The Official Adam Pascal Love Thread, part six- Page 17

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:35pm

To be honest, I don't really know who you're talking about, but he really couldn't get in legal trouble for writing about "it." One has to prove that the statements are false and malicious intent to win a libel suit. Perhaps the latter might be present, but since "it's" true, Raul couldn't successfully sue. Of course, the writer's superiors could keep him from writing about it at all just to avoid a potential lawsuit, even if it's one that Raul couldn't win.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:35pm

Em, you're probably in good company in your feelings

I don't know about the legal trouble though, he could say something vague enough just to start chatter without using names ala Liz Smith's coke addict story. I wouldn't put it past him- he's definitely used that tactic before.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:37pm

I was thinking that too, Lexi... slander and libel suits are very tough territory, and you have to be able to prove that what was written isn't true. He'd be awful person for writing about something very private, but not necessarily legally responsible.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:41pm

A bit ago, there was this thing on PBS' Theatre Talk, pertaining to that new play, The Little Dog Laughed, about closeted actors. I'm pretty sure that if they had sat around that table and read names from a list, there could've been legal implications. Libel and slander or something? I have no idea, I'm no law student. But there's something like that to prevent people from going on the record about other people's sexuality -- even people who lack moral judgement.

I think Reidel would only fire the sexuality bullet if it could hurt him professionally -- which the boy has obviously proven is not the case. I think Reidel's found more use in calling out the diva.

[CanadianSnowbird]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:48pm

Alright, I have no idea what you all are talking about.

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:49pm

Using your example, if people were to sit around a table and read names of closeted actors from a list, there really is nothing to stop them if the people are truly closeted. In libel (written defaming statements) and slander (spoken defaming statements -- e.g. the table example), the truth is the ultimate defense. However, if they were to read the name of someone and the person could prove that he or she wasn't homosexual, along with proving that the person who said they were had malicious intent in doing so, then he or she could sucessfully win a slander case.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but I had to do a paper about this in AP Government last year and I'm 100% positive. Many times, writers will refrain from writing true statements to avoid going to court in the first place, because many celebrites will sue despite knowing that they have no real shot of winning a trial.

I seriously hope my legal babbling didn't kill the thread! Carry on, people... Updated On: 2/6/06 at 11:49 PM

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:51pm

I don't see how someone could be so spiteful and immature as to have some sort of personal vendetta against an actor. I sincerely hope that outing like that would have some sort of reprecussions, be them legal in terms of a lawsuit or professional in terms of the employer firing them. Maybe that's too optimistic of me.

[gboogie]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:52pm

Oh, I didn't know we moved the love over here.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:53pm

Reidel's crap always strikes me as that which is bred from some sort of self-loathing jealousy. Maybe I'm projecting, but those who can't do...

SD, I think, then, a lot of it would depend on HOW the information is used. But sexuality is not as easy thing to PROVE, in legal terms.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:53pm

Sorry, g, we should have told you. Raul love is breaking boundaries on the OT board

[gboogie]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:55pm

S'ok! I never post in here anyway. You've taken my Adam Thread virginity!

[CanadianSnowbird]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:55pm

We keep naming it after Adam, and yet Raul always manages to sneak in. Adam needs to do some more in order to get his thread back.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:59pm

G!!!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:59pm

I blame the two of them for being so appealing.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 2/6/06 at 11:59pm

Hopefully when Adam starts his "tour", there will be more to chat about.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 2/7/06 at 12:00am

We could always switch threads...

Posted: 2/7/06 at 12:00am

But sexuality is not as easy thing to PROVE, in legal terms.

That's why it would be even harder for Raul to win a lawsuit over something such as that, considering that would mean that he'd likely have to prove he has had no homosexual encounters. Also, more importantly, he'd probably have to testify, meaning that the defense lawyer would ask him under oath about his sexuality, thus exposing the truth (that is, if he wants to avoid perjury).

Maybe I'm missing something here, and I apologize for going into law nerdiness territory (I want to be a laywer, what can I say? ), but realistically Raul would have no real way of winning a lawsuit against someone who outed him. There are obviously other factors that keep the press from outing actors, though.

Anyway...

Raul in a suit!



Adam... kind of in a suit!

[gboogie]

Posted: 2/7/06 at 12:01am

EM!!!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/7/06 at 12:03am

WOW. Adam looks fantastic there. What's that from? I love it when guys wear suit jackets and jeans -- not too dressy, but not sloppy, either.

And yeah, Raul would have no way to prove his sexuality (AT ALL) but in the same vein, unless he has tangible evidence, can press prove it either? It's all so messy. But because of the implications, I've got to believe there's something that can be won in a suit over it, if it were to happen. I don't know enough about law, but there's gotta be.

Raul looks amazing in a tux --most men look confined and silly.

Updated On: 2/7/06 at 12:03 AM

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 2/7/06 at 12:06am

In slander and libel suits, the burden falls on the person who's suing to prove that whatever was written wasn't true. The press doesn't have to prove that it IS true, they just can't be disproven.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/7/06 at 12:07am

Eh, he can ask Tom Cruise's lawyers about it- they've managed to pull lawsuits on anyone that even *hints* that he may not be 100% heterosexual manly man.

Raul looked great at the Chitty opening. The pictures in the car are adorable. But don't post them, because it will make me miss Chitty.

Updated On: 2/7/06 at 12:07 AM

[opiv]

Posted: 2/7/06 at 12:07am

Mmm Raul in a tux is nice

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/7/06 at 12:07am

Can't they get into trouble just for causing emotional damage and stuff? I hate to sound trite, but... that's just something you don't do. I think you actually CAN sue for stuff like that.

[Billboard Girl]

Posted: 2/7/06 at 12:09am

*is intrigued by all of the legal discussion despite feeling as though she has nothing worthwhile to add to it*
*pets the pretty pictures*

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/7/06 at 12:09am

*pets Raul and hides him from all evil*