|
"Singer Britney Spears has been granted a High Court injunction preventing the British press from printing allegations about her recent stay in rehab. The order is directed at those deemed responsible for leaking details about Ms Spears' stay at a US clinic. Ms Spears' legal representatives are also applying for an additional court order requiring UK publications to disclose the sources of their stories detailing her one-month programme at thePromises clinic in Malibu. Media outlets are being served the injunction 'so as to assist them in not making the mistake of carrying out such further disclosures if approached by this person,' the legal statement continued."
It's both interesting and a shame that she obviously felt there was no point trying to silence the US gutter press. The UK courts (backed up by rulings from the European Court of Human Rights) have a clear concept of what should be defined as libellous whereas the US courts tend to rule that pretty much any story written about a celebrity is in the public interest.
Think I'm being unfair? Well, just think back to Britney's legal action against US Weekly for printing false allegations that she appeared in a sex tape and that the tape had been viewed by her lawyers amid a great deal of mirth and ridicule. Circuit Judge Lisa Hart Cole threw out Britney's case without a trial taking place. Her ruling (which has received some adverse comment) was that if a star has a sexy image, US-based tabloids are free to publish any sex-related stories they like about him or her, even if they know they're untrue. So, presumably, if a star has a flaky image and has been in rehab, US-based tabloids are free to publish any mental-health-related stories they like, ALSO even if they know they're untrue. However! Although most of the formerly-UK-based paparazzi are now enjoying their legal freedom to collude in providing falsely captioned trash to celeb bloggers and journos in the US, most of the colorful tales about suicide attempts, long-term drug abuse, lesbianism and being the antichrist actually tend to come from UK-based tabloids such as the News Of The World. So legal action there could be useful even if not a complete shut-down of the rumor factory. I can't see the UK sleaze merchants ratting out their informant, however. They'd rather go to jail. So the objective of Britney's action in identifying the culprit is highly unlikely to succeed. But at least she's fired a loud warning shot and clearly stated in advance of any further such "rehab stories" that they're false and that libel proceedings in the UK are very much on the cards.
 |
