There was an amusing tale in the morning paper about a fiasco that has erupted in the courts because gossip-mongers in the blogosphere speculated that a gal pal in the shadow of actress Lindsay Lohan was her lover!
The scuttlebutt is a tad convoluted - and like any alleged love tryst - twisted wickedly in the wind enough to cause tongues to wag!
For that, some have gotten their di**s caught in a wringer.
Here it is in a nutshell.
Allegedly, a young woman was seen squiring (?) Lohan around town, so - hot-shot gossip maven Perez Hilton - was inclined to speculate that the hanger-on was the star's main squeeze.
The gossip escalated to such a high degree that harsh words and wild accusations sizzled back-and-forth between the principals in its tawdry wake.
In fact, the woman in question was so incensed by the intense glare of the spotlight shone on her by Perez - among others - that she hot-footed it to a lawyer's office to file suit.
In her pleading, the femme fatale accused Perez Hilton of falsely alleging she was Lohan's girl-toy between the sheets, and thereafter, caused her undue stress and anxiety when he further mocked and scorned her when he graced the pages of his website in a defamatory T-shirt (!) that wildly lamented she was - oh my gosh! - a lesbot!
To fan the flames, Perez allegedly pointed a finger, and accused the upstart social-climber of "crimes" of a more sinister speculative nature.
For example, after the police arrived at the scene of a fender-bender, a small quantity of cocaine was allegedly discovered in the late model Mercedes Benz owned by the actress.
After Perez sources whispered in his ear - that the ever at-her-side escort was known to be an addict - the King of dish was inclined to play Nancy Drew and put two and two together.
And, may have come up with - um - five.
But, the truth is a long way off, just yet.
Just shortly before Perez was to give a deposition in the contentious legal proceedings (he's screaming 1st Amendment Rights) the plaintiff got into a tizzy with her own attorney and now the winsome (lose some?) two-some are out-of-sorts.
In fact, the dotty Miss has filed a malpractice suit against her legal counsel for allegedly botching the case.
Whew!
Here is the dilemma as I perceive it.
For starters, I checked out the woman's photo in the newspaper.
Frankly - she's a dog - folks!
If I were her, I'd count myself lucky that gossip-mongers were alleging an affair with such a luscious babe.
Lady - and I use the term loosely - you should have said thanks and moved on!
As to the issue of the libel (written word) and nasty slander (uttered falsehoods) a couple of niggling legal issues are obvious from the get-go.
For one, it's kind of frivolous to file suit on the grounds that someone called you a lesbot.
A handful of decent upstanding citizens have been called worse.
For example, years ago a gentleman - angered over the fact he was called an "a**hole" - proceeded to file a lawsuit for damages.
It sounds bizarre, I know, but the case actually snaked its way to the Supreme Court.
In fact, on behalf of the court, Justice Scalia penned an "opinion" that struck the deadly blow.
After an in-depth analysis of the derogatory term - and an appropriate legal review - the Justices were in accord.
The lawsuit lacked merit on legal grounds and was summarily dismissed.
Today, you can hurl the insult - **hole! - at any individual and not be sued for it.
Some things are still sacred, I guess!
To win the cause of action on the lesbian label - well - the young lady would have to establish to the court that she is not a "lesbot", for starters.
Also, she would have the burden of proving that the "insult" was not only a falsehood, but written (or uttered) with malicious and/or hurtful intent.
For example, in the wake of the Proposition 8 fall-out, being falsely labelled a lesbian may have resulted in serious repercussions in a family circle or in an employment situation.
The strongest cause of action, in my mind's eye, arises from the the allegation that the drugs belonged to Lohan's friend.
Just because a person is taking drugs - and may have been a passenger in a Mercedes - does not (by any stretch of the imagination) mean a person can take a leap and assume that the drugs belonged to that individual.
On that issue, Perez may have crossed the line.
But, in view of the way the drama is unfolding with the malpractice suit, Perez (gosh, he must have horseshoes up his a**, eh?) may get off the hook scott-free.
Bottom line, if an individual is into "gossiping" and "tattling" (who moi?) on celebrities, it is of the utmost importance that he or she phrase their words carefully to avoid potential land mines along the way.
If a writer follows that credo, they'll remain out of harm's way.
For instance, to remain within the realms of journalistic ethics, a reporter would be wise to note for the record there were "rumors" of drug-taking, an addiction, and so forth and so on.
Not assert it, without firming up the truth first.
Or, the writer may facilitate a trick of the trade by noting - in the instant case of Lohan, for example - that "sources" close to the star disclosed this 'n that.
I studied law, so I am mindful of all of this when I pen a post.
In the final analysis, the scenario unfolding in the Lohan/Perez matter, signals the obvious.
There's a lot of tit-for-tat going on in a circle of clueless immature individuals.
And, the lawyers may be the worst offenders.
Let's hope the Judge shakes some sense into all of 'em.
Immanuel Kant once opined:
"Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's own intelligence without the guidance of another."
