It's still defamatory to say somebody is gay, apparently

The point in the case was that the paper was accusing him of making money by lying about his past and/or present. The court seems to have thought that bit would damage his reputation, not necessarily the details of the alleged lie.

That's Robbie on the far right, just in case you don't know who we're talking about.

this isn't why he won though, it's not a matter of ridicule/stain on character. if a paper said 'robbie has a big ol' crack habit' he could sue them (well, he'd lose, but yo uget my point).

Actually it's a matter of whether it "tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally."

And what alarms me is that being gay is still something that will lower you in the estimation of right-thinking people. He might argue that he sued because it also alleged he had casual sex, but I don't recall him flinging writs around every time a woman did a kiss and tell on him.

but is that what libel is under English law? Wikipedia says "English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them."

Why would saying Robbie is gay warrant a libel case anymore than saying he was black? Oh no, what have I done.

because one statement is facially untrue, and the other is not

would you have a problem with graham norton suing a paper that alleged he was straight and only acting gay to win over the will and grace demgraphic?

that always annoys me about ilx, you can't provoke an argument when you really want one.

ihttp://www.nationalenquirer.com/images/ne/208697/51522.gif

Also umm regardless of whether a majority of "right-thinking" people would regard something as bad or not, there are two other tweaks: (a) so long as there are some people who think of homosexuality as a moral problem (and there always will be some) it's a sort of defamation, both personally and professionally (it's affecting a market share, however small!), plus (b) I kinda feel like sexual issues are just particularly protected with regard to people misreporting them, because sex is regarded by many people as an issue of morality, and there's no good way of telling what effect misreportage might have on people's perceptions of the subject. For instance Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair in a UK court, right, for alleging that he made a pass at some woman or other right after his wife was killed, and one could very easily make the argument that in some world that's not defamatory -- you know, his wife was dead, he wouldn't have been doing anything adulterous or illegal. (Didn't Vanity Fair also argue that you couldn't really lower public opinion of a guy who's maybe best-known for having raped an adolescent?) But the point isn't even just that it makes him look like a shit, but rather that it's something that exists in some personal/moral sphere and isn't, according to Polanski, true.

I'm just not convinced that questioning sexuality is really going to hinder someone's business/livelihood that much, when their business/livelihood is in POP MUSIC of all things, even if they are straight after all. Jason Donovan's pop career was already kaput by the time he had to deal with this issue. Unfortunately I can't think of any other examples.

Well, he's obviously stopped worrying about being boorish over the years. I guess he's stopped worrying about the rest now too.

-- Sororah T Massacre (stevem7...), December 6th, 2005.

FIVE STAR!!

Yes, but how significant does the loss of income/trade have to be under UK law? Is "however small" reasonable? Also, how do you prove this loss in terms of causation?

It does sound like the law supports the prejudices of "reasonable persons." I mean, if the court says reasonable people dislike gays, I guess that's their stupid standard.

Seems like here, the defendant just accepted liability in the absences of trying to use the absolute defense of truth. Do defendants ever fight these cases on the basis of the standards of proof?

There's an issue of principle sure, but that surely doesn't provide enough motivation on it's own.

Does this mean The People now has to print one of those apology things in it's paper in a tiny box saying that Robbie Williams is heterosexual and they're sorry for suggesting otherwise? If so, then I can sort of understand why he might have pursued it as this is quite amusing. In return, if I were The People I would start using the 'gayest' photos of Robbie when reporting on him in future, regardless of the story.

Ah,you beat me to the punchline!! xpost

I mean, if the court says reasonable people dislike gays, I guess that's their stupid standard

But so: how in the world is this a stupid standard? This is the truth -- plenty of legally "reasonable" people (i.e. everyday non-insane non-eccentric jury-of-your-peers types) think that being gay is wrong. Plenty more of them might not think being gay is absolutely "wrong," but would certainly have their opinions of a person changed drastically by thinking of that person as gay -- either in a strong negative sense or a mild negative sense or in some way that's just "different." We are so not even close to living in a world where homosexuality makes no difference in how your perceived -- we're not even close to one where it's not considered outright morally repugnant!

True no doubt, but that obv. applies to gender and race/ethnicity too and presumably forever will. The thing is we know for a fact Williams has done it with countless girls countless times. And in all that time he was never seriously linked with a man. On this basis alone reporting that actually he might be bi (now) isn't something I would take seriously and I'm no fan of the guy's work (and doing it to re-assure all the girls and indeed grown women out there who still think they actually might get to marry him just seems ridiculous too).

Are you arguing the validity of the "reasonable person" element, or the resulting "grounded in condemnation of gayness" element, as applied in this instant?

To clarify, I think it is the basis that underlies the standard, which is the immorality of bi/homosexuality, to be stupid. But using that standard, it's pretty hard to get around. You're right, though, plenty think homosexuality is immoral.

That said, I like "reasonable person" standards. Let's find some reasonable persons.

This is why I ask, does anyone fight these based on the standard of proof. Can he PROVE that he was injured by this? What constitutes proof of damages? Just sayin' doesn't make it so--unless the defendant just holds up his hand and says "liable," which it sounds like they did.

Finally, motivation for suit being accumulated frustration with media? Sure, they can be utterly inhuman bastards. And they made him a multimillionaire. It's lonely at the top, Robbie. His desire for revenge is understandable, but I don't think the law should care unless he can show some more significant damages than what I imagine to be the case here.

FWIW, I think "gloss that lies atop the standard" would be a better description, here. It is "reasonable person" that is the foundation of the standard. xpo

Yeah, but have you actually paged through that issue? Like, only two or three people are actually declared gay and it's people like Ellen DeGeneres and George Michael. Everyone else, even cases where the jury is clearly out, gets the benefit of the doubt straight tag. Whenever they do this sort of issue, it's like one big tacky confirmation that self-righteous gossip-seeking-but-socially-reactionary middle Americans can breathe easier, secure in the knowledge that Hollywood isn't "that" gay.

Stevem I don't think it's just criminal behavior and homosexuality. I mean, cf that Roman Polaski deal -- hitting on someone on the way to your wife's funeral isn't illegal or gay, just tacky and creepy. I can imagine people going to court (maybe not winning, but going) over lots of personal-life details: who they're reported to be having sex with, how they're reported to have handled a marriage or divorce or some other bit of lovelife or business dealings, etc. -- any untrue thing that tarnishes one's image.

I dunno, I guess I just have a lot of empathy with celebrities on this one. It's one thing that you sign on to have your life subjected to a lot of attention and scrutiny. But it has to be totally, blindingly galling to have publications make money by printing completely untrue things about your life, especially if it's without any pretense of even rumor or heard-around-town. That sort of thing would gall me to no end whether or not it was likely to have any effect on my life or career. I know the legal system has to start weighing those damages to sort through cases like these, but I can see how the principle alone would lead celebrities to take action. (And really, consider the real-world effects for lots of them. Usually a celebrity endures years of tabloid junk until they get to some point in their careers where they don't want exposure any more -- they can forgo it. So they sue over whatever across-the-line thing galls them most, and look what they get out of it: they get basically a chunk of the money made on whatever lies were told about them, and they get a much more careful tabloid industry from then on out, one that knows this particular celebrity is now willing to fight back.)

we're not even close to [a world] where it's not considered outright morally repugnant!

I thought you meant 'is generally considered' rather than 'is considered by some reasonable people'. My mistake.

Since I love to do things to death...

Y'know, you might be able to use any anti gay prejudices of the factfinders to the advantage of the defense, as implied by the photos above.

I envision the defense counsel setting up their case by presenting 10 years worth of photos that appeal to any anti-homo prejudices of the factfinders, and then concluding "Look at this guy! If it you saw years and years of this, why would a reasonable person really think less of him after reading that he's allegedly gay?"

If the pictures are going to the issue of establishing Williams' media image, I think they'd be admissible in USA. It's weird, it's actually crypto-prejudicial evidence, but it's going to an element of claim which is grounded in...crypto-prejudice!

Once again, the class whose reputation is smeared is...gay people.

Yeah, but didn't Liberace (or his estate) end up paying him back the money?