Lindsay Lohan's Parents Want Her To Sue A Senator Who Made Fun Of Lindsay

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

Over the past few years we've written about some really dumb lawsuits (or threats of lawsuits) filed by actress Lindsay Lohan. There was that time she sued E*Trade for $100 million because it had a baby in its commercial, named Lindsey, who was described as a "boyfriend-stealing milkaholic," which she insisted must be a reference to her (think about that one for a second...). Or there was the time she claimed that a jewelry store releasing surveillance tape footage of her stealing a necklace violated her publicity rights. Then she sued the rapper Pitbull for a lyric "I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan" (and, bizarrely, that one included accusations of a plagiarized filing by her lawyer. And, of course, most famously, Lohan spent years battling Take Two Interactive, claiming a ditzy starlet character in Grand Theft Auto was also a violation of her publicity rights.

Apparently she comes by this apparent proclivity to threaten and/or file nutty lawsuits honestly. Because her parents were reported as threatening to sue a US Senator for making a reference during a hearing to Linsday Lohan. They later "clarified" that they would not be the plaintiffs, but that they're encouraging Lindsay to sue. Here's the original report, though:

Michael and Dina Lohan are planning to sue Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) over the “slanderous comments” that he made about their daughter, actress Lindsay Lohan, on Wednesday during a congressional hearing on the Equifax data breach.

The comments occurred as Richard Smith, the former CEO of Equifax, the credit reporting company that was hacked last month, was being questioned about signing a $7.25 million IRS contract for identity verification services. The deal could reap profits for the company as a result of the hack.

“Why in the world should you get a no-bid contract right now?” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) asked Smith. Kennedy added, “You realize to many Americans right now, that looks like we’re giving Lindsay Lohan the keys to the minibar.” Smith paused for a moment before responding, “I understand your point.” The “Mean Girls” star, originally of Cold Spring Harbor and Merrick, has spoken about her past struggles with drugs and alcohol.

So, uh, let us count the many, many, many ways in which this is not "slanderous." (And we originally had the fact that Lohan's parents had no standing to sue, but have removed that since they've clarified they just want her to sue).

  1. It was a figure of speech, not a false statement of fact about Lohan.
  2. Even if there were a false statement of fact (there wasn't) there's no way that such a statement meets the "actual malice" claim -- meaning that it was done with knowing falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
  3. Under the Westfall Act, everyone in Congress is effectively immune from defamation lawsuits for things they say as part of their job -- especially when said on the floor or in a committee hearing.
  4. And, again, for emphasis, Senator Kennedy didn't say anything defamatory about Lohan.
Who knows if she'll actually go ahead and sue, but Michael Lohan insists that he's trying to find a lawyer to handle this, and told the site "Gossip Cop" (linked above) that merely associating Linsday's name with Equifax is what he found to be slanderous.

“Dina and I are seeking legal counsel for Lindsay regarding the slanderous comments and unprofessional behavior of Senator John Kennedy (R-La.),” he says. “His comment and analogy was inappropriate, slanderous and unwarranted. How dare he associate Lindsay with this case? Tell me, does he have a family member or friend with a former addiction problem? Wow, and he’s a senator?”

Hopefully, whatever lawyer he finds explains to him that this is not at all how defamation works. In his updated statement to Gossip Cop, he confuses matters even more:

“While Dina and I realize we can’t sue Senator Kennedy for his bullying statements, Lindsay can. I advised her to seek counsel through a friend who is a well-known federal attorney in New Orleans.” He adds, “This has got to stop. Lindsay has turned her life around and does wonderful humanitarian work.”

Again, even assuming that it's true that Linsday has "turned her life around" (good for her), that has nothing to do with whether or not she can sue over the Senator's statement. Unfortunately, it appears that Lindsay may actually be listening to her parents on this one. She tweeted the following:

It's a picture of her holding up a water bottle, and saying: "This is the only thing I keep in my mini bar these days - glad I found lawyer.com they are helping me out." It also includes a winking emoji and a blowing a kiss emoji -- which, we hope, means she's making fun of the situation, rather than following through with an actual lawyer.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 10 Oct 2017 @ 9:18am

    She must love giving free money to lawyers. We should grab some popcorn and watch as she fails spectacularly.

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

  • identicon
    Jordan Chandler, 10 Oct 2017 @ 9:36am

    Funny

    I bet if she embraced such comments with a sense of humor she'd be more popular.

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

  • icon
    hij (profile), 10 Oct 2017 @ 9:41am

    Going to lawyer.com

    Apparently, the kind folks at lawyer.com are helping her by encouraging her to go to twitter. Now we know where the US President is getting his legal advice.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2017 @ 10:02am

    After three days off, Lindsay Lohan is all you've got?

    If someone else had written this article and put your name on it, you could sue for defamation.

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

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 10 Oct 2017 @ 10:15am

      Re: After three days off, Lindsay Lohan is all you've got?

      They don't have Lohan at all. They have speech and bad potential lawsuit.

      Sorry, who should it involve to be noteworthy?

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

    • icon
      wereisjessicahyde (profile), 10 Oct 2017 @ 11:17am

      Re: After three days off, Lindsay Lohan is all you've got?

      No, you couldn't.

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

    • icon
      ralph_the_bus_driver (profile), 11 Oct 2017 @ 6:37am

      Re: After three days off, Lindsay Lohan is all you've got?

      Yes, you could sue under your scenario. That is because you are attributing words to someone that did not say those words. That did not happen to Lohan.

      Lohan is a public figure with a reputation for abusing alcohol. Regardless of if she has rehabilitated, she is still fair game for someone to use her past as an example. If she were to succeed, she would need to prove that the Senator said it with actual malice.

      The Senator's words were poorly chosen. It is never right to insult someone, especially when they are not involved in the discussion.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2017 @ 10:38am

    If she actually sues ... that would sound like a SLAPP suit to me.. maybe (if we are really really lucky) an additional senator might decide to support a real federal anti-SLAPP law.
    While that seems unlikely, if it happened, we'd need to thank her.

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

  • identicon
    christenson, 10 Oct 2017 @ 10:49am

    The silliness of privilege

    I'll bet a few lawyers have tried *hard* to explain things to the Lohans, but she's privileged (all those millions!) and thinks the law doesn't apply to her!

    Now, can I sue for Lohan's guardianship, given that her parents are doing such an awful job? lol

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2017 @ 11:57am

    Speech or Debate Clause

    Under the Westfall Act, everyone in Congress is effectively immune from defamation lawsuits for things they say as part of their job…

    Under Article I, Section 6

    … and for any speech or debate in either House, they [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2017 @ 12:34pm

      Re: Speech or Debate Clause

      The speech or debate clause is applicable to a senator's speech at a committee hearing.

      For example, see Gravel v United States (1972)

      It appeared that on the night of June 29, 1971, Senator Gravel, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds of the Senate Public Works Committee, convened a meeting of the subcommittee and there read extensively from a copy of the Pentagon Papers. . . .

      [Senator Gravel's] insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause at the very least protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible. . . . We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer —either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution—for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting.

      (Emphasis added.)

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2017 @ 8:01am

        Re: Re: Speech or Debate Clause

        The speech or debate clause is applicable to a senator's speech at a committee hearing.

        Except, he also tweeted it. The Constitution doesn't give him immunity from his tweets.

        Of course, that doesn't mean the lawsuit isn't still bogus. It just means it's not actually barred by the Constitution.

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

  • icon
    crade (profile), 10 Oct 2017 @ 1:40pm

    "It's a picture of her holding up a water bottle"
    Well some sort of clear liquid anyway.

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Oct 2017 @ 1:47pm

    So Lawyers dot com cut a deal with the notoriously litigious starlet & her attention staved family.

    She's been redeeming her profile some lately, sorta sad to see her parents encouraging stupid shit for a paycheck.

    Perhaps we need stronger laws about protecting child stars from their parents, because Lindsays life is a textbook example of what happens when they parents just want to get paid and who cares what happens to the kid.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    darkrage, 10 Oct 2017 @ 3:35pm

    Whoever wrote this article is a piece of shit.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2017 @ 4:58pm

      Re:

      Whoever flagged your comment is an internet hero.

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

      • icon
        crade (profile), 11 Oct 2017 @ 8:11am

        Re: Re:

        I dunno, if it wasn't flagged I probably would have hardly noticed it.. As it is I clicked on it to see what was so bad about it.. and was thoroughly disappointed.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 10 Oct 2017 @ 6:36pm

      Re:

      Truly, your eloquent and passionate arguments, backed by legions of citations and counter-arguments demonstrating clearly and concisely the flaws and erroneous claims and statements in the article are a masterpiece of logical thinking, to be held up by all and sundry as the shining example of rational and well-written literary criticism.

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

    • icon
      Yakko Warner (profile), 12 Oct 2017 @ 11:31pm

      Re:

      Lindsay, is that you?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2017 @ 4:07pm

    Lindsay has turned her life around

    So stop encouraging her to keep making a fool of herself!

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

  • identicon
    known coward, 11 Oct 2017 @ 5:28am

    on the bright side

    it is nice to see Dina and michael finally coming together again and agreeing on something.

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

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 11 Oct 2017 @ 9:12pm

    Paging Charles Harder

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Thanks To Our Sponsors

The Techdirt Free Speech Edition
is a partnership with

with sponsorship from:

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.