Courtney Love Sued Yet Again For Twitter-Based Defamation

from the step-away-from-the-keyboad dept

A couple years ago, singer Courtney Love made a lot of news for being one of the first people sued for defamation for comments made via Twitter. While Love's lawyers had toyed with a "Twitter-made-me-do-it" defense, she eventually paid a rather stunning $430,000 settlement. I would guess that large settlement number has something to do with someone else deciding that some nasty comments from Love on Twitter rose to the level of defamation. Apparently Love's former attorney Rhonda Holmes is now suing her for defamation via Twitter due to Love's tweet:
I was fucking devastated (sic) when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of San Diego was bought off [...]"
The backstory, apparently, is that Holmes had asked Love to avoid "any and all substance abuse" while Holmes was representing Love. Love then stopped using them, then later sought to have Holmes represent her again, but Holmes' firm declined. Sometime after that, the above tweet was posted. While the claim may be false and defamatory, the whole thing seems pretty silly. First of all, it assumes that anyone took Love's comment seriously. I think anyone who knows of Love wouldn't put too much credibility into such a claim. Holmes claims that this has caused damage to her legal career, but that seems like a stretch. And, frankly, which seems likely to do more damage to your legal career: a passing tweet from someone with little credibility... or a lawyer suing a former client over said tweet? Lawyers suing former clients tends not to be a good advertisement for the law firms in question.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 31st, 2011 @ 4:17am

    Courtney Love enjoys nothing more than saying stupid shit that gets her attention. Apparently this ancient ploy is still working great with some people. Some. people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 31st, 2011 @ 4:29am

    Is suing Love a positive career move? Seems like this could be a case of self-defamation on the lawyer's part.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), May 31st, 2011 @ 5:15am

    Re:

    No, it's self-Love on defamation's part.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Di Fiasco, May 31st, 2011 @ 5:17am

    Ah, good 'ole Courtney. Just when you think she's gone forever, her insatiable trailer-trash behaviour gets her back into the headlines. As for the lawyer, I agree that it's a bit silly to take Love seriously. She'd (Love) be more credible as Showcase-Showdown competition for Britney Spears on 'The Price is Right,' - that is, provided they were fighting over a camper van with matching jetskis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), May 31st, 2011 @ 6:06am

    I think in this case it may be logical to sue. Think of it as a signaling device: Suing is expensive. But it is a whole lot more expensive for those who don't have a valid case. So Holmes can point at the lawsuit and say: "Look, if she was right, this lawsuit would mean pouring truckloads of money down the drain. No sane person would do that. So you can trust me on this. She was lying."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    NullOp, May 31st, 2011 @ 6:07am

    Defamation

    Even the first amendment doesn't grant you the right to say *anything* you want. Got that Ms. Love?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Karl, May 31st, 2011 @ 6:53am

    How bored does one really have to be?

    I guess what amazes me is that anyone actually reads Courtney Love's tweets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 31st, 2011 @ 7:17am

    Re: Defamation

    You don't need a government document to give you the right to say anything you want. Now the right to not be subject to the consequences of said speech...that is another thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), May 31st, 2011 @ 7:28am

    Re: Defamation

    No. IT gives you the right to say whatever the hell you want. It does not, however, absolve you of any criminality and being punished for saying stupid shit (like casually saying you're going to blow up the Hollywood sign).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    rstr5105 (profile), May 31st, 2011 @ 8:25am

    Lawyers Suing Clients.....

    You know, there's an old Chinese proverb about that. Goes something like....

    "Nuke the Whales....You've gotta nuke someone..."

    No seriously, that's the only point of this article that stands out to me, (Promise mike, I'm not trolling here). This is going to be nothing but bad PR for Holmes, and I've the feeling that she's going to have a hard time being taken seriously in the legal community after this. Which means one less "Dirty" lawyer for the rest of us to worry about. We'll see.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    rstr5105 (profile), May 31st, 2011 @ 8:26am

    Re: Lawyers Suing Clients.....

    Or perhaps....Love still owes her money......?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 31st, 2011 @ 9:17am

    It would be interesting for the time it took to read the tweet, other than that it would be a "who cares" moment, because 5 minutes after, and having read another tweet, I would have forgotten Holmes name anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 31st, 2011 @ 10:43am

    Re: Re: Defamation

    That's certainly an odd concept of "rights" (i.e., you have the "right" to do something but can be criminally punished for it).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This