Jared Leto's Lawyer Sends Ridiculously Bogus Cease & Desist, Calling Lots Of Attention To Statements About Him

from the how-not-to-do-things dept

You would think, by now, at least the big time lawyers would recognize that bogus defamation threats and demands for takedowns would only lead to more attention. And that should be especially true for Martin Singer, who proudly promotes the claim that he’s a “pit bull” of a lawyer for a variety of Hollywood stars. Given his clientele, you’d think he and his firm, Lavely & Singer, would be especially careful about not making totally bogus threats that are actually likely to backfire and call extra attention to whatever it is they’re trying to hide. But, apparently with all his Hollywood connections, Singer and his staff have not yet learned about the Streisand Effect.

Paul Levy at Public Citizen alerts us to how a lawyer working for Lavely & singer, Allison Hart, has sent a ridiculous cease & desist notice to the website Lipstick Alley on behalf of actor/musician Jared Leto because some people in Lipstick Alley’s forums made some comments about Leto in forums like this one and this one.

Almost everything in the threat letter is questionable or wrong — beginning at the very top where it says “Confidential Legal Notice. Publication or Dissemination is Prohibited.”

Second big problem: the comments are from 2013. California’s statute of limitations on defamation is 1 year. You would think that a hotshot lawyer would know that. Next big problem: Section 230 of the CDA. These are all comments from users, and the site is not liable for them. Again: this is the kind of thing the lawyer is supposed to know. But, I guess, when the idea is to intimidate, you don’t really care what the law actually says. There are lots of other problems with the letter as well, but rather than let me tell you what they are, I’ll hand it over to Paul Levy, who is representing Lipstick Alley and (as he’s been known to do) sent an absolute masterpiece of a response letter back to Hart. Here’s just a snippet, but really, read the whole thing:

Having reviewed the posts that you have identified, I conclude that you do not have any non-frivolous defamation against any of the posters.

Some of the posts of which you object do not appear to me to be defamatory. Two of the posts simply mention claims found elsewhere in the Internet that your client has a large penis. It is hard to see how those statements would hurt your client’s reputation, even if they are false. It is, as I understand it, the accusation of having a small penis that is understood to be an insult.

Other posts about Leto’s allegedly rough and inconsiderate behavior during alleged sexual encounters with fans, and about the age of one of the fans, might well have been defamatory when originally posted, assuming that they are false. I recognize that your letter claims that the statements are false. I assume that you do not have personal knowledge about the size of Leto’s penis or about whether he is rough with sexual partners, and you do not cite any evidence supporting your claim of falsity. Moreover, the mere fact that a denial comes in a demand letter from a lawyer at Lavely & Singer means that it has no probative value, considering the number of times your firm has sent demand letters claiming that Bill Cosby did not mistreat his fans by using drugs to facilitate sexual conquests. If you have in mind to proceed on the claims about Leto, you will need to file a lawsuit (subject to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, of course), and in support of a subpoena present an affidavit from Leto himself addressing the factual assertions in the posts. The affidavit will, no doubt, make for interesting reading.

Moreover, none of the posters on Lipstick Alley claims to have personal knowledge about Leto’s conduct during sex with his fans (or about the size of his penis); some simply express their views about what they have read elsewhere, and some have reposted comments from other web sites that purport to reflect first-person descriptions of activities in which the original writers claim to have been involved. Your demand letter mentions that at least one of the linked-to posts has been deleted from the original site, and you seem to suggest that the removal of various posts in response to demand letters from your client supports your assertion that the posts are false. But at most, it only shows that the individuals whom your client threatened decided that the issue was not worth litigating. Lipstick Alley, however, stands up for the First Amendment right of its users to comment on celebrities, and to make those comments anonymously, unless their statements have been proved false and defamatory. It does not remove posts simply because a wealthy actor is able to hire a law firm to send threatening letters.

There’s a lot more in the letter (which is four pages long) that is well worth reading — including his discussion of the “publication or dissemination is prohibited” line in the letter. And, of course, now this discussion about Leto from two years ago, which these lawyers were trying to hide, suddenly gets more attention.

If I were Jared Leto, I might consider getting better lawyers.

Filed Under: allison hart, cease and desist, defamation, jared leto, paul levy, section 230, statute of limitation, streisand effect, threats
Companies: lipstick alley