Theporncat.com
theporncat.com
This is the spring of slander. From hollywood luminaries to nfl legends, qanon conspiracy theorists to youtubers and chess grandmasters, every year everyone sues when the kid said. Two years ago, when hollywood billionaire mogul sumner redstone passed away, his granddaughter kerin received a text message from an old acquaintance expressing sympathy for her further loss. Kerin, 40, who was among the beneficiaries of her grandfather's fortune after an estate battle with 2 of sumner's former girlfriends, did not immediately respond. But not one month later, kerin answered her old friend scott nathan, which they began to chat. In the indicated their stories diverge. The controversy that remains in court today is the strange aftermath of the court drama described in james b. Stewart and rachel abrams' recent book on the redstone family and the telephone media legacy. According to nathan's account, kerin redstone offered him a position in the role of real estate coordinator and personal assistant, and the risk accepted. After receiving a $50,000 signature bonus, he began organizing her chaotic life. He soon moved into her brentwood residence, enticed by the promise of a financial airbag. But nathan assures that kerin struggled with mental difficulties and the abuse of psychoactive compounds and began to throw wild accusations there. One morning, the police woke him up as soon as redstone called 9-1-1, stating that nathan had stolen the funds and put a gun to a further head. About a week after the release, she repeated these accusations to the porn star danny mountain, which she had at her place, in order to provide "intimate services." Finally, redstone tweeted an image of her cat with the message: "my cat that scott nathan stole from my house." This, apparently, was the last straw; nathan decided to take legal action. Of course, redstone offered a completely different version of events. According to her, when the cinema first reunited, he asked her for a budget and she transferred the funds to him in order to help him. But this trouble assures that in reality she has not yet hired him, but only asked him to stay at her dacha for a couple of days while she settles down. Nathan, she continues, used a similar opportunity to sneak into her business and use the gun for money. According to her, only he showed mental instability, as evidenced by a strange love for a further "rare and expensive cat." Redstone found his behavior disturbing and begged him to leave. In particular, then he pointed a gun at her. Out of a position of caution, she waited until he fell asleep before calling the police. Capable of giving in to anything. From hollywood celebrities to nfl legends, qanon conspiracy theorists, youtubers and more chess grandmasters, everyone seems to be on trial these days for the reason one poker player said. It should be of little surprise to anyone that apart from the above, one redstone suddenly finds himself embroiled in a fresh legal drama, [ponr] too, or whatever useful thing it is depending on the sworn testimony of a porn movie star. It's territorial, right? Regarding this activity, many weeks ago, a los angeles judge turned down karyn redstone's proposal to dismiss nathan's lawsuit. Redstone attempted to take advantage of california's anti-slapp law, which was designed to quickly dismiss unsubstantiated lawsuits involving important speech, partly arguing to people that her appeals to the police were privileged. The judge replied that the public tweet and comment on the porn star did not adhere to the slightest relation to the police investigation. Today the case is in the stage of disclosure, leaving unresolved the problem of everything, whether you really have the opportunity to find compensation when you were slandered as a cat thief. Spring for slander
the discourse of slander is entering a special golden age when the act of defamation has become an element of our culture wars. Trump is suing cnn when guests allowed him to criticize him and he is being sued for humiliating a woman who accused the premises of rape. Republicans are keen to make it easier to file lawsuits against the media, especially as florida gov. Ron desantis is pushing a new proposal to change the libel act in the established collective by changing who qualifies as a politician and treating anonymous statements as allegedly false.To get some insight into the florida sale, i called alexander rufus-isaacs, a beverly hills attorney who will lead several exciting cases, including the aforementioned redstone lawsuit (which features scott nathan); a former vanity fair photo editor sued netflix at the expense of anna's invention; and the inimitable ruth shalit barrett lawsuit against the atlantic. Rufus-isaacs, who represented clients in both sides of the libel suits, said he was concerned about desantis' crusade. “For the plaintiff's attorney, that would be phenomenal,” he told me. “Note: at the broadest level, no, that would be particularly bad. Let these people try to do it.
Rufus-isaacs believes, and i agree with what was said, that the true purpose in florida is not just to give officials a reason to speak out against the media, but also to to prompt the us supreme court to reconsider new york. York times v. Sullivan, new right-wing legal fix once roe v. Wade fell. (This landmark 1964 opinion held that public figures must show actual malice on the part of the speaker in order to get permission for a defamation suit.) Judge clarence thomas has already called for sullivan's repeal because the standards of defamation for public figures are not even written into the constitution. And therefore can be left to the discretion of the states. Florida lawmakers see a chance to strike. Otherwise, the proposal would be clearly unconstitutional under existing precedent. If sued for defamation would be more effective, it would cause at least two significant press violations. Above all, it would degrade the quality of journalism—it would become less enterprising as news outlets refrain from publishing noteworthy user details with new resources. Secondly, and even more illogically, i think that this can lead to an increase in the reputation of journalists. In my opinion, the public's low appreciation of the media is partly a function of the power that prolongators are endowed with to shape public opinion, which pushes rivals of power, such as politics, to attack, then to give themselves the upper hand. Turning off the media microphone would make journalists less of a target for reciprocal insults, which, it turns out, may improve demand for them. Of course, democracy does not need a popular fourth estate, so such a compromise, in my opinion, would definitely not be worth it. To imagine the usa after sullivan, just look at england, which, for example, is friendly applies to defamation plaintiffs due to the "strict liability" standard for false statements. On the other hand, the british have a rather lively celebrity tabloid culture - when you're not so reputed as investigative reporters on corruption in the environment - which suggests that low-intelligence journalism can flourish if sullivan leaves. Rufus-isaacs, himself a brit, probably knows this move better than most. “Maybe we have something,” rufus-isaacs told me, pointing to the fact that happened to catherine belton, who wrote the book “putin’s people” before our oligarchs bombarded london with libel suits.
others disagreed with my theory. Ted boutrous, a partner at gibson dunn who has defended newspapers in groundbreaking first amendment cases, believes that animosity against journalists began early in sullivan and persists around the world without high barriers to defamation. “Journalists will never win a popularity contest, and politicians will never get tired of scolding them just because it will be easier for them to sue,” he insisted. “In reality, having more lawsuits will only breed more hostility. And attacking the press seems to some to be a good political life, and there's always going to be.”
To find out more, come and listen to me talk march 10 at the university of missouri at the symposium “what if the new york times v sullivan next? The future of journalism and the defamation act. Or send me your secrets to the correct address eriq@puck.News.
