Latest on MJJC

Why MJ didn’t sue some tabloids?

Lucilla

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
3,363
Points
0
Location
Neverland since 1991
Just in case someone ask you, I think this could be useful. :)

“Carrol Burnett, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie sued and won... big time... It can be done but you gotta really want to”. (I took this is from another forum not related with MJ).

It’s true that part of the reason is that MJ have a good heart and believe in forgiveness but let’s see some other reasons why probably MJ and his own lawyers didn’t want to go ahead with some tabloids stories.

They say it's better for a celebrity to just ignore the tabloids, regardless of their veracity (MJ said so himself). By suing the tabloids, you'll be generating good PR for their stories.

We can’t forget the Freedom of Speech and it’s also true that you can’t sue every single lie they print, if they could, tabloids wouldn’t exist at all.

But some of those lies really damaged MJ’s public image.

It's also very difficult for a celebrity to prove that some tabloid not only printed something untrue, but also knew it was untrue. If a hairdresser reports some gossip to them, they can print it. If it's untrue, their defense is that they didn't know it was untrue, and the celebrity would have to prove they did.

It's a daunting task, and I'm sure some tabloids like the Enquirer, the Sun or TMZ doesn't want to know the truth before they publish.

*Libel law for "public figures" is different than it is for you or me. We could sue and win by proving the allegations are false. Public figures need to go the extra step.

Another "dark underbelly" aspect of tabloids is that when they sometimes get some serious dirt on a celebrity, they could work out a deal. They print relatively minor stuff and the celeb keeps quiet. Sometimes the celeb is forced to provide private info. (Roseanne Barr claimed she was blackmailed by a tabloid.)

They're loaded with weasel words like; "Informed sources say," "It's alleged," "Un-named source," "according to reports," and so on Proper phrasing of the various insinuations and assertions allows any halfway decent lawyer plenty of ease in levering the tabloids' collective butts out any legal crack they might get stuck in.

_________________________________________________________

The reason the press in the US get away with what they write is due to NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN, 376 U. S. 254 (1964) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/376/254/case.html)

You need to prove actual malice:
that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

According to lawdigest.uslegal.com (http://lawdigest.uslegal.com/tort-and-personal-injury-actions/libel-and-slander/7311/) to successfully sue them the plaintiff has to prove 4 things:

1-First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plain-tiff.

2-Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.

3-Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.

4-Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages.

If you have some other reason, please be free to post them.
 
Yes....I"ve been asking myself that question for years.
Like I said in another thread...if he sued those a**** for big money they would think twice about spreading those awful lies.
Freedom of speech is one thing but ruining someone"s reputation for years is another.
It really makes me angry.
If you put all the stories about other celebs it is still not as much they were writting about Michael.
Before 25.6 2009. :( :( :( I honestly can"t remember when I read something positive about MJ.
They have no shame and I hate them.
 
lucilla said:
They say it's better for a celebrity to just ignore the tabloids, regardless of their veracity (MJ said so himself). By suing the tabloids, you'll be generating good PR for their stories.
Click to expand...

That's easier said than done though. I don't remember who said this, but with Anna Nicole Smith, someone said that she actually googled herself all the time and read all the cr*p that was written about her on the net ... And yep, you might make things worse by suing them.

lucilla said:
It's also very difficult for a celebrity to prove that some tabloid not only printed something untrue, but also knew it was untrue. If a hairdresser reports some gossip to them, they can print it. If it's untrue, their defense is that they didn't know it was untrue, and the celebrity would have to prove they did.
Click to expand...

That's true, and that's why they get away with almost everything.

lucilla said:
Another "dark underbelly" aspect of tabloids is that when they sometimes get some serious dirt on a celebrity, they could work out a deal. They print relatively minor stuff and the celeb keeps quiet. Sometimes the celeb is forced to provide private info. (Roseanne Barr claimed she was blackmailed by a tabloid.)
Click to expand...

Not only when they get serious dirt, it's enough if you are not nice to them. If you say negative things about tabloids in public. They'll print all kinds of stuff, true or not, just because they can and you don't play along. If you know all those things and more, you won't buy them, you won't read them. If I want to read fantasy stories, I can just buy a novel instead. They are less obnoxious.
 
Well, I think Michael just chose to handle it that way...He hated the tabloids and we knew his stance on their pathetic existence. Perhaps he just didn't want to sue them because he just didn't want to give any attention to them...It's almost like annoying person doing something, and rather than give them the attention you just pay no attention to it.
 
I'm not sure if it's so complicated with European media though. Tabloids in my country have to place rectifications and pay damages all the time, mostly just for minor stuff. I don't know if the laws in the UK are similar but if they are, Michael could have been successful in suing them.

I think the reason Michael chose not to sue tabloids is because it would be like "mopping the floor while letting the water run". Once you sue one tabloid for printing false stories, you are expected to sue others as well because if you don't, people will say "this story must be true because if it were false, Michael would have sued this tabloid like he did last time". So in the end the effect might be even worse and it takes a lot of time, money, effort and unwanted attention to keep up with this.
 
LindavG said:
I think the reason Michael chose not to sue tabloids is because it would be like "mopping the floor while letting the water run". Once you sue one tabloid for printing false stories, you are expected to sue others as well because if you don't, people will say "this story must be true because if it were false, Michael would have sued this tabloid like he did last time". So in the end the effect might be even worse and it takes a lot of time, money, effort and unwanted attention to keep up with this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that too. Would have been a never-ending story and too much effort, especially in his case with new stupid stories every day.
 
I think because he got sued too much for any rubbish he felt that he can't spent more time with laywers than neccessary.

Sometimes he reacted with statements via himself or some spokesperson about some lies that were printed about him.
 
LindavG said:
I'm not sure if it's so complicated with European media though. Tabloids in my country have to place rectifications and pay damages all the time, mostly just for minor stuff. I don't know if the laws in the UK are similar but if they are, Michael could have been successful in suing them.

I think the reason Michael chose not to sue tabloids is because it would be like "mopping the floor while letting the water run". Once you sue one tabloid for printing false stories, you are expected to sue others as well because if you don't, people will say "this story must be true because if it were false, Michael would have sued this tabloid like he did last time". So in the end the effect might be even worse and it takes a lot of time, money, effort and unwanted attention to keep up with this.
Click to expand...

definitely, this could be one of the reasons :yes:
 
I still think he should have.
It is not the same if they say :" Michael Jackson bought himself a lego-castle " or
" Michael Jackson has a cancer and has only 6 months to live." :( :(
This is not a game, it is very serious. It is sick.
He had a lawyers that could just sue one f****** tabloid after another and donate the money to charity.
That would keep their dirty mouth closed.
 
lucilla said:
If a hairdresser reports some gossip to them, they can print it. If it's untrue, their defense is that they didn't know it was untrue, and the celebrity would have to prove they did.


They're loaded with weasel words like; "Informed sources say," "It's alleged," "Un-named source," "according to reports," and so on Proper phrasing of the various insinuations and assertions allows any halfway decent lawyer plenty of ease in levering the tabloids' collective butts out any legal crack they might get stuck in.
Click to expand...

This.

Michael did sue sometimes. For example, he sued Victor Gutierrez and Diane Dimond when they claimed back in the 1990s that there is a video tape about Michael molesting his nephew Jeremy (Jermaine's son). Jeremy's mother, Margaret Maldonado totally denied the story and Michael sued both Gutierrez and Dimond. Of course, Gutierrez wasn't able to present the alleged tape in court so he got fined for 1 million dollars (if I remember correctly).But Dimond got off by saying she acted in good faith, she only reported what Gutierrez told her and she couldn't know it wasn't true. So it's basically the defense you described above. BTW, even if Gutierrez was ordered to pay Michael 1 million dollars, he never did. He fled the country instead.... So even if Gutierrez was punished, Michael actually never got to see the money he was supposed to get because of it and Gutierrez never paid anything.....

There's also the so called "shield law" which allows journalists to not to have to name their sources - even in front of a court! So if they say "I know this information from an unnamed source of mine" nobody - not even a court! - can do anything to make him reveal his source! This basically gives a free pass to journalists to lie just about anything they want to lie about! They just have to word their articles cleverly.....

So journalists and freedom of speech are protected by the law so much that often there is not much that can be done against those journalists who abuse this right that is given to them.

Hell, even Ray Chandler hid behind the shield law when Mesereau tried to force him testify in the 2005 trial!
 
Last edited:
dunno i guess he just wasnt that bothered about what they said or wasnt aware of how bad things got. he did sue on a few occasions like mentioned above. but when u see how many celebs sue over the most pointless things in the uk and win it did frustrate the hell out of me why he never went after them. as all it did was help build the image the media wanted the public to have of him. ie tell a lie often enough everyone believes it. and even more when nothing is done about the lie
 
respect77 said:
This.

Michael did sue sometimes. For example, he sued Victor Gutierrez and Diane Dimond when they claimed back in the 1990s that there is a video tape about Michael molesting his nephew Jeremy (Jermaine's son). Jeremy's mother, Margaret Maldonado totally denied the story and Michael sued both Gutierrez and Dimond. Of course, Gutierrez wasn't able to present the alleged tape in court so he got fined for 1 million dollars (if I remember correctly).But Dimond got off by saying she acted in good faith, she only reported what Gutierrez told her and she couldn't know it wasn't true. So it's basically the defense you described above. BTW, even if Gutierrez was ordered to pay Michael 1 million dollars, he never did. He fled the country instead.... So even if Gutierrez was punished, Michael actually never got to see the money he was supposed to get because of it and Gutierrez never paid anything.....

There's also the so called "shield law" which allows journalists to not to have to name their sources - even in front of a court! So if they say "I know this information from an unnamed source of mine" nobody - not even a court! - can do anything to make him reveal his source! This basically gives a free pass to journalists to lie just about anything they want to lie about! They just have to word their articles cleverly.....

So journalists and freedom of speech are protected by the law so much that often there is not much that can be done against those journalists who abuse this right that is given to them.

Hell, even Ray Chandler hid behind the shield law when Mesereau tried to force him testify in the 2005 trial!
Click to expand...

WOW, so basically they can say anything they want and get away with it. :no:
well that must be part of the reason why tabloids exist.

thanks for your post.:)
 
lucilla said:
WOW, so basically they can say anything they want and get away with it. :no:
Click to expand...

Sort of ... it makes sense, the press needs to be free and not censored, which is a good thing when they write about politics and the like (including not having to name sources in that case), but you can abuse those laws too, which is more or less what tabloids do.
 
WOW, so basically they can say anything they want and get away with it. :no:
Click to expand...
in america yes and with obama changing the law they are protected even more now. although some journos were done for not naming sources in a few cases but i think thouse were crim cases
 
What amazes me is how some people can believe the junk that the tabloids print about Michael. There are still people out there who honestly believe that Michael slept in an oxygen chamber.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top