Charlie Sheen's Ex Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Mentions Her Name On Comedy Central
from the winning,-duh dept
btr1701 alerts us to the news that Charlie Sheen’s ex-wife, Brooke Mueller, is supposedly threatening to take legal action against anyone who mentions her at the upcoming Comedy Central Roast of Sheen (um, wait, Charlie Sheen deserves a roast? really?). While she may have a contractual legal leg to stand on concerning certain subjects from Sheen himself, since the report says their divorce agreement includes some sort of promise from Sheen to “never publicly discuss her drug use,” I can’t see how she has any legal leg to stand on at all concerning anyone else making jokes about her. In fact, just in having this story come out, it seems like she’s likely to become an even bigger target for the roasters. It seems like yet another case of “publicity rights” gone mad, where, thanks to ever expanding intellectual property laws and concepts, people seem to think that they can stop anyone from even talking about them if they don’t like what’s being said.
Filed Under: brooke mueller, charlie sheen, comedy central, publicity rights, roast
Comments on “Charlie Sheen's Ex Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Mentions Her Name On Comedy Central”
“Charlie Sheen’s Ex Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Mentions Her Name On Comedy Central”
She’s just trying to give Comedy Central something to make fun of. Don’t be fooled, this is just an act.
I suspect there will be a lot of Mrooke Bueller jokes that evening.
to bad.if people want to joke they will and there is not one thing you can do about it.
sounds like a sore spot.
Now, watch “Brooke Mueller’s Drug Use” become a popular Google search phrase or #BrookeMuellersDrugUse a trending topic on twitter. #StreisandEffect
Re:
So true – if there is anything which is guaranteed to get comedians to make fun of you, its ordering them to not make fun of you.
Re:
If this truly is an act, it’s the best acting she’s done… well. ever.
I guess she’s not used to winning.
Ever heard of defamation?
Defamation?also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)?is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]
In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[2][not specific enough to verify] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[3] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. “Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.”
This should be interesting. She just painted a big ol target on herself. I’ve seen the other CC roasts and there’s no way these guys are going to hold back on her now. Really, her best bet might have been to ask to be a presenter. Sure, they would have still made fun of her just like they do each other, but at least she could have struck back.
I don’t think there’s much she will be able to do about it, at least in the US though. Unless the other presenters where signatories to the divorce decree they cannot be bound by it. At that point, free speech, public figure, and all that. She can send all the demand letters to Comedy Central she wants but might want to keep in mind that this is the network that brings us South Park every week. I’m sure they’ve had their share of pissed off celebrities sending legal nastygrams.
Re:
Yeah, but you can’t claim privacy over public records/information. Her “drug use” made it into the news -and COURT – which is a public record. She can’t go back and then claim it’s private.
Re:
Now stop making fun of me.
LOL?
OK, OK, I’ll say it:
How much coke did Charlie Sheen use?
Enough to kill two and a half men =)
[/pointless-post]
Re:
> Ever heard of defamation?
I sure have. And as a public figure, Mueller is shit out of luck in having a cause of action against a comedian for making fun of her very public relationship.
If it were that easy to shut people up, *every* public figure would immediately take out an injunction against comedians (Leno, Letterman, etc.) from cracking jokes at their expense. Schwarzenegger, Weiner, etc. come immediately to mind.
Re:
But those laws cannot be used to expressly forbid the use of her name. Saying that Sheen was married to her is not defamation. Plus the fact that it is a roast will pretty much eliminate anyone taking what is said seriously.
Charlie Sheen?
Whatever happened to Charlie Sheen?
Does he know?
Chucky Sheen
Advice: If you want to insure you are never mentioned on a celebrity roast, DON’T DATE CHARLIE SHEEN (you idiot.)
She threatened Comedy Central?
So… That means she’s basically threatening South Park. Ya know, those guys who basically challenged The Church of Scientology to sue them.
There are a few people in entertainment I would not challenge.
1. Matt Stone and Trey Parker: South Park
2. Joe Rogan: Just check out You Tube videos. That guy will tear you apart psychologically and if necessary physically as well.
3. Kevin Smith. Who wants to mess with Kevin Smith?
So she better hope they lose interest before the next season comes out…
No one will say anything that makes air, Comedy Central’s lawyers will be certain of that.
Re:
Ever heard that “truth is an absolute defense to defamation?” Ever heard that one’s opinion, expressed as such (“Brooke Mueller is a drug-hoarding beyatch”)is not actionable as defamation?
Ever bothered to read up on what you’re about to post before you cut-and-paste from some online treatise?
Re:
She’s not a public figure in terms of slander/libel. Public figure involves government officials or people who speak out on a public cause, not famous people. Blame the drafters of the constitution for that one.
That said, slander or libel has to be untrue, and if they’re making fun of known things, it’d be impossible to prove that.
Either way, her PR firm needs to tell her to settle and roll with it, it will be over a lot quicker that way.