Actor Gets Permission To Sue His Twitter Abuser For $10M

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Think your tweets are protected by the First Amendment? Think again. Actor James Woods just got a green light to sue an anonymous Twitter user for $10 million for calling him a "cocaine addict."

James Woods has reportedly been given the go-ahead to launch a $10 million anti-defamation lawsuit against an anonymous Twitter user that suggested the actor used drugs. The case was expected to be thrown out by Judge Mel Recana at a hearing on February 2nd, but chose not to at the last minute.
 
The first Amendment protects you from the government punishing you for what you say. It does not grant you permission to make Libelous statements. You can say what you like without being arrested, but if you make an untrue statement about someone that person has a right to sue you for damages.

The first amendment allows you to say what you like, for the most part, but it does not protect you from the consequences if your actions/statements. If you lie about someone and that damages their reputation, they have every right to seek damages.
 
griffinhart said:
The first Amendment protects you from the government punishing you for what you say. It does not grant you permission to make Libelous statements. You can say what you like without being arrested, but if you make an untrue statement about someone that person has a right to sue you for damages.

The first amendment allows you to say what you like, for the most part, but it does not protect you from the consequences if your actions/statements. If you lie about someone and that damages their reputation, they have every right to seek damages.
Click to expand...

You're right, and it's a good thing too. And making libelous comments should be just as punishable whether they are made in person or on the internet.
 
as noted by griffenhart, under the First Amendment you can slander all you want, but individuals have the right to defend their reputation. Chose your words wisely.
 
griffinhart said:
The first Amendment protects you from the government punishing you for what you say. It does not grant you permission to make Libelous statements. You can say what you like without being arrested, but if you make an untrue statement about someone that person has a right to sue you for damages.

The first amendment allows you to say what you like, for the most part, but it does not protect you from the consequences if your actions/statements. If you lie about someone and that damages their reputation, they have every right to seek damages.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I can have opinions. Opinions aren't libel. I can say John Doe looks like a crack smoker. I can't say John Doe *is* a crack smoker.
 
James Woods isn't a cocaine addict? I hope this goes to trial, it will be entertaining.
 
Don't know him personally, but hate him as an actor, get some thicker skin!
 
Mommy, he called me a name! I should be set on money for life! Never to have to work another day!
 
how the hell do you sue an anonymous twitter account?
 
ShagnWagn said:
Mommy, he called me a name! I should be set on money for life! Never to have to work another day!
Click to expand...

Not quite and that's the key:

If he said "James Woods is LIKE a cocaine addict"
He is merely comparing the two and suggesting they share traits.

Saying "James Woods IS a cocaine addict" implies James Woods actively consumes federally illegal substances for which he should investigated and punished.
 
otherweeb said:
Not quite and that's the key:

If he said "James Woods is LIKE a cocaine addict"
He is merely comparing the two and suggesting they share traits.

Saying "James Woods IS a cocaine addict" implies James Woods actively consumes federally illegal substances for which he should investigated and punished.
Click to expand...

If I could sue every bully that has made statements against me... I would be the richest person on Earth. How rich do you think Obama would be?
 
ShagnWagn said:
If I could sue every bully that has made statements against me... I would be the richest person on Earth. How rich do you think Obama would be?
Click to expand...

Falsely accusing someone of illegal activity has always held a strong weight, this is not just being called a fat nerd or something of the like. And being twitter and public, it would be similar if I put on a billboard on the side of an active highway that you are a rapist, that would start to damage your reputation and even employment opportunities as well as it could cause investigation into you.
 
As in all defamation cases they "victim" needs to show that what was said has ruined their reputation. Somehow I think James Woods is doing fine regardless of some random tweeter.
 
ShagnWagn said:
If I could sue every bully that has made statements against me... I would be the richest person on Earth. How rich do you think Obama would be?
Click to expand...

Your overlooking things. You can't get money from people who have none but you can destroy their financial stability for years as sadistic punishment. Obama doesn't want that publicity.
 
10 mil seems a bit...Oh I dunno GREEDY!!!??? Is his professional career taking a dive off a cliff or something?
 
There better be a drug test involved, proving it is a lie before the trial.
 
sfsuphysics said:
As in all defamation cases they "victim" needs to show that what was said has ruined their reputation. Somehow I think James Woods is doing fine regardless of some random tweeter.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's true. I believe that the damage reward is dictated by this, but not guilt.

Wikipedia (for what it's worth) states:
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements: the plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.
Click to expand...
 
bomni said:
10 mil seems a bit...Oh I dunno GREEDY!!!??? Is his professional career taking a dive off a cliff or something?
Click to expand...

What I think a lot of people are drastically overlooking here is that James Wood makes money based on his reputation. Having someone calling him an addict could potentially do irreparable harm to his career. The damages being sought are based on potential losses and punitive damages due to the false claim.

If some of us sued someone for the same thing, we would likely not get the same amount of money because our potential losses would be quite a bit less.
 
twitter is a safe space, only nice things are allowed to be said
 
NoOther said:
What I think a lot of people are drastically overlooking here is that James Wood makes money based on his reputation. Having someone calling him an addict could potentially do irreparable harm to his career.
Click to expand...

What about calling him a terrible actor? Won't do a damn thing. Hollywood doesn't give two shits about what some idiot says on Twitter or any other site.
 
otherweeb said:
Not quite and that's the key:

If he said "James Woods is LIKE a cocaine addict"
He is merely comparing the two and suggesting they share traits.

Saying "James Woods IS a cocaine addict" implies James Woods actively consumes federally illegal substances for which he should investigated and punished.
Click to expand...

Exactly! It is why James Woods isn't suing List, a Harvard grad BTW, for calling him a "joke" or "clown boy."

It is the same reason Penn and Teller call psychics "assholes" and not crooks or liars.

Calling Sylvia Browne an asshole is an opinion and won't get you sued.

Good for James Woods! List should have known better.
 
That is going to buy James Woods a lot of coke if he used it of course...
 
griffinhart said:
Because we live in a country where we are guilty before proven innocent?
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point of a trial? One party proves the other innocent or guilty? Evidence would guarantee him a win...


Also, this actor seems a little sue happy. He has sued a co-star and a hospital before. If this was a matter of principal, he should sue for something other than money.
 
Sp33dFr33k said:
What about calling him a terrible actor? Won't do a damn thing. Hollywood doesn't give two shits about what some idiot says on Twitter or any other site.
Click to expand...

Calling him a crappy actor isn't accusing him of illegal activity. And yes, contrary to what you might think, Hollywood certainly does pay attention to when actors are accused of illegal activity.
 
lcpiper said:
You're right, and it's a good thing too. And making libelous comments should be just as punishable whether they are made in person or on the internet.
Click to expand...

Libel is written defamation, whereas slander is spoken.
 
griffinhart said:
I don't think that's true. I believe that the damage reward is dictated by this, but not guilt.

Wikipedia (for what it's worth) states:
Click to expand...

the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation
Click to expand...
This is the key point I was making, you can say I'm a cross dressing whore on this forum, and while I can still sue you, I will lose if you get any sort of lawyer because you making the remarks against me hardly damages my reputation beyond whatever "rep" I have here on this website. I doubt James Woods reputation actually took a hit because of what some random person on Twitter said, which is why he will lose... assuming he spends enough money to figure out who "anonymous" is.
 
scojer said:
Isn't that the point of a trial? One party proves the other innocent or guilty? Evidence would guarantee him a win...


Also, this actor seems a little sue happy. He has sued a co-star and a hospital before. If this was a matter of principal, he should sue for something other than money.
Click to expand...

You realize Cocaine leaves the system in less than 2 days because it is water soluble? So basically using this profound logic James could quit using cocaine, if he was a user, for at the most 2 days and he is guaranteed a win? :rolleyes:

The understanding of defamation and the justice system is strong here.
 
haste. said:
You realize Cocaine leaves the system in less than 2 days because it is water soluble? So basically using this profound logic James could quit using cocaine, if he was a user, for at the most 2 days and he is guaranteed a win? :rolleyes:

The understanding of defamation and the justice system is strong here.
Click to expand...

That is not actually true, habitual users like addicts (which the Twitter Twerp was accusing James Woods of being) may have traces that could be detected up to months after depending on the amount used, how often, and what detection method is being used.
 
Wow. Probably not the actor you want to piss off. He's actually quite smart, aced his SAT's, went to MIT, and supposedly has an IQ of 180 .. That he wastes on acting and coke.
 
otherweeb said:
as noted by griffenhart, under the First Amendment you can slander all you want, but individuals have the right to defend their reputation. Chose your words wisely.
Click to expand...

Usually public figures are fair game. Sounds like a double standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top