Slander or Libel… Is CBS leaving Josh open to being sued?
The ClubHouse: General Discussion Archives: Archives Three:
Slander or Libel… Is CBS leaving Josh open to being sued?
Pcakes2 | Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 09:17 pm     Goddessatlaw, Wouldn't it have to be proven that damage was caused by the comments made, for example, because of the comments Josh made, Gerry couldn't gain employment? Slander has always been one of those tough things to prove. |
Bastable | Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 09:49 pm     Context is also crucial. Like, you never hear of "Saturday Night Live" losing a case about something it says in one of its fake newscasts--everyone knows they're fake and everyone knows not to take it seriously. It's satire; that's the context. I think any good lawyer (if you could find one--haw haw) would make a good argument that anyone who views BB knows the contestants lie, cheat, and steal to win. Add to that the fact that there is plenty of footage seen on CBS and online to that doesn't support the accusation that Gerry is a Nazi (in fact, there is evidence to suggest he is tolerant of all men), which seems to reinforce the argument that no viewer would take Josh seriously. Lastly, being a Nazi and being an anti-Semite is not technically illegal. The U.S. courts have supported peaceful anti-Semitic free speech before (as in Skokie, IL, in the early '70s). It's when, as Goddess said, you get threatening or violent that you've got a problem. |
Goddessatlaw | Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 10:04 pm     P-cakes and Bastable: you are both correct. Slander is incredibly difficult to prove. We are entitled to our opinions in this country - thank God, or this board wouldn't exist. Free speech is probably our most protected right (some exceptions - "fighting words", as Bastable pointed out). The context and opinionated nature of Josh's comment really don't support a claim of libel (and Gerry didn't really help himself with his MLK speech - he said he was racist and homophobic. I would ride him like a thoroughbred with that speech if we were in a slander trial). But there is always room for argument - Gerry's a schoolteacher with impressionable students. When that kind of bell is rung, there are all kinds of possible ramifications for a person in his position. A slander finding is based upon a damage to reputation. The award of financial damages, however, would take into account the loss of job opportunities, job, financial value attached to your reputation (hello Martha Stewart), repurcussions from offended persons, etc. Interesting but complicated area of the law. |
Goddessatlaw | Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 10:12 pm     I need to go to bed. I just substituted the word "libel" for the word "slander," after explaining a few posts ago why they're not the same thing. Mea culpa. |
Roamjotiba | Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 10:27 pm     Didn't read all the posts in this thread so if this was already stated i apologise Last night when Amy was talking about Chiara in the house and Marcellas said something to her about it she said they signed the same waiver I signed and I can say anything about them in the house and they can't do anything about it |
Bastable | Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 10:30 pm     That's a very good point, Roamjotiba. These people are waivered up to their eyeballs. They couldn't sue their way out of a wet paper bag. |
Snee | Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 10:35 pm     MLK? |
Classycassfan | Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 10:40 pm     Martin Luther King |
Snee | Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 11:30 pm     aah. thanks! |
Donut | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:51 am     Snee, i am snueing you for snandering MLK.... |
Donut | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:58 am     shhh! we better ixnay on the MLK, or we WILL get sued!... i once worked on a film and we tried to get clearance to use a tiny pic from the MLK speech, and it was impossible to get clearance for less than a ton of $$$. and the MLK foundation is famous for sueing frequently for the use of any MLK pics or references.... better call out alan dersneewitz before we all end up in the slammah... |
Donut | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 01:01 am     Snue? Snee! |
Bettyjv | Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 10:00 pm     About saying what you want and not being able to be sued, or being able to sue someone who slanders you... I had to sign a waiver, just because I know Lori, and she wanted to be able to include me in interviews, stories, and/or using my name on the show. It was to keep me from saying anything for 3 years that I may know or learn about the series. It includes waiving all rights to my knowledge, experiences (or lack of) pertaining to BB3 etc. Pretty much, I can share anything I know about Lori, before BB3, but I cannot tell you anything that I may (which I don't) know about since she became a contestant on the show. Mainly, they don't want me to make any $$$ off the show, and they don't want me to come after them if they use me or my name for any reason. There is a substantial fine if I violate this contract. I just don't see how I could possibly violate it. I KNOW NOTHING! (as usual) |
Sanfranjoshfan | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 12:19 am     "Slander or Libel… Is CBS leaving Josh open to being sued? " If anyone sued Josh, what could they possibly hope to collect....extra crackers? (remember, he's a waitor) |
Goddessatlaw | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 05:56 am     Bettjv: how interesting. I assume you were paid (and I hope handsomely) for the privilege of signing such a waiver. No wonder there are so friends and relatives who refused to sign, resulting in the constant FOTH. |
Bohawkins | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 06:50 am     Bettjv, I think that Goddessatlaw's assumption about you getting paid is quite relevant. Contractural law demands some kind of appropriate compensation, known as the "quid pro quo," which is Latin for "which for what." For a contract to be binding, it usually must involve the exchange of something of value. You must receive something for what you give up. Yes, a contract can be written for $1 and other valuable considerations, or similar wording, but unless what you are receiving in compensation warrants reasonably what you are giving up for your continued performance, such contracts can be often set aside. In your case, I think there is no cause, because the use of your name or story will most likely not be used. In other cases, sometimes people who sign such waivers often find that they are being exploited, and the courts have been quite kind to individuals unfairly compensated, in spite of agreements they may have signed. The true operative here is the concept of continuation, either of benefit to the other party from what you have given up, or the continuation of performance required from you. In either of those instances, a case can logically be presented that ongoing compensation is due you. |
Goddessatlaw | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 07:04 am     Bohawkins: very nicely said, and I'll co-sign. |
Ryanc2002 | Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 12:21 pm     Bettyjv - Correct me if I'm wrong but a friend of a HG who didn't sign the wavier, could concievably write an unauthorized tell-all book based on what they're told by a HG, so long as they didn't tell who they got their information from, correct? Ala the Survivor tell-all a few years ago. |
|