British Sun's Perry transplant hoax should result in a huge lawsuit for Perry

If I were Perry I'd sue the British Sun for printing such a slanderous story about his Illness. Especially when the tabloid printed that Perry abused drugs and alcohol. He admitted that he was addicted to painkillers, yes, but is he a heavy boozer? That's something Perry has the right to keep to himself. I hope he sues, and gets millions for it.

On Thu, 25 May 2000, kira2525 stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Yea - take the sleazy bastards for every penny they've got! :)

In article , kira2525 wrote:

Forget Matthew, I'M going to sue for emotional distress, pain, and suffering. Doubt I'll get millions though :)

Alanna

Its not like Sun are the only paper that ran the story! If celebrities sued every time something that was exaggerated, or even a load of rubbish, was printed then they'd never leave the court room. Papers print crap all the time - celebrities should know that being famous means being able to live with it, its all part of the territory. I'm not saying its right to print things that aren't true and exaggerating stories for publicity (or whatever reason they chose to print it) but don't attack papers. Its what they do - they print what they hear on the vine. And its not as though its just British papers that print crap - so do American papers, so lay off.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, *Little Miss Sunshine* doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Actually, I'd say Perry's got a real reason to sue this time - it's been alleged that he has a life-threatening illness when he *doesn't*, which can actually cause damage to his rep depending on the way it's handled, ie. by implying it was caused by his painkiller addiction... yeah, the parents of his teenage fans are going to *love* him for that one. Then, long after it's been confirmed by his rep that he *isn't* suffering from the alleged illness, the newspaper in question still insists on saying that he *is* suffering from it - and in fact have the audacity to run an "update" on the story in order to make it seem like it's still completely authentic, when they know damn well by this time that it isn't. Yeah, he's certainly got grounds for at least a nasty complaint to the PCC.

In article , Tina wrote:

How can his reputation be harmed by saying he has liver disease? It's not a shameful illness. His earnings are guaranteed at about $50m over the next two years, and if he wants to continue earning after that he just has to say "yes please" to BKC/NBC/WB.

Tennant

Tina wrote

"He can try, but he would not be successful" :)

It's unlikely to damage his reputation at all: unless they said he was an alcoholic of Oliver Reed proportions the PCC won't really have much to say about it. The painkiller addiction was admitted ages ago, and implication is not accusation. The "parents of fans" thing doesn't wash with the PCC (otherwise 90% of TRUE stories would never make it into the News of the World - look at "Blue Peter star takes cocaine" etc). The "continuing" bit of the story will be questioned, but if they provide sources and all the material they had, they'll probably get off on the "reasonable doubt" side of the libel laws.

Jac

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Jacqui doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

What I meant by that was that they had been implying he *was* having problems with drink and drugs beyond what we already know, and that they had caused the non-existent problems with his liver. If I was being accused of basically being a drug addict and an alcoholic when I wasn't (and anyone who knows me knows that the "high life" just doesn't interest me), I know I'd be pretty pissed off to say the least. If it's true, then fair enough, but it's not. My problem is that they continued with the story long after it was publically denied by all.

You do know that liver damage is often related to painkiller abuse rather than alcohol abuse, don't you? The "credibility" test on this story actually holds good from a journalism point of view.

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

tabloid

hope

abuse

on this

Actually, I was told that Alcohol is more effective to cause liver damage than drugs, but if what you're saying is true, then fine. However, the journalist who wrote the story included that drugs and alcohol caused the disease. The mere fact the journalist used alcohol in his report gives Perry every reason to file liable charges against the paper. This statement alone is consider slander, and from what I remember in my business law classes, slandering a famous person is considered illegal where his/her reputation is on the line.

If there are any lawyers who read this post, I'd love to read what they have to say about Perry's rights and priviledges.

(Odd, I'm getting some of your posts, kira but not all)

Libel. Not slander. Slander is only applicable in conversation/live speech. Anything published, broadcast (including radio and tv) or otherwise transmitted is libel (and any suit brought against a Usenet user would be libel, as proved by a recent case).

The point about the liver damage through painkillers is: 1. most cases of induced (rather than accidental) liver damage in the under-30s (the Friends fan base if you like) are caused by paracetamol. Even exceeding the daily dose by a tiny amount can cause damage in susceptible people. (Such damage may well be accidental, btw, but it's classed as "induced", "accidental" implies damage from car crashes etc). Alcohol-induced damage is rare in under 30s, much more common in older alcoholics. 2. Perry has a publicly admitted previous history of painkiller abuse (yes, not paracetamol but few under-30s have access to a wider range of painkillers). 3. He spent a period of time in the hospital for 'flu (and how many people here were sceptical of that diagnosis? Hands up or shall we go to Deja?). You can see why an "insider source" claiming liver damage would be credible and listened to, can't you?

I only know journalism law, but I'll ask my friend's housemate V who is a law postgrad - I know she's done a lot of work on libel laws.

Jac

Jacqui wrote:

Yup. I know the difference between libel & slander, but I don't know of any good mnemonics (like latitude/altitude). Have you heard of any?

Tennant :):)

Libel. Not slander. Slander is only applicable in conversation/live

or

Usenet

Libel, of course. Thank you Jacqui. You're right. I remember learning about libel, but was only focused on in one class. After all, I wasn't studying law, so this course was only a prerequisit for graduating in Business Admin.

in the

paracetamol.

in

but it's

crashes etc).

in older

Ah, yes, but if the under-30 is constantly drinking as, let's say, Nicolas Cage's character in Leaving Las Vegas (although over 30, but his constant drinking would kill anyone at any age), this would result in liver damage just as effectivly, true?

He spent a period of time in the hospital for 'flu (and how many

we go to

damage would

True, considering a stomach problem could be anything, and so far Matthew Perry has not revealed what it is except it was a serious stomach illnes.

If Lisa Kudrow is going to be on Letterman on Tuesday, maybe she can say something, however, from what I read about the Friends' cast is that they don't talk about the other cast members concerning their privacy. So I don't think she'll say much except she wishes him to get well.

Jacqui wrote:

Jacqui, did Mr.Perry ever sue the doctor that got him into this mess in the first place?

Tennant :):)