The "L" Word

And yes, it’s a

We know how difficult it is for some to broaden their knowledge, so you’re excused.

Break out the legal dictionary, kiddies, ‘cause we’re going to get all lawyery on you!

We at BWAN have lots to say about the ongoing malicious claims against Kristen, especially on twitter, and of course on ninniesten,  PRSten, or #whateverthefucksten it is. Regardless of the name, it is still a site set up in due conscious for happy people to spread cheer and goodwill to defame and make derogatory comments about an actress for the sole purpose…well, what is the purpose exactly? Oh. Knock on Kristen.

Ninnies like to claim per their own “confessions” that they do not like Kristen because of her acting ability. Point noted. And that might be okay were those comments limited to simple opinions based upon an experience seeing her movies, which many still do, even though they claim they don’t like her. (Yet another ninnie fallacy.)

But ninnies’ comments and motives are far more malicious in nature. Anyone who has seen their discussions per the former nonsten site and via twitter and/or tumblr can attest to the fact that their remarks go far beyond mere acting criticisms.

On any given day, Kristen is openly maligned in the most grievous of ways. Among other things,she is accused of being a clinger, a famewhore, a cheater, a sellout, a bitch, a cunt, is called ugly, boy-bodied, and the list goes on. Ninnies’ reasoning? “Oh, but we’re just expressing our opinion.”

Worst among these is the baseless assertion that Kristen is of the homosexual orientation. There is no proof to this claim, of course. Instead, ninnies use base stereotyping in order to “prove”their point. Because Kristen chooses to dress in skinny jeans, flat shoes, plaid shirts, and elects to not carry a purse with matching heels and lipstick, this is irrefutable proof of her sexual orientation. Because this is how all lesbians dress. And all gay men sing show tunes!

The claim that Kristen is gay is tossed about by several nonstens with nary any proof to back up their accusation. They use it as a derogatory expression, pure and simple, which is insulting to the entire homosexual population since it is evident that in using “she’s gay” as a slur against Kristen, that they view homosexuality as a lesser means of being.

What they choose to ignore is that claims such as “she’s a dyke,” “she has a penis,” etc., without evidence to back up these assertions, are, in fact, libelous and an act of defamation.

Of particular note are tweets sent out the other night from our favourite “law school” student. It seems that the infamous CK has been telling ANYONE who will listen that she went to a “Super Important Party” at 1oak for this “famous DJ” (her words, not ours) that had a guest list filled with “industry peeps.” Overlooking the fact that she didn’t name said “famous DJ,” she proceeds to inform others that she spoke to a gentleman who knows the [sic] director of “Welcome to  the Rileys,” Giovanni [sic] Agnello.

We’d like to point out that there was never a director named Giovanni [sic] Agnello on the Rileys project. Perhaps Candy or this mysterious new source was confusing her reality with the one in which we live. You know, the reality where there was a director named Jake Scott, but a producer named Giovanni Agnelli?  Yeah. Two strikes. But we digress.

CK must be super excited to have found a new “industry source” to back up everything she has ever claimed as “fact.” How fortunate that this person who knows Giovanni then tells her that “the relationship between R & K is completely PR” (you sure do need reaffirmation a lot, CK), and that “Kristen was hooking up with girls on the set on the DL.” How amazing that this person has this incredible wealth of knowledge that he could sell for a hefty price to a trash magazine, but instead decides to ONLY TELL CK. Yes. This reality just gets more entertaining by the day. 

We at BWAN take pride in the fact that everything we write is based in well-researched truths. We don’t happen to hold much respect for people who betray other peoples’ privacy by running their mouths without credible evidence to back up their assertions.



Which leads us to our next point. Oh, and here’s where we get all laywery, so you might want to sit down for this part.

When you try to smear someone’s reputation for the sole sake of spreading rumors or to push your own much-maligned agenda, you are essentially defaming that person, and anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. Of course, we would think that “law school” students would be privy to this fact, but apparently they are too busy sneak-tweeting via yahoo (so they don’t get in trouble at work) and not paying attention in class.

Rumors that have basis in factual evidence are one thing. Rumors that are completely without merit yet are emitted into the social cybersphere with the specific intent to cause harm to another person and/or damage their reputation is an act of defamation. And the last time we checked, sending out lies about an actress’s sexuality that can damage her reputation among her peers, her fans, or potential fans can be considered defamation.
In U.S. case law, defamation as a legal construct is an umbrella term that includes the two more specific acts of slander and libel. In and of itself, defamation is the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If these statements are made orally, it is slander. If they are made in written form, they are libel. Most states in the United States consider comments made online as libel.
The difference? Libel assumes that any statements which can be broadcast to wide audiences (including via the Internet), are more harmful than a simple statement made in a closed oral conversation. Each state in the United States has a slightly different definition of libel.

We were particularly interested in the law as defined per the State of New York, where a libelous statement is one that “tends to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion or to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of the person in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community.” Hm.

Exposes a person to hatred, contempt or aversion? Check.

Induces an evil or unsavory opinion of the person in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community? Check.

Individuals who make defamatory comments about someone – even a celebrity – can be sued – by the person against whom the comments were made, if it can be proven that the intent of the comments is malicious. And when comments are suffixed with the added disclaimer “stir pot,”
the intent here becomes mighty, mighty clear.

This is why, even with the “fair comment” privilege prevailing in many cases, there is still room for legal recourse, even among public figures, when the comments are of a nature that they can damage the reputation of, or cause loss of income to said public figure. This is especially true in cases where comments are stated as fact, but no factual evidence is presented to back up the assertions.

Per New York case law, in particular, “facts are statements that can be proven true or false. By contrast, opinions are matters of belief that cannot be proven one way or the other.” Pretty cut and dry. But, also according to New York State law, “opinions that imply false underlying facts will not be protected.” *

In other words, if you are going to state it, you had better have proof to back up your claims, otherwise you can be sued. Got that, Candy?

This is what is called per se libel. Even if there is no evidence that said celebrity’s reputation was specifically harmed in terms of monetary recourse, the fact that the potential for said recourse is itself enough to be sued over.

Per the Media Law section of the Associated Press stylebook, there are FIVE DETERMINING FACTORS that go into a successful libel suit. And given the scenario the ninnies present to the world on a pretty-well daily basis, they fit the bill:
1.   A defamatory statement was made;
2.   The defamatory statement is a matter of fact, not opinion;
3.   The defamatory statement is false;
4.   The defamatory statement is about (“of and concerning”) the plaintiff;
5.   The defamatory statement was published with the requisite degree of “fault.”

So when ninnies state their “opinion” that “Kristen is gay,” “Kristen is a dyke,” and “Kristen has a penis,” (these all being said as a statement of FACT, not opinion), not only is this an insult to Kristen as a person, but legally, ninnies are putting themselves in a position to be sued for libel, given the fact that there is plenty of evidence their actions are backed with malicious intent. They have no other reason to be making these comments other than the fact that ”don’t like her.” Otherwise, why would they have a need to continue causing harm to her and her reputation?

Cue the obvious.

Internet libel claims are just now something that are hitting our courtrooms with any regularity, and the amount of claims seems to be increasing due to the emergence of twitter, tumblr and other communications channels, which is why the Terms of Service for twitter and other social media mechanisms are still largely vague. Twitter, in particular, is quick to cover its own ass per Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (aka Telecommunications Act), which exculpates the service provider from any libelous claim as the vehicle for the message,  but just as quickly  reminds its licensees (any user) of its own per the following:

You may use the Services only if you can form a binding contract with Twitter and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You may use the Services only in compliance with these Terms and all applicable local, state, national, and international laws, rules and regulations.

In other words, if you say it and get sued, you can’t turn it back on us.

Interesting that in British case law, individuals who make libelous statements about another person may do so only if they have proof to back up said statements. In short: prove it, then state it. This is how celebrities have successfully been able to sue British tabloids for defamation, because in the UK, there is a burden of proof which is not inherent in US law. Contrarily, US law stands firmly under the Second Amendment and says basically: say it whenever, but be ready to prove it when it counts - in court.

Ninnies like to screech that “we have a right to our opinion, too.” No one is refuting that. What is being refuted is the way nonstens continually obfuscate “opinion” with fact. We at BWAN don’t care to challenge ninnies’ opinions about Kristen’s specific behavior or acting ability since that is based upon an person’s real, subjective experience. (We may disagree, but hey, that’s what makes the world go round).

But where we do take umbrage is with the constant use of “rumor” and “opinion” as truth.

In our opinion, claims that: a) Kristen is “gay;” and/or b) Rob and Kristen are under contractual obligation to Summit to keep up a “fauxmance for PR,” without even a shred of factual evidence are libelous.  And per law, spreading false information about another person - even if that person is a celebrity - without basis of fact, is a case for libel.

So, ninnies, if you’re going to keep spinning your opinions as “fact,” you could at least cough up some proof. The world is waiting.

Of course, we at BWAN are not holding our collective breaths, even if moles do contain twice as much blood and red hemoglobin as other mammals of a similar size, allowing the moles to breathe easily in the seventh circle of hell an underground environment with low oxygen and high carbon dioxide.

Opinions may be factual, but facts have to back up opinions in order to be true. And so far, there’s not a lot of truth in what the ninnies have to spin. So, keep sharing your “opinions,” especially you, Candy. One of these days, you may just find yourself in a court of law. And not because you get to use your “law school” education.

*Per Citizen Media Law Project (www.citimedialaw.org)