Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Boudoir Queen to Love: 'See You in Courtney'

LOS ANGELES, CA - MARCH 26:  Musician Courtney...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

On her Website, www.courtneylove.com, 45-year-old Courtney Love, lead singer of the alternative rock band Hole and widow of Nirvana rock icon Kurt Cobain, describes herself as an amalgam of musician, actress, songwriter, activist, celebrity, provocateur. Add to that list: libel defendant.

Dawn Simorangkir, an Austin, Tex.-based fashion designer who operates the "Boudoir Queen" line of clothing, sued Love in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and tortious interference with economic advantage(Dawn Simorangkir a/k/a Dawn Younger-Smith a/k/a Boudoir Queen v. Courtney Michelle Love and Does 1-25 inclusive, Case No. BC41059).

Love has the distinction of being the first celebrity to be sued for defamation over her alleged Tweets. Simorangkir claims her reputation was impugned by Love on the singer's Twitter account, MySpace blog, and on the plaintiff's feedback page at www.etsy.com. Love has filed a motion to strike the lawsuit under California's anti-SLAPP law.

The plaintiff alleges Love failed to pay her for custom designed clothing, which Love disputes. As the dispute grew more acrimonious, the plaintiff alleged that Love fired off a series of libelous statements, such as purportedly calling her a drug addict, prostitute, and a "nasty, lying hosebag thief," and allegedly Tweeting: "oi vey, don't f*** with my wardrobe or you will end up in a circle of corched eath hunted til your dead."

Well, presumably, it was a first draft.

Of course, the plaintiff must prove not only that these comments are attributable to Love, but also that they are false and caused harm to her reputation, which requires that others believed the statements at issue. Were the Boudoir Queen to prevail, any judgment would doubtless put Courtney in a real Hole.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

1 comment:

  1. 1) The case boils down to "False light" or "Faux slight."

    2) To win, the plaintiff must prove she's not a prostitute, drug addict and "nasty, lying hosebag thief" yet must also prove that people would believe that about her. Hmm. Seems self-defeating, if not actually impossible.

    3) Did California's anti-SLAPP law come after The Three Stooges or not apply to them?