It's Slander, With the Words You Choose.

These days, celebrities constantly have to deal with maintaining a positive image. Being in the public eye can, at times, subject the rich and famous to some pretty harsh criticism. It’s easy for celebrities to fall victim to defamation cases including libel and slander in return for the most provocative story or, in some cases, simply for financial gain. The media continues to be persistent in hounding these celebrities, following them on a daily basis and even staking outside their homes for million-dollar photographs.

By representing the image of a public official, it is generally harder for celebrities to affirm the allegations that they may be subjected to or accused of. Many times, the stories that are being told are misconstrued to falsely portray celebrities in a negative light. In most cases, the public official who files for any defamation lawsuit has to have evidence proving the accused defendant that the statement or action made was false and that the defendant acted in malice.

In 2010, Debbie Rowe, Michael Jackson’s ex-wife won a defamation case against a woman who allegedly gave false information to reporters in regards to her relationship with Jackson’s kids following his death. Rebecca White was interviewed by Extra, a very popular entertainment news television show. Following Jackson’s death, White proceeded to tell the reporters that Debbie Rowe had no interest in gaining custody of her two children, Prince and Paris Jackson. White portrayed Rowe’s intent as being solely focused on financial gain. After the incident, after Rowe filed a lawsuit citing defamation, an LA judge granted Rowe $27,000, including $10,000 for Rowe’s emotional distress.

What’s interesting to me is that Rowe, who I would consider a public figure, won this defamation case simply as a result of an opinion of another woman. I’m no law student, so I am a little confused as to why Rowe would be granted the judgment in her favor. From my understanding, if the media considered Rowe a public figure, wouldn’t she be subjected to any commentary whether it is positive or negative? Is the fact that White went on national television and made statements that she couldn’t back up with evidence the primary reason Rowe won the case?

Man, this law stuff is a little tricky.

As tough as it is to prove cases of libel and slander, it seems as if it would be an even bigger burden for celebrities to even attempt to try their luck at justice. Michigan lawyer, Aaron Lawson provided information on why going forward with a defamation lawsuit may not always be worth it.

           

While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Looking at an example in which a celebrity wasn’t so lucky with a defamatory case would include Elton John and the case against The Guardian, a British newspaper. The Guardian featured a spoof column, written by Marina Hyde, which poked fun at John’s involvement with charity organizations. The column stated that Elton John used charity work as a means of self-promotion. The judge determined that the column couldn’t be understood by a reasonable reader as being malicious, and decided that it was nothing more than a satirical piece of work.

In class, we discussed whether or not parody would be considered defamatory. In most cases, using humor wouldn’t be considered an act of defamation, but there might be an instance in which a loophole can occur.

In my opinion, I believe that going through all of the legalities dealing with libel and slander (as a celebrity) may not always be worth the effort. Then again, if someone tried to ruin my public image with negative claims, I would probably make sure that my reputation would not suffer.

Wouldn’t you?                                             

Until Next Time.

An Ad Major.

Brittani J. Wilkins

Follow me on Twitter @BrittaniWilkins