Have you ever heard of Olivia de Havilland? I'm sure many of you have even though she is now 102. She is a world famous actress whose career spanned about four decades from the 1930s to the 1970s. Perhaps her most famous role was as always good Melanie in Gone With The Wind. Recently, she sued the producers of Feud, a TV series about the fights between Bette Davis and Joan Crawford during the filming of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. Miss de Havilland did not like the way she was portrayed as a gossip in the TV series. She lost; the federal court said that she was a public figure and that as a result, absent a showing of malice, her portrayal was not defamatory or improper.
Have you ever heard of Laura Luhn? I doubt it. She used to be Fox News' Senior Director of Corporate and Special Events, then Director of Booking, and also an Associate Producer. She didn't appear on camera or make statements about FNC to the public. In other words, she never was a public figure. Luhn is now suing Showtime, the CBS subsidiary, because of the way she is being portrayed in the upcoming series about the long-time head of FNC, the late Roger Ailes. Luhn is seeking $750 million as well as an injunction against the airing of the series because it allegedly portrays her as the person who supplied young women to Ailes and also because it portrayed her as having mental illness problems. Luhn says this is all completely false.
It fun to see the Hollywood-centric media trying to dismiss the worth of Luhn's suit. The refrain is that Luhn will fail because she is "making the same sort of arguments that just failed for Olivia de Havilland." It's the Hollywood media's version of "nothing to see here; move on."
The problem with the media position is that the relevant law is very much determined by whether or not a person is a public figure. To show defamation against a public figure, there has to be actual malice proven. To show defamation against someone who is NOT a public figure, all that need be proven is that a statement was made which disparages the reputation of that individual. There's no need that there be any intent to harm that individual. Luhn is not a public figure; de Havilland is one.
CBS has big trouble here. Luhn ought to get her day in court and if she has good proof of her allegations, she might even get an injunction against airing of the series. It won't be an easy fight, but it isn't going to be an easy defense by CBS/Showtime either.
Have you ever heard of Laura Luhn? I doubt it. She used to be Fox News' Senior Director of Corporate and Special Events, then Director of Booking, and also an Associate Producer. She didn't appear on camera or make statements about FNC to the public. In other words, she never was a public figure. Luhn is now suing Showtime, the CBS subsidiary, because of the way she is being portrayed in the upcoming series about the long-time head of FNC, the late Roger Ailes. Luhn is seeking $750 million as well as an injunction against the airing of the series because it allegedly portrays her as the person who supplied young women to Ailes and also because it portrayed her as having mental illness problems. Luhn says this is all completely false.
It fun to see the Hollywood-centric media trying to dismiss the worth of Luhn's suit. The refrain is that Luhn will fail because she is "making the same sort of arguments that just failed for Olivia de Havilland." It's the Hollywood media's version of "nothing to see here; move on."
The problem with the media position is that the relevant law is very much determined by whether or not a person is a public figure. To show defamation against a public figure, there has to be actual malice proven. To show defamation against someone who is NOT a public figure, all that need be proven is that a statement was made which disparages the reputation of that individual. There's no need that there be any intent to harm that individual. Luhn is not a public figure; de Havilland is one.
CBS has big trouble here. Luhn ought to get her day in court and if she has good proof of her allegations, she might even get an injunction against airing of the series. It won't be an easy fight, but it isn't going to be an easy defense by CBS/Showtime either.
No comments:
Post a Comment