Latest on MJJC

Just one thing i was wondering....

Staffordshire Bullterrier

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,603
Points
113
I was just talking to a friend of mine on MSN, also a huge MJ fan and supporter. He said "Wouldn't Mike need to give his permission for that 'author' the write a book about him' ???

And that's basically the question....or can that guy just write about whoever he wants to?
 
if ppl had to give permission half of the books published would have never made it past the first line
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
I was just talking to a friend of mine on MSN, also a huge MJ fan and supporter. He said "Wouldn't Mike need to give his permission for that 'author' the write a book about him' ???

And that's basically the question....or can that guy just write about whoever he wants to?
Click to expand...

:angel:Awwe...whats your pup (s) names....cute...
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
I was just talking to a friend of mine on MSN, also a huge MJ fan and supporter. He said "Wouldn't Mike need to give his permission for that 'author' the write a book about him' ???

And that's basically the question....or can that guy just write about whoever he wants to?
Click to expand...

no.. not for an "unofficial" biography.. that's why MJ's official release said that the book is "unofficial"..

Randy T's book about Michael is "unofficial"...anyone can write an "unofficial" biography about you and they don't even have to know you or tell the truth,,,
 
Sdeidjs said:
:angel:Awwe...whats your pup (s) names....cute...
Click to expand...

The photos are pretty old :), but the black dog (French Bulldog) is my dog, she's called Yoshi and the pup, who is now full grown is a Jack Russell and is called Koopa :)


About the book....so as long as its not slander...so the book probably won't be full of crap and lies?Something i DID expect from this piece of * beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep* ..making up lies is bad enough...but there's something called going too far...and this was waaaay beyond that. Somethings, one just shouldn't do....definitely not.
 
It's an "unnofficial" book, which means that Michael didn't authorize it, gave no interviews for it, and so on. Even with a disclaimer the author could be sued if he publishes damaging and untrue material. Another twist in this is that the libel laws are different for celebrities, who are more in the public domain. If he publishes something untrue and damaging to Michael, as a celebrity, Michael would have to demonstrate that there was intent to be harmful.

If you look carefully at the back of JRT's book, for example, at footnotes and sources, you'll see that a lot of them are simply tabloid stories.

Take any unauthorized writing about Michael with a grain of salt, or less than a grain.

Vic
 
If he publishes something untrue and damaging to Michael, as a celebrity, Michael would have to demonstrate that there was intent to be harmful.
Click to expand...
ive never understood that. if u publish something that u know is false and is negative about a said person well isnt it obvious that their writing such info with the intention of harming the other person.u know negative info will hurt someone and if u know its false then u are obviously doing it to hurt them.otherwise you wouldnt be writing it inthe first place.. or is the whole thing about proving that the journo knew it was false yet still wrote it? anyway its hardly constitutional . i thought everyone was equal under the law. obviously not if theres one rule for one section of soceity and one for the other
 
elusive moonwalker said:
ive never understood that. if u publish something that u know is false and is negative about a said person well isnt it obvious that their writing such info with the intention of harming the other person.u know negative info will hurt someone and if u know its false then u are obviously doing it to hurt them.otherwise you wouldnt be writing it inthe first place.. or is the whole thing about proving that the journo knew it was false yet still wrote it? anyway its hardly constitutional . i thought everyone was equal under the law. obviously not if theres one rule for one section of soceity and one for the other
Click to expand...

the media is protected by certain laws in the US... and the burden is placed on the "victiim" to prove...
 
Victoria83 said:
It's an "unnofficial" book, which means that Michael didn't authorize it, gave no interviews for it, and so on. Even with a disclaimer the author could be sued if he publishes damaging and untrue material. Another twist in this is that the libel laws are different for celebrities, who are more in the public domain. If he publishes something untrue and damaging to Michael, as a celebrity, Michael would have to demonstrate that there was intent to be harmful.

If you look carefully at the back of JRT's book, for example, at footnotes and sources, you'll see that a lot of them are simply tabloid stories.

Take any unauthorized writing about Michael with a grain of salt, or less than a grain.

Vic
Click to expand...

so there are two laws..one for the public and one for celebs? and, perhaps, even a third for Michael? sounds like envy on the part of the lawmakers, to me. can you imagine how much they would never consider anything said about MJ to be harmful, cus, they also think nasty things about MJ, and can't relate?
 
elusive moonwalker said:
ive never understood that. if u publish something that u know is false and is negative about a said person well isnt it obvious that their writing such info with the intention of harming the other person.u know negative info will hurt someone and if u know its false then u are obviously doing it to hurt them.otherwise you wouldnt be writing it inthe first place.. or is the whole thing about proving that the journo knew it was false yet still wrote it? anyway its hardly constitutional . i thought everyone was equal under the law. obviously not if theres one rule for one section of soceity and one for the other
Click to expand...

Everyone is equal under the law, with certain exceptions. In a criminal trial the accused are supposed to have identical fair-treatment. Celebrities, under the U.S. civil law, are somewhere between being a person and a "brand." I think there is this differential treatment just so tabloids and tabloid tv folks will have something to gossip about and hence make money? It doesn't seem fair, and I think it is NOT fair, but that's the way it is. "Intent to harm" has to be deliberate malice, not just an invented story to sell a book, magazine, or tv show.

Vic
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
I was just talking to a friend of mine on MSN, also a huge MJ fan and supporter. He said "Wouldn't Mike need to give his permission for that 'author' the write a book about him' ???

And that's basically the question....or can that guy just write about whoever he wants to?
Click to expand...

Back in the 1980s author Kitty Kelly wrote some atrocious, vile garbage about Frank Sinatra in the book His Way. He sued to try to stop publication and lost. So yeah, these 'parasites in black and white' could pretty much write what they want. . . . I think anyone who believes such rubbish is brain-dead anyway, but it's a shame that people can actually make a living of that nonsense.
 
So people who write these types of books can just get away with it. And the only way for a celeb to win if they sue is to put their life out there? The law separating the general public and celebrities needs to be done away with IMO. Enough people in the general public complain about so-called " celebrity special treatment" anyway. They complained about that with Paris Hilton. So I think, to eliminate complaints, or at least keep them to a minimum, the law should be changed to include EVERYBODY, celebrity or not. But as it stands right now, it can work both ways I think. If John Q. Public says/writes what is found to be a slander about Jane Q. Public, he can be arrested, brought up on charges and thrown in jail. But if somebody does that to Michael, very few if any judges seem to have a problem with it. Some judges who have presided over Michael's legal cases do have personal issues with him IMO. And alot of those have made highly questionable decisions (again IMO) because they think they don't have to be fair. But my question here is this, Since when are they allowed to let personal feelings dictate how they do their job?
 
Last edited:
Intent to harm" has to be deliberate malice, not just an invented story to sell a book, magazine, or tv show.
Click to expand...
laws like that a ridiculous though because it comes down to opinion and everyone has different ones. a law should be set in stone,written down so there is no middle ground. its like the law of resonable force over here if u are defending yourself. everyones definition of resonable force is different. u may think it reasonable to hit me over the head with a hammer in order to defend yourself. what/who determines if something is done with malice? its all opinions
 
mjfan4ever2009 said:
So people who write these types of books can just get away with it. And the only way for a celeb to win if they sue is to put their life out there?
Click to expand...

it sounds like a sinister plan that i wouldn't be surprised if it was true. maybe the lawmakers want MJ to air out his entire life for the world to see.
 
well mj aint gonna sue and mj aint the only celeb that gets written about lol if mj had intrest in sueing he would do it in the uk were its very easy and celebs win cases constantly over the most pointless things that arent even worth sueing over
 
Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Tom Cruise awhile ago sued a few media sources and won the case?
Which meant there wasn't as much crap written about him as before....not saying it would help MJ no doubt....but IMO it wouldn't hurt trying to fight these suckers. But then again....they are protected, don't they call it freedom of speech for the media or something? Sigh....
 
Nearly ALL the books written about MJ is unofficial and had the needed MJ's permission to be released most of them would never ever had been released!!

You can also right a book about him, try to make some easy bucks! That's what they all do!
 
elusive moonwalker said:
laws like that a ridiculous though because it comes down to opinion and everyone has different ones. a law should be set in stone,written down so there is no middle ground. its like the law of resonable force over here if u are defending yourself. everyones definition of resonable force is different. u may think it reasonable to hit me over the head with a hammer in order to defend yourself. what/who determines if something is done with malice? its all opinions
Click to expand...

Yes, it is very difficult to prove something was done/said with malice. The law is imprecise because it involves language, which can be very ambiguous, and also involves human-beings. It is written down, but each situation is somewhat different. Civil cases are sometimes decided by judges, and sometimes by juries. They have guidelines to follow, but yes, they also have opinions. It's all very complicated, and very time-consuming, and the ones who get rich off of these cases, mostly, are the attorneys.

A civil trial can be long and drawn out, so I think with Michael it's a case-by-case basis and where he wants to put his time?

Vic
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
The photos are pretty old :), but the black dog (French Bulldog) is my dog, she's called Yoshi and the pup, who is now full grown is a Jack Russell and is called Koopa :)


About the book....so as long as its not slander...so the book probably won't be full of crap and lies?Something i DID expect from this piece of * beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep* ..making up lies is bad enough...but there's something called going too far...and this was waaaay beyond that. Somethings, one just shouldn't do....definitely not.
Click to expand...

Wow my dog's name is Yoshi.. ok sorry for getting off topic..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top