Defamation? Not. Again.

There’s a great deal of curiosity — if not publicly brandished indignation — over defamation.

No wonder. So many people have developed high dudgeon over the suspicion they’ve been defamed, and the internet has expanded into the trillions the places where the purported act of defamation might occur. Indeed, a paranoid person could devote the rest of his life scouring the internet until he locates an insult he judges to be defamatory. (That’s the definition of paranoia, by the way: a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

But not every published insult fits into the legal definition of defamation.

Here, from the New York Law Journal, is notice of another dismissal of a defamation lawsuit against a publication, in this case the Condé Nast magazine, Vanity Fair. You’ll see how specifically a New York appellate court defines defamation.

I think the woman who sued Vanity Fair has brought unfortunate attention to herself and her sisters by claiming that Vanity Fair suggested they were prostitutes.

 Panel Upholds Dismissal of Cassini Libel Lawsuit

Ben Bedell, New York Law Journal   

The First Department ruled that allegedly defamatory statements in Vanity Fair, “including a quoted statement that plaintiff and her sisters used to throw parties in the 1960s that were attended by many wealthy ‘older guys looking for action,’ do not imply that plaintiff was a prostitute and lacked sexual morals.”

This entry was posted in The Facts of Life and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.