Courtney Love Twitter Defamation Trial

Something about an
insanity defense?!?

 

By Blurt Staff

 

It’s a brand new year, and what better way to get things
rolling than with some choice Courtney Love news? La Love has been fairly quiet
of late, particularly on her social media platform of choice, Twitter, where
for the past month all she has done at her feed (@CourtneyLoveUK) is post photos
of herself, sometimes just once a day but occasionally, like on Dec. 9, a whole
slew of not-all-that-in-focus images. Sorry, all you trim hounds, but she’s
been keeping the cheesecake pics to a minimum.

 

We suspect she’s been under attorney’s orders to keep those
collagen lips zipped, however, because looming on the horizon – Jan. 18, to be
exact – is a high-profile court appearance: that’s when she goes on trial for
defamation stemming from a Twitter rampage she embarked upon back in March of
2009 against fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir.

 

Billboard.com has posted a detailed outline of the case,
which in a nutshell boils down to this: over the course of four days Love
unleashed a barrage of insults and accusations against Simorangkir (read the
story, it’s juicy stuff), so now the designer is claiming that these “false”
statements “destroyed her career.” Naturally the Love camp is denying there was
any defamation or even any damage.

 

Billboard reports that Love’s attorneys intend to call a
medical expert as a witness who will “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
defense 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.”

 

Wow. Courtney Love needing an insanity defense. Who’d a
thunk it?

 

Anyhow, in all seriousness, the whole case is being framed
as a potentially groundbreaking one in which a celebrity’s Twitter statements can
leave them liable for any harm they do. (Maybe Chris Brown should have to face
a judge too for his homophobic outburst on Twitter, hmmm?) That is, as the
report puts it, it may represent a First Amendment issue: “whether an average
Twitter user would interpret Love’s vicious tweets as facts rather than
merely her opinion.”

 

Dunno about that. What if you’re blitzed out of your gourd and the line between fact and opinion doesn’t even exist? Our prediction: somebody will eventually invent and market a
device that, when synched with Twitter pages, can detect alcohol on the breath
of the person tweeting (or hey, maybe even detect what chemicals are currently
in the bloodstream), and automatically block the person from using Twitter if
the level of intoxication is determined to be sufficiently high. Granted, that
might not apply to, ahem, CERTAIN CELEBRITIES who are clinically bonkers, but…
we’re just sayin’…

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply