Courtney Love: America's Sally Bercow

Courtney Love's attempted to argue that, because the internet is effectively people screaming unsubstantiated obscenities into one another's iPads, she shouldn't be put on trial for alledgely defaming her former lawyer Rhonda Holmes on Twitter.

The judge didn't buy it:

Judge Michael Johnson agreed with [Holmes], saying, "Ms. Love has a big following and they all hang on everything she does and says and Tweets."

Which manages to be both terrible news for Love, and also the most generous thing anyone has said about her in a very long time.

The defamation trial will now happen in January.

Our legal experts reassure us you can say what you like about anyone on MySpace, as it's probably nobody will ever find out.

NME says sorry to Morrissey

As the libel hearing over the Morrissey grumbling about British identity court case gets closer, the NME has published a statement which sort-of says sorry while sighing that they never meant he was racist:

In December 2007, we published an article entitled 'Morrissey: Big mouth strikes again'.

Following this, Morrissey began proceedings for libel against us. His complaint is that we accused him of being a racist off the back of an interview which he gave to the magazine. He believes the article was edited in such a way that made him seem reactionary.

We wish to make clear that we do not believe that he is a racist; we didn’t think we were saying he was and we apologise to Morrissey if he or anyone else misunderstood our piece in that way. We never set out to upset Morrissey and we hope we can both get back to doing what we do best.

Morrissey and the NME getting back to what they do best? Presumably they mean living off past glories?

Morrissey invites fans to support him at the High Court

A date has been set for the Morrissey versus NME & Conor McNicholas court case, where Steven will claim that the NME altered quotes from him to make him look a little bit racist.

His website invites people to drop by:

In light of the NME's refusal to apologize to Morrissey for fabricating parts of their 2007 interview with him in order to make Morrissey appear to be racist, the High Court hearing of Morrissey -vs- Conor McNicholas and IPC/NME now has a set date of July 16, 17, 18 and 19. Anyone wishing to offer support to Morrissey should make their presence known outside the High Court in London on these dates.

What? Does he think he's Michael Jackson or something? Are people meant to take doves to set free if the verdict goes his way?

It's one thing for people to turn up to show their support, but actively seeking people to stand around outside with placards pledging "MORRISSEY ISN'T RACIST YOU'RE JUST APPLYING A SUPERFICIAL READING TO BENAGLI IN PLATFORMS AND THE NATIONAL FRONT DISCO" is a bit tacky, isn't it?

Especially since it doesn't seem like Morrissey will have much time to acknowledge the crowds:

These newly finalized dates clash with Morrissey concerts throughout Europe, and although no concerts will be cancelled, Morrissey will be required to fly in and fly out of London to attend each hearing on each day.

It's the week before the Olympics, I can't forsee any possible difficulty in whisking in and out of airports on a tight schedule.

If True To You is right, the NME's case is going to be interesting, as apparently they've offered to say sorry:

The NME recently offered to apologize to Morrissey by offering space on nme.com, but not within the printed magazine. This offer was rejected as disproportionate to the damage done to Morrissey by the NME magazine itself.

I think the apology would probably have been seen by more people if it was on nme.com, given the way sales are going, but it's a strange gambit - you're prepared to defend your statements in the High Court, but happy to apologise for them online. We'll find out their plan come July.

New Edition struggles with new media

Johnny Gill claimed a record producer had leaked one of his new songs onto the internet. (He used to be in New Edition, but that's not important right now. Of course it's not important, it's 2011.)

She has responded by suing him for defamation.

Nut Gill reckons he's got the perfect defence - yeah, he said it, but it was on Twitter, so it doesn't count. He explained this to TMZ:

Gill told our photog he thinks people should say what they want on Twitter, because otherwise "the courtrooms would be filled with a bunch of Twitter people complaining about things people say every day ... It's freedom of speech."

"... and I'm pretty certain there was an amendment to the constitution which made Twitter even free-er-er than other free speech, right? It's the one that allows you to issue death threats through MySpace and organise riots using Facebook without comeback, yeah?"

Courtney Love tweets into court

In a few day's time, Courtney Love's tweets about Dawn Simorangkir are going to court, as the fashion designer sues for defamation.

Love suggested via Twitter that far from owing money Simorangkir was seeking, it was her who should have been showered in thanks and cash:

"She has received a VAST amount of money from me over 40,000 dollars and I do not make people famous and get raped TOO!" Love wrote.

Of course, being Love, this isn't just about Twitter, as she spewed this sort of thing all over the internet.

Her team have got a defence, though:

Love's attorneys have their own witnesses, including a medical expert who plans to testify that even if Love's statements were untrue, her mental state was not "subjectively malicious" enough to justify the defamation lawsuit.

That claim -- something akin to an insanity defence for social media -- suggests that Twitter was so appealing and addictive for Love that she had no appreciation for how the comments she posted would be received by others.

Karl T, who pointed this out to us, observes:

Love's defence, that Twitter is just so darn fun that she's unable to prevent herself from broadcasting whatever passes through her brain is an interesting one, to say the least.

In other news, shouting at dustbins and picking fights with the radiator people are protected under the 1st amendment.

It's going to be a tricky one for Love to pretend that she had no idea what people would make of her Tweets, as surely she'd already got into enough trouble tweeting about the people ripping them off to know exactly what they'd go down like.

Jackson libel case to be heard without a jury

The court of appeal have upheld a judge's decision to do without a jury in the libel case being fought between Channel 4 and Matthew Fiddes, former bodyguard to Michael Jackson.

The likely costs was one reason, but:

The judge also based his ruling on the fact that the case would involve viewing sections of television footage and detailed examination of documents.

It also raised important issues about what was or was not acceptable editorial practice in a TV broadcast presented as factual which, he said, would best be dealt with in a reasoned judgment which could be made public and appealed.

Oh, yes. Membersof the public might find television difficult to cope with - the pictures, they move! What wizardry is this! - and a High Court judge is clearly much better equipped than other people who don't work in television to understand editorial practice.

Why don't they just dispense with the lawyers and witnesses as well? Surely a wise old judge doesn't need them, either, eh?

Peaches Geldof wins libel case

The BBC is reporting victory for Peaches Geldof in a libel case against the Daily Star:

Peaches Geldof, daughter of Bob Geldof, has accepted substantial, undisclosed libel damages over a newspaper claim that she had worked as a prostitute.

The claims by the paper were a terrible slur on Peaches' image. Imagine implying she's ever worked.

Seriously, though, there is more to this story than just the headline - whatever you think of Peaches (or sex workers, come to that), to make that sort of claim about a person without any proof is an awful way for any newspaper, even The Star, to behave. A retraction and apology - at the very least - were required; and with more prominence than the paper managed.

They'd splashed the made-up story on page one; they tucked the correction away inside on page two.

What's really interesting, though, is that a complaint from Geldof's people to the Press Complaints Commission about the handling of the correction decided there was no problem with this behaviour. Understandably, Geldof's team didn't accept this - hence the legal action today.

This isn't, then, so much a story about a nasty paper making an ugly allegation, as a further indication that the Press Complaints Commission is broken beyond repair. When the PCC is being dismantled and its remit handed to Ofcom, Peaches Geldof will have played her part in helping to make that happen. And the papers will only have themselves to blame.

It's okay to dis Annie Lennox, says the judge

It's not often you hear a judge talking sense, but Mrs Justice Sharp has done us all a favour by kicking out an attempt to sue the Telegraph. Petra Ecclestone had been kicking up a legal rumpus because of an item in the diary:

[F]ashion designer Petra Ecclestone was quoted as saying: "I am not a veggie and I don't have much time for people like the McCartneys and Annie Lennox."

Ecclestone claimed the words were defamatory and meant she was "disrespectful and dismissive of the McCartneys and Annie Lennox to the point of being willing to disparage them publicly for promoting vegetarianism."

The judge snorted - literally - dismissively:

Justice Sharp, said "right-thinking members of society" would not think less of Ecclestone because of the quote.

So she struck out the libel claim, adding incidentally that it was irrelevant whether Ecclestone denied having made the quoted remark.

The irony of the Telegraph being saved by a sensible judge in a libel case probably won't be lost on those who have been served with libel writs from the title's proprietors, the Barclay Brothers, over the years.

Still, it's nice to know that having a bit of fun at Annie Lennox's expense is now an activity protected by law.

David Gest against the People: It's what Michael would have wanted

You can understand David Gest being upset at the Sunday People saying he was banned from Michael Jackson's memorial:

In a writ filed at the High Court by London law firm Sheridans said the story alleged that despite his claims of a close friendship with Michael Jackson, and although Jackson was best man at his wedding to Liza Minelli in 2002, Gest parasitically clung to an association with the entertainer not based on genuine friendship.

Gest claimed the story was false as he was invited to the memorial service in Los Angeles and Jackson’s mother, Katherine Jackson, had not called him a hanger-on.

The People have already told its remaining readers that the story was wrong:

It said: "On July 5, 2009 we reported that David Gest had been banned from attending Michael Jackson's memorial service by Michael's mother as a "hanger-on" who had not spoken to her son for 10 years. Our article was incorrect.

"In fact Mr Gest had been friends with Michael Jackson for over 40 years, the two had remained close and he had been personally invited to the memorial service by Mrs Jackson.

"We apologise to Mr Gest for our error and any distress or embarrassment it may have caused."

And by "wrong" I mean "made-up". You've got to love that apology which suggests it was an "error", as if they'd spelled his name with a "u".

Still, David is not satisfied, and he's now taking The People to court.

Peter Andre has a big payday

Of course, it's a bit of a shame that Peter Andre is still relying on his connection with Jordan to make a few bob, but he seems delighted to accept "substantial" damages from the Sunday People:

Peter Andre accepted substantial undisclosed libel damages from the People newspaper in the high court today over a false claim that he made inappropriate sexual advances to a woman who looked like his estranged wife Katie Price.
[...]
Speaking outside the high court today, Andre said he was "pleased" the People had accepted that the story was "untrue and hurtful".

Yes. What could be more hurtful than being accused in public of being the sort of man who would have sex with a woman who looked like Jordan?

Oh... no, hang on:

"I have never been unfaithful to my wife – not with this girl, or any other girl," he added. "This story has led to a lot of speculation about whether I was faithful to my estranged wife which even led her to mention it on a breakfast television show last week.

"If anyone slanders my name I will not hesitate in taking action against them. Now, hopefully, this will bring these rumours and lies to an end and let me move on with my life."

Interesting. So Andre will take action against anyone who slanders his name. And this story is libelous - as shown by this legal action. And Jordan repeated in on a broadcast programme. So... presumably Andre will be bringing a libel action against his own wife now?

Elton John lets it lie

Elton John has finally given up his legal actions against The Guardian over a joke about him that he believed did him down:

John had accused [Marina] Hyde of defamation and using a "gratuitously offensive, nasty and snide tone" in the piece.

I know, he says that like that's a bad thing.

Anyway, the High Court struck out his libel claim back before Christmas; last week a written seeking of leave to appeal was rejected and his soicitors were given until today to offer new grounds for appeal. They've decided to not bother. It's not known if the phrase "try and have a sense of humour about it" (or, perhaps, "oh, crawl out of your arse, man, it was a joke") was involved in the decision-making process.

The Sun pays out to Sharon Osbourne

Although it's easy to forget, Sharon Osbourne is just flesh and blood and as capable of being mortified or embarrassed as the rest of us. As, indeed, she was when the Sun ran a story claiming she was working Ozzy to death:

Osbourne's solicitor, John Kelly, told Justice David Eady that the article alleged that former X Factor judge, who has been married to Ozzy for 26 years, was putting her husband's life at risk by forcing him to perform a series of live shows when he was not well enough, and that her motivation for doing so was to fund her "exorbitant spending".

"The article wrongly alleged that the claimant was 'driving her frail husband Ozzy Osbourne to destruction', was working him 'so hard she will kill him' and that 'Sharon will keep Ozzy on the road until, like Tommy Cooper, he dies on stage'," Kelly told the high court.

"These allegations are entirely without foundation and were obviously extremely distressing, hurtful and damaging for the claimant. The claimant's distress was increased as a result of the claims in the article being made by the claimant's estranged brother David Arden, and tagged with the words 'Chilling warning from brother of X Factor Sharon'.

The article was originally credited to Grant Rollings. News International are to pay "substantial" damages.

Elton John told "your skin's too thin"

Attempts by Elton John to sue The Guardian for taking the piss out of him, gently have been thrown out of court.

John had objected to a Weekend Magazine spoof diary feature - claiming it was snide and that it suggested he was insincere about his charity work.

Even Kerry Katona has a reputation to protect

The Sunday Mirror has publicly apologised to Kerry Katona after running a lie that claimed her Mum was going to call her a prostitute in a new book. In their apology in the High Court, the Mirror offered no explanation of why it felt the need to run the story - after all, if you're looking to have a pop at Katona, you don't really need to make stuff up. The case might offer a warning to journalists that even tabloid punchbags have their limits.

It could, just as easily, have been Melissa and Daughter

Yusuf Islam has accepted a libel payout from the World Entertainment News Network after the service published a story that extrapolated wildly from his name and claimed he wouldn't speak to women who didn't wear the veil. Oh, and even if women did wear a veil, he'd still only speak to them through third parties.

Which doesn't even make sense - why would it be okay for the "third party" to speak to women if Islam couldn't? Or did WENN think that he used a different third party each time? "You've spoken to women now, so effectively, you're as bad as them."

Islam is giving the damages to his charity. ContactMusic, which also ran the story, is going to chip in, too.

Why would you need to make things up?

Given that the Osbourne's performance on this year's Brit awards was one of the most cheek-squishingly awful TV hosting exercises since Harold Wilson tried his hand at chartshows, it's incredible that the Daily Star felt the need to publish made-up stories about it. Their inventiveness has landed them in libel courts, and writing cheques out to Ozzy. They're giving the money to charity.

Mind you:

[Osbourne's solicitor, John] Kelly told the court the allegations were serious given that Osbourne had just completed a concert tour and he had "suffered considerable embarrassment and distress as a result of it".

Perhaps it was embarrassing, but given the level of embarrassment the programme itself generated ("PAUL MCCARTNEY... oh, no yet") it's hard to see how it could have been made any more distressing.

Presley sues the Mail

It's surprising that, with Britain's libel laws, so many magazines and papers have got away with running cruel jibes disguised as - well, we were going to say 'investigations', but 'x is a bit flabby, if you peer at them through a long lens from the end of the beach' hardly counts as investigation, does it? Much of the coverage is designed to hold people up to ridicule, and some contempt, which would seem to be pretty open-and-shut. Obviously, nobody wants to ake on the might of the UK press when they need the coverage to exist.

One day, though, the papers would mock someone a little too much, and that person wouldn't be worried about keeping the titles on side.

That day, it turns out, was when the Mail ran its Lisa Marie Presley is fat story. Presley is suing the paper.

We're no fans of the British libel laws, but if this at least makes editors think before they run such pieces in the future, they might have a positive effect in this case.

Will Smith: Never loved Hitler

The World Entertainment News Network has apologised and paid damages to Will Smith after it reported him saying he thought Hitler was a good man.

His solicitor, Rachel Atkins, told London's High Court the article was "deeply distressing" to Smith and had caused him "acute embarrassment".

Ms Atkins said the star, who was not in court, was "a highly-respected actor of international repute and a man of complete integrity".

She said the I Am Legend star believed Hitler to be "a vile and heinous man".

"The article alleged that the claimant had declared in an interview that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was a good person," she said.

"The allegation is false and without any foundation.

"It wholly misrepresents the claimant's actual words, given in an interview to the Daily Record, a Scottish newspaper and website."

What Smith actually said was the slightly more subtle 'Hitler thought what he was doing was good':

"Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today'," said Will. "I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good'. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming."

Actually, we're quite taken with the idea of Hitler waking up in the morning and deciding what he's going to do each morning; perhaps over a bowl of sugarpuffs.

Robbie Williams is not done paying yet

The libelous Rudebox track continues to fill Nigel Martin-Smith's pockets, as he accepts payments from Chrysalis after they distributed Williams' work. Although the High Court had stepped in before the album was made available to the public, the original version had been distributed to journalists; although the label tried to recall them, they didn't do so quickly enough:

Matthew Nicklin, for Chrysalis, said that it "wishes to make it clear that it did not intend the lyrics of The 90s to be taken at face value or as a serious statement of the views that Chrysalis holds of Mr Martin Smith."

"Chrysalis did not intend to allege that Mr Martin Smith has ever stolen funds from Take That, or from anyone," he said.

You do wonder if EMI had anyone from their legal department listen to the track before pressing up the records. Or even if EMI has a legal department these days.

It's official: Victoria Beckham isn't a bitch

Star magazine - Richard Desmond's low-heat Heat - has apologised to Victoria Beckham for calling her a grade-a bitch, after running a piece which quoted ay unflattering length complaints about her from the crew of her US TV reality series.

Unfortunately, as the series hadn't started taping at this point, there wasn't much to defend the story with:

[Beckham's Lawyer Gerrard Tyrrell] said Star magazine had agreed to pay substantial damages and Beckham's legal costs and undertaken not to repeat the defamation.

Lawyer Salayha Hussein, acting for Northern & Shell, told the high court that her client accepted that all the allegations to which Mr Tyrrell referred were untrue.

Ms Hussein added: "The defendant apologises to Ms Beckham for the distress and embarrassment caused to her and are happy to give the undertaking referred to above."