Censorship Watch
I'm in ur case, suing ur doodz: Freedom of Speech Prevails On "Teh Internets"?
So, maybe this is a victory for freedom of speech on the Internet? Then again, maybe not so much.
If you know enough to immediately know who Perez Hilton is (no cheating with Wikipedia) then you probably know enough to know that he's been named as a defendant in more than one lawsuit brought in response to the photographs-sometimes scribbled on, sometimes not, more often on than not-and the slag offs [insults] and the stick figure scrawls posted at his monstrously popular gossip blog, PerezHilton.com.
If you know enough to immediately know who Samantha Ronson is and the role she's played in the still unspooling soap opera that is Lindsay Lohan's personal life (again, no cheating with Wikipedia) then you're probably spending bagloads of time at PerezHilton.com, browsing and maybe even commenting. C'mon. Tell the truth.
Mario Lavandeira, who has rechristened himself Perez Hilton and anointed himself "Queen of All Media," runs a blog dedicated to daily and virulently negative posts about Hollywood celebrities and their attention-seeking hangers-on. Hilton, who is completely unrelated to the Hilton Hotel Hiltons, and who chose the name for its sound-alike quality to Paris Hilton-who is one of the HHH's-and someone he's said to consider a kindred spirit (explaining yet another self-inflicted appellation-"the trashtastic Cuban cousin of Paris and Nicky"), delights in grabbing sometimes copyright-protected photographs from other websites and scribbling cocaine dots, fetuses and other unmentionable effluvia on the faces and bodies of the celebrities and wannabes pictured. Favorite targets include Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, Jessica Simpson, Lindsay Lohan and anyone else deemed unpalatable or unpretty in Hilton's world.
Early in 2007, as any gossip junkie worth her salt knows, Lindsay Lohan crashed her Mercedes Benz convertible into a curb, fled the scene, then later resurfaced with minor injuries. The same junkie will be able to tell you that this was Lohan's Memorial Day weekend accident (not to be confused with the July 24 arrest), that police found a white substance believed to be cocaine in her car, and that Lohan has been in and out of rehab for drug and alcohol abuse three times this year. Shortly after the incident, PerezHilton.com commented on the shenanigans and speculated that Lohan's friend, Samantha Ronson-you know . . . Samantha? The DJ? Lindsay's alleged lesbian lover? Mark Ronson's sister? Mark Ronson? The other DJ?-owned the cocaine-y powder found in Lohan's car. Repeating a conspiracy theory posted at another gossip website, Hilton suggested that Ronson, a passenger in Lohan's car at the time of the accident, planted the drugs and called the paparazzi shortly after the wreck. Hilton supposedly owns a sweatshirt that reads "Blame Samantha" and his website characterized Ronson as a "toxic" frenemy (noun. someone who pretends to be a friend but who is really an enemy; friend + enemy = frenemy) informant who hoped to be paid in exchange for tipping off the photographers to a juicy photo op.
Ronson sued Hilton and the operators of CelebrityBabylon.com, the original source of the rumor, for libel, demanding $20 million in damages. She filed a declaration that she's never used drugs, never handled cocaine, and never ever contracted with anyone at any time to tip off anybody about Lindsay Lohan's whereabouts, ever. So there. Although the other defendants settled with Ronson for an undisclosed amount, Hil¬ ton pressed on. And in November 2007, a Los Angeles county court granted Hilton's motion to strike Ron¬ son's lawsuit on the grounds that Ronson hadn't produced enough evidence to establish that she was likely to win her case. The outcome was celebrated at PerezHilton.com under the breathless headline, "Victory! Freedom of Speech Prevails!"
Rather than crafting a decision based on the theory that no reasonable person could possibly believe that any of the cartoon-dotted speculations and gleefully vulgar musing at PerezHilton.com represents anything other than baseless, groundless opinions, not actual facts subject to libel complaints, the judge held that that celebrity drug use is a topic of public interest, that PerezHilton.com is a public forum, and that Ronson-a fame-seeker, would-be spotlight-grabber and alleged aspirant to BFF status in Lohan's circle-should be considered a public figure. (BFF? Best friend forever, of course.) Once the law crowns you with the "public figure" label, you're operating on different ground from normal, everyday folks. Statements made about public figures aren't considered libelous in California (and many other states) unless they're made with malice. In order to win, Ronson was supposed to enter some evidence showing that Hilton knew he was telling big fat lies or recklessly failed to investigate whether he was telling big fat lies. Her contribution? Nothing. Instead, Hilton submitted a statement swearing that he believed what he read about the incident in other places was the God's honest truth.
Ultimately, the judge ordered Ronson to pay Hilton's attorney's fees, which have been estimated at $93,000. But Hilton may never see any of that money. In December, Ronson's own lawyers sued her for skipping out on their bill of $164,930.72.
In the end, Hilton's lawyer proclaimed the verdict "a huge victory . . . for everyone who uses the Internet to comment on celebrities of public interest." Perez Hilton's analysis of the social impact of his win as posted at his website? "Don't [expletive] with Perez, [expletive]!" Well, then!
Antiwar Sit-in Encourages Students to Stand Up.
A group of teen protesters at a Chicago area high school may not have raised the consciousness of as many of their peers as they'd hoped during a recent Iraq war sit-in featuring sing-alongs and acoustic guitar accompaniment, but it's likely they learned a valuable lesson themselves: When negotiating with The Man, it's best to get everything in writing.
In early November, a group of Morton West High students in Berwyn, Ill., made plans to ditch classes and convene in their cafeteria to stage an anti-war sit-in. At some point after the group assembled, school administration asked the kids to relocate from the highly-trafficked cafeteria to a more sparsely populated hallway near the principal's office. District Super¬intendent Ben Nowakowski, representing the administration, says the protesters weren't asked to pack off to another area of the school because of what they were protesting but rather because of where they were protesting. He characterized it as a crowd control issue, a desire to let the other 3,400 students get on with their normal activities.
While some of the protestors returned to class, a group of about 25 students agreed to walk their sit-in to another part of the school. They say that part of the deal included the administration's promise that they wouldn't be disciplined beyond a Saturday detention for cutting class, or for taking part in the protest per se. Once the students were assembled in the hallway, songs were sung, arms were linked and talk was talked about the worldwide impact of the Iraq war. Cops were called in but no arrests were made. Police chief William Kushner characterized the whole thing as "peaceful and orderly."
Then, the other shoe dropped. At the end of the day, Nowakowski told all the kids they'd be punished for their "mob action" with a 10-day suspension and possible expulsion. Some say certain kids-jocks and honor students-were enticed away from the protest by teachers and coaches earlier in the day. Parents of others in the favored group were given a heads-up by the PTA president and encouraged to pull their kids out of the antiwar demonstration. These students were given more lenient suspensions.
Eventually, all parents received complaint letters about the "gross disobedience" of the budding rabble-rousers from the administration and warned that further disruptions could lead to expulsion. A few days after the protest, parents assembled their own group to complain at the school and lobby for an end to the suspensions. Follow-up reports indicate that of the 18 confirmed suspensions, 14 were lifted within nine school days of the protest; four more were lifted within 11 days. The expulsion threats were dropped.
-Anita Fore
Director of Legal Services
