Closeted Gay Celebrities Shaking in Their Boots

MichiganRico

Superior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Posts
2,801
Media
0
Likes
4,109
Points
258
Location
SW Michigan
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
NY State Federal Judge Denny Chin ruled that simply implying someone is gay is no longer considered defamatory. That ruling was made in the case of Howard K. Stern v Rita Cosby, et al., over allegations Cosby made in her book about the life of Anna Nicole Smith, Blonde Ambition. Cosby asserted in print that Stern and Larry Birkhead, Anna Nicole's "baby daddy," had repeated sexual encounters. However, the litigation is proceeding on other assertions (Translate as "dick sucking between Howard and Larry, etc." Apparently asserting someone actually had sex with someone of the same sex, without an adequate foundation, is still considered defamatory by Judge Chin whereby simply asserting someone is gay and thereby implying he's sucking dick in private is okie- dokey.)

If this ruling holds as precedent, media can now imply most anyone is gay with relative impunity. So I guess if I were in NY State, I could say, "Tom Cruise, IMHO, you're GAY!" And while I'm at it, someone should really do a book about Rita Cosby. A great working title: How I F*cked Up a Career with Two Cable News Networks Faster Than Deborah Norville.

And as a final note, I guess I still can't say, "Tom, I know you're doing Becks."

Read about it here ....

Homosexuality no longer contemptible.... | AfterElton.com
 
Last edited:
2

2322

Guest
I'm sure some lawyer will correct me, or at least I hope they will, but I think to prove libel you have to show that damage resulted from the libel. An actor might be able to claim that roles were lost and public image was tarnished while someone like Larry Birkhead might not be able to prove the same.

When someone chooses a public life there is always the risk that private information will reach public ears. It's a risk that public figures take. Different standards might apply to people who become public figures without desiring to maintain that state, but again, I'll defer to the lawyers on that one.

In my opinion, I think that celebrities are fair game for speculation.
 

MichiganRico

Superior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Posts
2,801
Media
0
Likes
4,109
Points
258
Location
SW Michigan
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm sure some lawyer will correct me, or at least I hope they will, but I think to prove libel you have to show that damage resulted from the libel. An actor might be able to claim that roles were lost and public image was tarnished while someone like Larry Birkhead might not be able to prove the same.

When someone chooses a public life there is always the risk that private information will reach public ears. It's a risk that public figures take. Different standards might apply to people who become public figures without desiring to maintain that state, but again, I'll defer to the lawyers on that one.

In my opinion, I think that celebrities are fair game for speculation.

Here's what's so funny...gayface Larry Birkhead AIN'T a party to the suit...Howard K. Stern is the sole plaintiff. Gee, I wonder why.
 

nudeyorker

Admired Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Posts
22,742
Media
0
Likes
855
Points
208
Location
NYC/Honolulu
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm sure some lawyer will correct me, or at least I hope they will, but I think to prove libel you have to show that damage resulted from the libel. An actor might be able to claim that roles were lost and public image was tarnished while someone like Larry Birkhead might not be able to prove the same.

When someone chooses a public life there is always the risk that private information will reach public ears. It's a risk that public figures take. Different standards might apply to people who become public figures without desiring to maintain that state, but again, I'll defer to the lawyers on that one.

In my opinion, I think that celebrities are fair game for speculation.
Nope you are right...that's why so many people write their "Tell All's" after people are dead, because you can't libel the dead. What most of these cases involve however is slander.
On the point of speculation I think that's fine in polite company, but when you take it public it's something else. I don't believe in outing someone if they are living happily in the closet and not hurting anyone. However if they are in a position like some religious leader or politician; who can damage gay rights, while living in the closet...then I'm in favor of outing them kicking and screaming.
 
Last edited:

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
55
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Tom Cruise is the one to get sue happy whenever someone calls him gay.