Posted on 05/29/2004 5:18:00 PM PDT by Maria S
BOSTON - Stating that someone is homosexual does not libel or slander them, particularly in light of new court decisions granting gays more rights, a federal judge has ruled.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner came as she threw out a lawsuit by a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book about Madonna - under a picture of Madonna walking with a gay man.
"In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community," she wrote in her opinion Friday.
The attorney for plaintiff James Albright, who had worked for Madonna as a bodyguard, didn't immediately return telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment Saturday. Attorneys for the defendants, who included Madonna biographer Andrew Morton and St. Martin's Press, the publisher, also didn't respond to messages.
Gertner said other courts' rulings that stating someone is homosexual is defamatory had relied on laws criminalizing same-sex sexual acts that might well be unconstitutional. Previous decisions hadn't taken into account more recent decisions recognizing gays' equal rights, she said.
She pointed to a Supreme Court ruling last year that found a Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, and to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling last year that it would be unconstitutional to prevent gays in the state from marrying.
How about A** Pirate?
If a guy doesn't have a right to take offence at that-just what the hell are we justified in taking offence at then????
LOL!
Bone smugglers
Slander I (sort of) understand (though in my mind being called a homosexual would be pretty sladerous). But not libel...
If I'm NOT gay, and you publish an article or book stating that I AM get, THAT is libelous because it IS A LIE.
Legal Beagles: what am I missing??
Oh.
I understand.
I'll just shut up and be quiet.
Nothing to see here, I'll just move along. .
;-)
I think pole smoker is a better term.
What you are missing is that you have to prove a financial loss as a result of the slander and/or libel.
In this case, it sounds like he was accidently identified as homosexual. If someone intentionally (and incorrectly) identifies you as homosexual, I would hope you have recourse. I don't care what the Massachusettes Supreme Court thinks, that has the potential to cause pain and suffering if your friends, wife, family, etc. hear about it.
A similar article that I just pinged everybody to can be found here: Judge rules being called homosexual is not libelous
Gay media activists have been doing it for the past couple of years. Look at the campaigns against Sandy Koufax and Mike Piazza last year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.