California Defamation Law Blog : California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney : Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm : Los Angeles CA : Defamation Law Blog

One of the strangest things to me is how much we worship celebrities in our culture. Turn on any channel or read any newspaper and you'll eventually see a story about a celebrity. This is perplexing and amusing at the same; especially for people like me, who were born and raised in Los Angeles. It's not uncommon to see an actor or director walking around or dining at a restaurant. But really, so what? They're just people, except that they're typically (not always, I know I'm generalizing) self-centered, uninteresting, and the most famous ones have people following them around all the time. These are plenty of reasons not to want to know, let alone hang out with a celebrity.

But there's yet another reason not to associate with celebrities: because the mere association with a celebrity may make you a limited purpose public figure!

In Hall v. Time Warner, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, the appellate court held that a housekeeper of Marlon Brando who was mentioned in his will "became involved in an issue of public interest by virtue of being named in Brando's will." This ruling is significant because the mere association with a celebrity may make a person a limited purpose public figure. This means that such a person would potentially be subject to different and higher evidentiary burdens should they decide to file a lawsuit.

If you liked this post please subscribe to the California Defamation Newsletter to receive the "Ultimate Beginner's Guide To Defamation Law."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I was at a Kiwanis club meeting the other day and the topic of Tiger Woods came up. Someone mentioned that Tiger was in deep trouble (an obvious observation) and began to rattle off the names of each of Tiger's mistresses and then there was some generally commentary about Tiger's "transgressions." All in good taste, of course.

What struck me about this conversation was the amount of detail some of my fellow Kiwanians knew about Tiger's dilemma. I mean, all the guys at my table were well-educated men over the age of 50. They're certainly not the type of guys who'd watch Entertainment Tonight or check out the latest celebrity gossip at TMZ.com. Know what I mean?

And yet they knew so much about a golfing celebrity's love life, which brings me to the point of this post.

Are the details of a celebrity's love life a matter of public interest for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute? 

One would think not given that there other more weighty issues of public interest which deserve debate such as political speech, child abuse, homelessness, AIDS, etc. etc. Whether Tiger cheated with 2 or 10 women or is not really of great public significance. Right?

Not so say the California courts. 

Details of a celebrity's life can be a matter of public interest if they involve issues in which the public is interested. Stated another way, the issue does not need to be "significant" as long as the public is interested in it. Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027.

If you liked this post please subscribe to our newsletter to get more updates about defamation law and how to protect your reputation on the internet.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Celebrity defamation is a growing trend. Don't believe me? Click on any of the links below.

• Roger Clemens
• Courtney Love
• Perez Hilton
• Kirstie Alley
• Demi Moore
• Britney Spears

There are a number of reasons for this.

The Rise of Social Media

No one can deny the awesome rise of social media and its ability to influence our culture. Millions of people use tools like Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn every day to consume and share information and as a means of interacting with other like-minded people.

It is also an incredible information delivery system. That delivery system allows celebrities to communicate with their fans (to influence them) without resort to traditional media, which gives celebrities new found power.

The Immediacy of The Internet 

Everyone knows the Internet allows for instantaneous transmission of information. But people forget that publication of information on the Internet is permanent and potentially far-reaching. 

The Fiction of Invincibility

People feel invincible on the Internet. They write and post information they would never say in public. They also act in ways they would never do so in public.

I know this is hard to believe, but take a look at Twitter. How often have you seen someone tweet about their exact location; especially celebrities (I've been guilty of this myself). Well, shouldn't people be worried about disclosing their location to others? This is both a privacy and personal safety issue. Yet people tweet freely about where they are.

The Public Relations Bump

"There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary." - Brendan Behan

Celebrities believe that all publicity is good. Is it good for business to start a fight with another celebrity on Twitter? You betcha.

The next post in this series will examine whether different rules apply to celebrities with respect to internet defamation.

If you liked this post please subscribe to the California Defamation Law Newsletter to receive a FREE copy of the "The Ultimate Beginner's Guide To Defamation Law."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks