Archive through July 21, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

The ClubHouse: General Discussion Archives: Archives Three: Slander or Libel… Is CBS leaving Josh open to being sued?: Archive through July 21, 2002

Classycassfan

Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 09:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I looked for somewhere else to post this and there didn’t seem to fall into any topic that was open.

Josh’s statement about Gerry tonight being “anti-semantic __________ b@st@rd” on national tv surly can be called slander or defamation of character. Is CBS leaving Josh open to being sued by Gerry and his family?

Does anyone know if the Houseguests had to sign a waiver not only that they would not take legal action against CBS but not against other houseguest?

I know for sure if Gerry was my family member and Josh had said those things about my love one I would be seeing a lawyer before anyone else leaves that house.

Anyone else out there that feels one way or another?

Ryn

Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 09:54 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I am sure a lawyer here will answer that Q - I think the answer will be that GErry is now a 'public' figgure and he can have these types of things said about him under the right circumstances.

Another guess is that all the HGs probaly have signed releases to allow this stuff to be said by fellow Hgs.

Jhezzie

Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 09:59 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I would guess that the only one open to a lawsuit would be Josh. CBS is great at covering it's own booty.

Classycassfan

Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 10:00 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I hope we do have a lawyer in the group, cuz I would love to know.

I remember way back in the dark ages of my college years taking a business law class and that if you were going to say anything about anyone publically you had better have some foundation for it. And proof of why you made the statement. I honestly don't see where Gerry has made an anti semantic remarks can anyone refresh my old memory??

Also if Gerry's parents had a marriage licence before his date of birth that proves he can't be a b@st@rd.

Kiari

Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 10:01 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I highly doubt Josh is worth suing. He dont work and probably doesnt have any money.

Realtvfan

Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 10:05 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Gerry can not sue CBS based on what Nicole reported last year with her contract. Nicole mentioned that all the HG signed away their life and allowed CBS to portray them anyway CBS wants.

Survivors sign the same contract.

Gerry would not sue Josh, because there is no money to bother going after.

Classycassfan

Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 10:11 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I knew from Nicole that CBS could not be sued but I asked if houseguests had to sign the same release for other houseguests.

Ya never know on the money issue with Josh, with Dani and Amy looking to save Josh he has a slim chance of winning. Heck Gerry might even vote to give him the money just so Gerry can collect on a judgement.

Now wouldn't that be a headline.

BB3 winner has to turn winnings over to 2nd outed houseguest.

Katrina

Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 11:39 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Isn't there also a difference between stating an incorrect fact (okay, that's an oxymoron) and stating a personal opinion? Anti-Semitic (which is what I think everyone really meant) is somewhat of an opinion. A horrible thing to label someone with, for sure, but maybe it doesn't drift into the area of misstating hard facts, unless something more specific is alleged. (e.g., saying someone never hires Jews, saying he always flunks Jewish students in his classes, etc.) I think you're allowed to call people names, as long as you don't do it in such a way that it directly causes them loss of work or some other demonstrable harm, such as ongoing personal harrassment of them. (Which name-calling on BB3 is not, since it is voluntary group participation.) Otherwise, aren't we allowed to express hateful personal opinions of others in America? I think we can even burn people in effigy, as long as we don't violate any fire codes..... or offend TVCH moderators..... ;-)

Squidward

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 12:34 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Wait a minute, Amy wants to save Josh now? I learn something new in every thread it seems.
I don't understand where Josh comes up with this 'Gerry is anti-Semitic' crap. Yet another lie, I suppose. I cannot believe this scoundrel is possibly going to be saved this week.

Classycassfan

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 05:31 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Kat

You bring some good issues up... which is why like Ryn said hopefully a lawyer will chime in and tell us what it does intale. However I think using a public forum to tell people that Gerry is (insert Josh's many statements here) could be seen as at least defermation of charactor as he is a public school teacher and he does rely on his reputation as an moral citizen to hold onto his job. Just MHO but I was wondering if CBS was protecting all houseguests or just themselves from lawsuits.

Maryann

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 06:02 am EditMoveDeleteIP
In all of the BB shows I have never seen someone who comes across as so angry and so self pitying as Josh. I don't like him, but I don't think that there's a lawsuit here.
All Josh is doing is making the viewers like Gerry more.

Showbyzgawdess

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 06:23 am EditMoveDeleteIP
??? self-pitying ???

He comes off as the extreme example of racist; down to defaming everyone else of the Hebrew Faith by swearing on his "...love for being a Jew..." in his epithets against Lori, Marcellus & Gerry.

He's gone from being a bad Boogie clone --to being another Justin the Knife...

He's dangerous.

His conniving & manipulations are just one step away from being criminal. He's working overtime to pretend he's hip --when all he really is, is a mirror of the anathemas he hurls at everyone else.

Again, Arnold proves his stupidity in allowing this pond-scum candidate to be a HG.

Then again, it's more about ratings than it is about good programming; evidenced by the number of crotch-shots in the final edit for broadcast.

Bastable

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 12:09 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Josh could only be sued for slander. That's when you insult someone. Libel is when you accuse someone falsely of committing a crime; if he said Gerry was a child-molester or something, that would be libelous. Right now, it'd be slander.

Gerry could still sue Josh or CBS, but the contract/waiver is a pretty solid defense. I doubt he would win. I'd be surprised if CBS's contract with the HGs didn't include a clause saying that just because a HG says something doesn't mean CBS endorses it; the HGs, in effect, are responsible for the words that come out of their own mouths.

It's also tough to make a case that any of the viewers in America really take Josh seriously. Since EVERYTHING is on tape and we're seeing all sides of the story, it's hard for anyone to make a case that the whole truth didn't get out there.

Bkmac

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 12:17 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"All Josh is doing is making the viewers like Gerry more. "

Speak for yourself! While I find Josh to be obnoxious, annoying, and dishonest, he isn't making me feel any more endeared to Gerry.

IMO Gerry is dishonest and overly-dramatic. Nothing Josh says will make me love Gerry more.

Battlestar

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 12:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
bk--he may be all those things in your opinion, but none of those things makes him a

"anti-semantic racist •••••••"

Lostinthefog

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 12:23 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Bkmac wrote, "IMO Gerry is a pompous, also dishonest, overly-dramatic, self-absorbed ass."

Perfect desciption Bkmac...absolutely perfect...

Maryann

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 01:32 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think that Libel has to be written,not said.

Katrina

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 01:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
You do all realize that "anti-semantic", which keeps being repeated here, means against the meanings of words/language? It has nothing to do with being biased against Jews or anyone else, except maybe lexicographers.....

Hardywins

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 02:53 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"IMO Gerry is dishonest and overly-dramatic."

Aren't they all? Aren't all of us overly dramatic?

But that doesn't put us anywhere near Josh's level of crassness.

"Crass"=So crude and unrefined as to be lacking in discrimination and sensibility.

Kalekona

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 03:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Bastable- libel is a published false statement damaging to a persons reputation. Slander is a malicious, false,and injurious statement spoken about a person.
so you could say yes Josh has sladered gerry as being a teacher it could damage his ability to do his job/or to obtain or retain empolyment.

Katrina

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 03:23 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"Aren't they all? Aren't all of us pompous, overly dramatic and self-absorbed?"

I plead guilty as charged!

Donut

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 04:14 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think that if we are going to be 'concerned' that Gerry will sue Josh for making possibly untrue statements about him, then maybe we should start panic that many members of the TVCH will be sued for slander of Josh. There have been so many accusations here of Josh being racist and accusatory , when we actually have no proof of that ourselves.
We may be watching live feeds, however for everytime 4 cameras are only on 4 people, there are 7 people off camera and we ARE NOT privvy to seeing EVERYTHING they say. Josh stated to Marcellas that Lisa told him that Gerry said something about him behind his back and Josh stated that he feels no reason to not believe her. Until we know what was actually said by Gerry, than I think we have no right to act as Judge and Jury against Josh anymore than he has the right to do that to Gerry.
So, if you feel that you are entitled to your opinion on Josh and you are entitled to call him whatever you want( and i believe you all ARE entitled to say what you want here) then you are going to have to also grant Josh the right to say what he wants to say about anyone too.

and i do not see any lawsuits coming. after all Nicole threatened to kill Will, Boston Rob talked like he was the godfather, Sue accused Kelly of being a rat or a snake etc. etc.
I am sure it is all a very protected part of entertainment (or at least what has become the sorry state of what passes for entertainment)
ok, i better get off the soapbox before Ivory or Dial sue me....

Goddessatlaw

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 05:03 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Got back from a long weekend and was interested to read your discussion as to whether Josh was endangered of a lawsuit for slander or libel by having called Gerry an "antisemitic b*st*rd. Libel - definitely not, as "libel" by definition is a defamation produced in print, writing, pictures or signs. Unless Josh has been painting swastikas on Gerry's back while Gerry's not paying attention and this little tidbit was published via the internet, no libel here. "Slander," on the other hand, is a verbal defamation by which false and malicious words concerning another result in injury to his reputation. Now you've got a whole different set of considerations - what is defamation, what is false, what is malicious, are they public figures, and if so, is Gerry less protected as the target of the statement and is Josh more protected as the pronouncer of the statement, was Josh stating an opinion (protected) or a "fact" (if false, not protected) etc. It would take a hundred-page brief to break down the potential in each issue for argument. Won't torture you with that but give you the direct answer to the opening question: yes, a lawsuit for slander could be filed, it's success would depend on how each of the above questions are answered. I have concerns whether the suit would survive even the summary judgment stage of litigation, but the suit could in theory be legitimately filed.

Goddessatlaw

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 05:09 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
PS I'd rather set myself on fire than represent Josh. Gerry is slightly less offensive - maybe not worth an act of self-immolation. Still, if I were given the choice between drinking dogwater or representing Gerry, I'd start guzzling.

Classycassfan

Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 05:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Goddessatlaw

THANK YOU

I started this post because I thought I knew the baisc differences between the two but as Ryn and I disscussed with in the first 3 posts we were hoping that a lawyer would explain the what it really entailed. And yes at first I was hoping Gerrys family would do something but Gerry has taught me that it is best not to lower myself to the grunings of the group but to take the moral high road lmao.

But I really do thank you for explaining the differences.