Community Chat

[Noel7]

---

@AuberriJean wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

Wasn't that the magazine Carol Burnett sued for false allegations?

---

Yes I believe so.

---

****************************

She had hoped it would stop tabloid lies.  At least she won her suit.

[sidsmom]

I Googled an article, "How the Supermarket Tabloids Stay Out of Court."

It mentioned,

"A jury awarded Ms. Burnett $1.6 million, but that judgment was later reduced to $200,000 after a number of appeals, and Ms. Burnett then agreed to an unspecified out-of-court settlement with The Enquirer."

I'm disappointed it was only for $1.6MM.

Is it safe to assume out-of-court settlements would be less?

[LyndaGee]

They used to say that in order for a celebrity to win in court against a tabloid, the celeb has to prove the article cost them jobs, income. 

[Say Nay]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

I Googled an article, "How the Supermarket Tabloids Stay Out of Court."

It mentioned,

"A jury awarded Ms. Burnett $1.6 million, but that judgment was later reduced to $200,000 after a number of appeals, and Ms. Burnett then agreed to an unspecified out-of-court settlement with The Enquirer."

I'm disappointed it was only for $1.6MM.

Is it safe to assume out-of-court settlements would be less?

---

That's interesting. I never followed up on some of the big celebrity lawsuits against the NE. And I don't remember a time when the NE retracted what they wrote. 

[SeaMaiden]

Dr. Phil is an idiot....I do not doubt the aligations one bit. 

[shoekitty]

As i understand lawsuits with NE, and other rags it is intent of malice that is hard to prove.. First off, being a celebrity (or person of notoriety) comes with a certain amount of  invasion of privacy.  I don't believe that strongly, but the law does.  So, not only does the person suing have to prove allegations are totally false through the courts, it has to be proved that the rags published the story with malice and also knew what they were writing was false.  As we have seen in politics, people can say all kinds of false things, but you have to prove in court that they did it to harm that person (emotionally) and they knew what they were writing was a lie when they wrote it.

Lenny bruce once said something that has stayed with me since 1966.  "Even if they hav pictures deny it".  LOL!

I know some people in the business, they have expressed this.  Sometimes it is better to ingnore a lie or allegtion.  If there is any basis of truth to rumor, it is almost unfightable.  It is also said, when you fight the rumors or allegations you need to be prepared to put up a hard, long fight, and air all dirty laundry.  No one really ever wins.  I also think the NE has printed a small retraction, or correction to articles a few times in the back of the paper somewhere in small print among advertising.  They also have money put aside to pay off lawsuits

Carol Burnett probably would not win today.  She was pretty clean, and it took her years to battle that rag.and private doings were not as redily available as they are today.  Today everything is out there since the day you are born. Back in Carol's day of fighting the Enquirer they had no internet, cell phones, tweets and such  It was hard to dig up a moment in the past that would win their case

[AuberriJean]

---

@shoekitty wrote:

As i understand lawsuits with NE, and other rags it is intent of malice that is hard to prove.. First off, being a celebrity (or person of notoriety) comes with a certain amount of  invasion of privacy.  I don't believe that strongly, but the law does.  So, not only does the person suing have to prove allegations are totally false through the courts, it has to be proved that the rags published the story with malice and also knew what they were writing was false.  As we have seen in politics, people can say all kinds of false things, but you have to prove in court that they did it to harm that person (emotionally) and they knew what they were writing was a lie when they wrote it.

Lenny bruce once said something that has stayed with me since 1966.  "Even if they hav pictures deny it".  LOL!

I know some people in the business, they have expressed this.  Sometimes it is better to ingnore a lie or allegtion.  If there is any basis of truth to rumor, it is almost unfightable.  It is also said, when you fight the rumors or allegations you need to be prepared to put up a hard, long fight, and air all dirty laundry.  No one really ever wins.  I also think the NE has printed a small retraction, or correction to articles a few times in the back of the paper somewhere in small print among advertising.  They also have money put aside to pay off lawsuits

Carol Burnett probably would not win today.  She was pretty clean, and it took her years to battle that rag.and private doings were not as redily available as they are today.  Today everything is out there since the day you are born. Back in Carol's day of fighting the Enquirer they had no internet, cell phones, tweets and such  It was hard to dig up a moment in the past that would win their case

---

Interesting @shoekitty. Looks like celebrities have to accept the stories fake or not. It'll be interesting to see the outcome of this lawsuit anyway.

[Peaches McPhee]

Now, if the NE had run an article accusing him of being a jerk, he'd have no case at all. 

[SharkE]

[LilacTree]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

---

@millieshops wrote:

If National Enquirer prints it, it's not true. 

---

Might want to tap the brakes.  

Ever so often, once in a blue moon, they knock it out of the park.

Goggle 'stories National Enquirer got right.'

Gary Hart's affair, OJ's shoes....just to name a couple. 

---

OJ never would have lost the civil suit because of the shoes nowadays because he would have said they were photoshopped.