was not justified.

    The case, according to The Washington Post, heads back to court on Monday for trial.

    The Virginia Supreme Court determined that Perez wouldn’t have to change the reviews as long as they had yet to be proven libelous. Simply being sued for damages was not determined to be enough of a justification.

    Now that the case is going to trial, this feud gets a step closer to conclusion. We’ll continue to follow it, and report on the outcome.

    Earlier this month, in another case, Yelp was ordered to identify the people behind anonymous reviews who allegedly left fake, negative reviews on a business listing.

    Image via Yelp

  • Courtney Love Twibel Verdict Will Be a Game Changer

    Who would have ever guessed that Courtney Love would be involved in a court case that could set major precedent over internet defamation laws? Currently, social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook are a bit like the Wild West. A person can usually pretty much say whatever they want about another person and not worry about a lawsuit. That could all change depending on the verdict of Courtney Love’s current trial. The case is cleverly being called a “Twibel” suit.

    Love’s case is the first time a court has heard a libel suit against a person using Twitter. The case was brought against the Hole lead singer after Love posted a tweet in 2010 which hinted that her former lawyer Rhonda Holmes, who Love hired for a fraud case concerning her late husband Kurt Cobain’s estate, had been “bought off.” Love posted from her now defunct twitter page @CourtneyLoveUK: @noozjunkie I was f***ing devastated when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of san diego was bought off @fairnewsspears perhaps you can get a quote.

    Holmes subsequently sued Love in 2011 for defamation. Love took the witness stand on Wednesday. She claimed that she thought the tweet would only reach two people, not the whole world wide web. She also defended her Twitter rights, stating that her tweet was just her own personal opinion.

    The trial should finish up sometime next week. An attorney named Brian Claypool, who is not part of the Love case, spoke of the importance of the verdict. “The Courtney Love Twitter lawsuit is monumental because the judge has now determined that tweeting in California can potentially give rise to liability under the theory of defamation. The Courtney Love case will set a precedent that will result in, potentially, the average person being liable as well.”

    This is not the first time Love has gotten into trouble with Twitter. In 2011, she tweeted several disparaging remarks about fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir. The designer sued Love for defamation, but the case never went to trial. Love reportedly paid Simorangkir a $430,000 settlement.

    Image via Twitter

  • Does Google the Link Lister Equal Google the Publisher?

    Is Google a publisher? Or is Google simply a displayer of links? Are these two things the same?

    Those questions are at the heart of a Australian case that just tipped against Google, and are likely at the heart of many cases to come. An Australian high court has found Google liable for libelous content tying a man to organized crime. Of course, Google didn’t create the article that made the references, it simply provided a link to it within its search results.

    The man’s name is Milorad Trkulja, and he claimed that Google defamed him by associating his name and image with (untrue) claims of ties to organized crime, both in regular search results and in Google Image search. The jury in the case found Google guilty and therefore responsible for the content that they link to. They’ve been fined $200,000, but are in the process of appealing the ruling (as you would expect).

    Is Google responsible for the content that is found using their search engine? Or is this a ridiculous claim to make? Let us know in the comments.

    Here’s what the Judge in the case had to say:

    The question of whether or not Google Inc was a publisher is a matter of mixed fact and law. In my view, it was open to the jury to find the facts in this proceeding in such a way as to entitle the jury to conclude that Google Inc was a publisher even before it had any notice from anybody acting on behalf of the plaintiff. The jury were entitled to conclude that Google Inc intended to publish the material that its automated systems produced, because that was what they were designed to do upon a search request being typed into one of Google Inc’s search products. In that sense, Google Inc is like the newsagent that sells a newspaper containing a defamatory article. While there might be no specific intention to publish defamatory material, there is a relevant intention by the newsagent to publish the newspaper for the purposes of the law of defamation.

    Basically, Google may not want to publish it, but they are publishing the publishers. And since Google’s algorithms are tooled to find said content, they are responsible. Or at least it is plausible that a jury could see it that way. The Judge is clearly unconvinced that this stance is set in stone.

    The Judge also differentiated search results pages from Google Image searches. The plaintiff also complained of images tying him to crime figures. The Judge notes that a Google Image search is a more-sophisticated version of cut-and-paste from magazines, and importantly a Google-created page:

    As was pointed out by counsel for the plaintiff in his address to the jury, the first page of the images matter (containing the photographs I have referred to and each named “Michael Trkulja” and each with a caption “melbournecrime”) was a page not published by any person other than Google Inc. It was a page of Google Inc’s creation – put together as a result of the Google Inc search engine working as it was intended to work by those who wrote the relevant computer programs. It was a cut and paste creation (if somewhat more sophisticated than one involving cutting word or phrases from a newspaper and gluing them onto a piece of paper). If Google Inc’s submission was to be accepted then, while this page might on one view be the natural and probable consequence of the material published on the source page from which it is derived, there would be no actual original publisher of this page.

    You can see just how much of a charlie-foxtrot this is. Which pages are Google’s creation, and which are simply the “consequence of the material published on the source page from which it is derived?”

    The jury concluded that Google was a publisher, and was liable for the defamatory content even if they weren’t notified of it yet. Although Google contended that it doesn’t matter if they were notified of the content of not – they’re not responsible – the Judge rejected that notion as well.

    It follows that, in my view, it was open to the jury to conclude that Google Inc was a publisher – even if it did not have notice of the content of the material about which complaint was made. Google Inc’s submission to the contrary must be rejected. However, Google Inc goes further and asserts that even with notice, it is not capable of being liable as a publisher “because no proper inference about Google Inc adopting or accepting responsibility complained of can ever be drawn from Google Inc’s conduct in operating a search engine”.

    This submission must also be rejected. The question is whether, after relevant notice, the failure of an entity with the power to stop publication and which fails to stop publication after a reasonable time, is capable of leading to an inference that that entity consents to the publication. Such an inference is clearly capable of being drawn in the right circumstances (including the circumstances of this case). Further, if that inference is drawn then the trier of fact is entitled (but not bound) to conclude that the relevant entity is a publisher.[42] Google Inc’s submission on this issue must be rejected for a number of reasons, the least of which is that it understates the ways in which a person may be held liable as a publisher.

    Of course, $200,000 to Google is basically nothing. The appeal really has nothing to do with the monetary damages. Google knows that this kind of decision sets an unsettling precedent for their future defenses in similar cases. Google as “automated news agent that’s responsible for what their algorithms pull out of the depths” is a view of Google that the company can’t afford to have stick.

    We’ve seen this story play out numerous times over the past couple of years with Google’s autocomplete feature. In August of 2011, Google lost a case in Italy and was forced to remove autocomplete suggestion in its search box that tied a man to the word “truffatore,” meaning con man. A few month later, Google was fined $65,000 because one of its autocomplete suggestions labeled a French man “esroc,” meaning crook.

    And this year, Google made an out-of-court settlement with French anti-discrimination groups over a “Jewish” autocomplete suggestion.

    Google’s argument in these cases is similar to the argument in the Australian case. We’re not suggesting anything. We’re not defaming anyone. Google’s autocomplete suggestions are based on popularity of terms. That means that if anything, Google users are the ones linking people’s names with unsavory terms. Google’s search results are also based on an algorithm. Just ask Rick Santorum about how much responsibility Google claims in what people find using its search engine.

    So, is Google a publisher? If not, what are they, exactly? How much responsibility do you think Google has for what people find using their search engine? Tell us what you think in the comments.

  • John Travolta Sued for Libel by Author Robert Randolph

    John Travolta has returned once again to the national spotlight following a libel suit filed by author Robert Randolph, who claims the actor said some pretty nasty things in an attempt to thwart the publication of his book “You’ll Never Spa in This Town Again”. In the tome, Randolph reveals that Travolta is known for having sexual encounters with men at bathhouses, an allegation that was brought to the attention of the entire world earlier this year when two disgruntled masseurs sued the actor for harassment.

    According to Randolph, Travolta and his lawyer Martin Singer went to great lengths to discredit the book by spreading false rumors about the man’s mental stability, a claim which the author refutes. In fact, it was Singer and Travolta’s behavior that caused the book to be delayed almost two years; the tell-all finally went to print this February, roughly two months before the other allegations regarding the “Battlefield Earth” star’s randy behavior.

    Singer, meanwhile, claims their concerns about Randolph’s mental health do not fall under libel, as they were made in a private letter to a third party. Travolta’s attorney plans to turn the tables on the author by filing a lawsuit of their own. Given the amount of work that Singer will be doing over the next few months, here’s hoping Travolta still makes enough money to cover all of these legal expenses. I’m sure those “Old Dogs” residuals are pretty hefty.

    A representative from Travolta’s camp issued a lengthy statement regarding the impending lawsuit. A very large chunk of that text has been included below:

    The lawsuit filed by Robert Randolph is absurd. The suit is based on a privileged communication, and it will promptly be thrown out by the court. To evaluate the credibility of Robert Randolph and his ridiculous lawsuit one need look no further than his own statements published on his website stating that he sustained “permanent brain damage” and had to “retrain” his brain. Randolph also claimed on his website that after he was beaten and sustained brain damage at a spa, he allegedly returned to the same spa months later, and that the same assailant was there and supposedly attacked him for a second time. Mr. Travolta will aggressively defend himself against this lawsuit and expects to be fully vindicated when this meritless case is dismissed.

    Considering lawsuits are flying at Travolta’s face at a mad, rapid pace, chances are this isn’t the last you’ll hear about Randolph, Travolta, and the actor’s alleged bathhouse habits.

  • Georgia Teen, Alex Boston, Sues Classmates Over Fake Facebook Account

    I think within the next five years we’ll be adding a new word to the official english dictionary – cyberbullying. It seems like we can’t go a week without hearing of a case where a teen or group of teens is using a social media platform to harass or defame one of their peers. While Alex Boston’s case might not be the first cyberbullying occurrence, there are a few interesting aspects of the case which warrant attention.

    First, Boston is suing the classmates responsible for libel. She is able to utilize libel, because the teens who harassed her created a fake Facebook account and posted distorted images of her and created fake posts which made disparaging remarks towards blacks and made claims she smoked marijuana. None of which are true, hence the libel lawsuit.

    Alex Boston Facebook page
    (Image Credit: Arstechnica)

    For those who are wondering whether her case has a chance, here’s the legal definition of libel: Libel is any defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue.

    There are four elements which must be proven in order for a libel case to succeed. First, it must be proven the defendant issued a defamatory remark. Then the plaintiff must prove it was published, which in the legal world means it was written somewhere that the message was seen by more than one person. It must then be established whether the plaintiff can be clearly identified in the defamatory remark. Finally, it must be established that harm was done to the plaintiff.

    If you’ve been keeping up with your libel checklist regarding this case like I have, I think it’s pretty obvious it meets all the requirements. There have been all sorts of libel cases brought forth since the inception of the internet, with many of them failing to meet the final requirement for libel. After all, it’s hard to prove what harm has truly been done to a person by a simple joke or tease on the internet. It’s not real life…

    In Boston’s case, I imagine the harm will be proven by the fact that the harassment lead to emotional trauma, along with the aspect of your reputation being tarnished in middle school and having to deal with that aftermath. In fact, she didn’t even know of the page until she discovered people acting weird towards her in school.

    The story aired on CNN over the weekend, allowing Boston, her family, and their lawyer to explain the case a bit further.

    Before anyone calls this a frivolous lawsuit, know that Boston and her parents went through many channels to try and have something done to find justice. They took their complaints to school officials who told them they had no power over activities occurring off school grounds. The police were unable to take action due to Georgia not having any cyberbullying laws. They even went to Facebook who for whatever reason didn’t take down the page. Heaven forbid we see nipples on Facebook, but allowing teens to badger a 14 year-old girl is perfectly fine. It should be noted that Facebook did take down the page once the CNN segment aired. Classy timing there FB.

    There are 14 states in the US which have cyberbullying laws to protect individuals online. Of the states who don’t have such laws at this time, six of them have laws going under review.

    One final aspect of this case to keep in mind, and one I discovered while doing my due diligence on libel research is how many people this could potentially affect. An aspect of libel which hasn’t been mentioned in this case is how not only are the people who originally published the page are responsible, but those who re-publish a defamatory remark are just as responsible in the eyes of the law. So does that mean that technically Boston could sue those who liked and shared the Facebook page?

    If you’re looking for a reason why the teens harassed Boston, you’re going to be left with the standard teen remark. Boston’s lawyer, Natalie Woodward said, “They said ‘she followed us around school too much.’ There was no real explanation, as is so often the case with these activities. Why kids do things to other kids is a mystery, and is for sure in this case.”

    The parents of the teens involved with the page will be ponying up the dough if the judgement falls in Boston’s favor; if the case isn’t settled out of court. Pretty hefty, and righteous punishment for bored and cruel teenagers with nothing to do. If you’re wondering how the teens responsible were found, Boston herself tracked them down. Pretty intuitive for a 14 year-old teen.

    This case represents a wide spread outbreak of cyberbullying, which has lead to many states adopting laws to protect people online. Such laws are providing school administrators the power to police not only school related activities, but those in the world of social media. Which leaves us with a no-win situation. Either we allow the administrators power to police these sites, with many people complaining that it’s none of their business what occurs outside of school grounds. On the flip side of the equation, if this problem can’t be stopped at the academic level then it falls to the police to handle. And if there are no laws there, then libel lawsuits are the only defense for someone against cyberbullying.

    While I imagine a libel lawsuit is the last thing the Boston family wanted to get wrapped up in, justice has to be found somewhere. Alex should also be commended for allowing her name to be used publicly, which she opted to do in order to raise awareness towards the issue.