Discussion:
Rebel Wilson wins defamation lawsuit
Add Reply
Obveeus
2017-09-13 13:32:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamation-suit/

Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian Women’s Weekly, NW and OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
anim8rfsk
2017-09-13 15:09:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamation-s
uit/
Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian Women’s Weekly, NW and OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
This is beyond idiotic. That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her age
needs to move to OZ. It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???

My God! He reported she said she was related to Walt Disney! I can see
where *that* would be a career ender.

He said "Rebel" wasn't her birth name! And ... he was right, it's not.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-09-13 17:38:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamation-s
uit/
Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian Women’s Weekly, NW and OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
This is beyond idiotic. That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her age
needs to move to OZ.
It would seem to increase her chances of winning. then again, this
$3.66million is a record verdict in OZ and wouldn't be a drop in the
bucket compared with the idiotic damage amounts given out in US courts.
Post by anim8rfsk
It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???
Her side successfully proved in court that the publications made up
stories about her. At that point, the jury probably did feel inclinded
to give her some sort of compensation so it would at least 'seem' like
the publisher was then under obligation to prove that their lies didn't
harm her.
Post by anim8rfsk
My God! He reported she said she was related to Walt Disney! I can see
where *that* would be a career ender.
Actually, I can see how that would harm her career. These newspapers
seemed to be intentionally targeting her with false stories to make her
seem untrustworthy or unreliable, which could effect her ability to get
work...especially if the potential employers feel that she is falsely
name dropping instead of doing it the genuine Hollywood nepotism way.
Post by anim8rfsk
He said "Rebel" wasn't her birth name! And ... he was right, it's not.
He (the publication) apparently lied and claimed that she said it was
her birth name, which apparently she never did. Again, the publication
was falsely trying to portray her in a bad light.

The damage amount seems outrageous, but it is hard to feel bad for the
publisher given that they did repeatedly lie in their stories in ways
that reflect negatively on her.
anim8rfsk
2017-09-13 17:46:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamatio
n-s
uit/
Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian Women’s Weekly, NW and
OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
This is beyond idiotic. That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her age
needs to move to OZ.
It would seem to increase her chances of winning. then again, this
$3.66million is a record verdict in OZ and wouldn't be a drop in the
bucket compared with the idiotic damage amounts given out in US courts.
Post by anim8rfsk
It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???
Her side successfully proved in court that the publications made up
stories about her. At that point, the jury probably did feel inclinded
to give her some sort of compensation so it would at least 'seem' like
the publisher was then under obligation to prove that their lies didn't
harm her.
Post by anim8rfsk
My God! He reported she said she was related to Walt Disney! I can see
where *that* would be a career ender.
Actually, I can see how that would harm her career. These newspapers
seemed to be intentionally targeting her with false stories to make her
seem untrustworthy or unreliable, which could effect her ability to get
work...especially if the potential employers feel that she is falsely
name dropping instead of doing it the genuine Hollywood nepotism way.
Post by anim8rfsk
He said "Rebel" wasn't her birth name! And ... he was right, it's not.
He (the publication) apparently lied and claimed that she said it was
her birth name, which apparently she never did. Again, the publication
was falsely trying to portray her in a bad light.
The damage amount seems outrageous, but it is hard to feel bad for the
publisher given that they did repeatedly lie in their stories in ways
that reflect negatively on her.
Oh, sure, but it's also hard to feel sorry for her, as she's a less
talented more obnoxious Melissa McCarthy. It's hard to imagine any of
this is why Hollywood won't hire her.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-09-13 18:09:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamatio
n-s
uit/
Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian Women’s Weekly, NW and
OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
This is beyond idiotic. That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her age
needs to move to OZ.
It would seem to increase her chances of winning. then again, this
$3.66million is a record verdict in OZ and wouldn't be a drop in the
bucket compared with the idiotic damage amounts given out in US courts.
Post by anim8rfsk
It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???
Her side successfully proved in court that the publications made up
stories about her. At that point, the jury probably did feel inclinded
to give her some sort of compensation so it would at least 'seem' like
the publisher was then under obligation to prove that their lies didn't
harm her.
Post by anim8rfsk
My God! He reported she said she was related to Walt Disney! I can see
where *that* would be a career ender.
Actually, I can see how that would harm her career. These newspapers
seemed to be intentionally targeting her with false stories to make her
seem untrustworthy or unreliable, which could effect her ability to get
work...especially if the potential employers feel that she is falsely
name dropping instead of doing it the genuine Hollywood nepotism way.
Post by anim8rfsk
He said "Rebel" wasn't her birth name! And ... he was right, it's not.
He (the publication) apparently lied and claimed that she said it was
her birth name, which apparently she never did. Again, the publication
was falsely trying to portray her in a bad light.
The damage amount seems outrageous, but it is hard to feel bad for the
publisher given that they did repeatedly lie in their stories in ways
that reflect negatively on her.
Oh, sure, but it's also hard to feel sorry for her, as she's a less
talented more obnoxious Melissa McCarthy. It's hard to imagine any of
this is why Hollywood won't hire her.
As long as the PITCH PERFECT franchise is alive and well, she will
always have work in Hollywood.
Barry Margolin
2017-09-13 19:01:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamat
io
n-s
uit/
Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian Women’s
Weekly, NW and
OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
This is beyond idiotic. That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her age
needs to move to OZ.
It would seem to increase her chances of winning. then again, this
$3.66million is a record verdict in OZ and wouldn't be a drop in the
bucket compared with the idiotic damage amounts given out in US courts.
Post by anim8rfsk
It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???
Her side successfully proved in court that the publications made up
stories about her. At that point, the jury probably did feel inclinded
to give her some sort of compensation so it would at least 'seem' like
the publisher was then under obligation to prove that their lies didn't
harm her.
Post by anim8rfsk
My God! He reported she said she was related to Walt Disney! I can see
where *that* would be a career ender.
Actually, I can see how that would harm her career. These newspapers
seemed to be intentionally targeting her with false stories to make her
seem untrustworthy or unreliable, which could effect her ability to get
work...especially if the potential employers feel that she is falsely
name dropping instead of doing it the genuine Hollywood nepotism way.
Post by anim8rfsk
He said "Rebel" wasn't her birth name! And ... he was right, it's not.
He (the publication) apparently lied and claimed that she said it was
her birth name, which apparently she never did. Again, the publication
was falsely trying to portray her in a bad light.
The damage amount seems outrageous, but it is hard to feel bad for the
publisher given that they did repeatedly lie in their stories in ways
that reflect negatively on her.
Oh, sure, but it's also hard to feel sorry for her, as she's a less
talented more obnoxious Melissa McCarthy. It's hard to imagine any of
this is why Hollywood won't hire her.
As long as the PITCH PERFECT franchise is alive and well, she will
always have work in Hollywood.
It doesn't have to be the ONLY reason why Hollywood won't hire her.
Anything that diminishes her marketability would presumably be a reason
to award damages.

I think many other countries also have far more liberal libel and
slander laws than we do in the US. In the US I think there has to be
some malice or intent to do harm to the career, while in the UK the mere
act of knowingly publishing lies may be enough.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
BTR1701
2017-09-13 19:34:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamat
io
n-s
uit/
Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian
Women’s
Weekly, NW and
OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
This is beyond idiotic. That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her age
needs to move to OZ.
It would seem to increase her chances of winning. then again, this
$3.66million is a record verdict in OZ and wouldn't be a drop in the
bucket compared with the idiotic damage amounts given out in US courts.
Post by anim8rfsk
It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???
Her side successfully proved in court that the publications made up
stories about her. At that point, the jury probably did feel inclinded
to give her some sort of compensation so it would at least 'seem' like
the publisher was then under obligation to prove that their lies didn't
harm her.
Post by anim8rfsk
My God! He reported she said she was related to Walt Disney! I can see
where *that* would be a career ender.
Actually, I can see how that would harm her career. These newspapers
seemed to be intentionally targeting her with false stories to make her
seem untrustworthy or unreliable, which could effect her ability to get
work...especially if the potential employers feel that she is falsely
name dropping instead of doing it the genuine Hollywood nepotism way.
Post by anim8rfsk
He said "Rebel" wasn't her birth name! And ... he was right, it's not.
He (the publication) apparently lied and claimed that she said it was
her birth name, which apparently she never did. Again, the publication
was falsely trying to portray her in a bad light.
The damage amount seems outrageous, but it is hard to feel bad for the
publisher given that they did repeatedly lie in their stories in ways
that reflect negatively on her.
Oh, sure, but it's also hard to feel sorry for her, as she's a less
talented more obnoxious Melissa McCarthy. It's hard to imagine any of
this is why Hollywood won't hire her.
As long as the PITCH PERFECT franchise is alive and well, she will
always have work in Hollywood.
It doesn't have to be the ONLY reason why Hollywood won't hire her.
Anything that diminishes her marketability would presumably be a reason
to award damages.
I think many other countries also have far more liberal libel and
slander laws than we do in the US. In the US I think there has to be
some malice or intent to do harm to the career, while in the UK the mere
act of knowingly publishing lies may be enough.
Actual malice must be proven only if the person is a public figure.
Adam H. Kerman
2017-09-14 04:09:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamat
io
n-s
uit/
Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian
Women’s
Weekly, NW and
OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
This is beyond idiotic. That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her age
needs to move to OZ.
It would seem to increase her chances of winning. then again, this
$3.66million is a record verdict in OZ and wouldn't be a drop in the
bucket compared with the idiotic damage amounts given out in US courts.
Post by anim8rfsk
It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???
Her side successfully proved in court that the publications made up
stories about her. At that point, the jury probably did feel inclinded
to give her some sort of compensation so it would at least 'seem' like
the publisher was then under obligation to prove that their lies didn't
harm her.
Post by anim8rfsk
My God! He reported she said she was related to Walt Disney! I can see
where *that* would be a career ender.
Actually, I can see how that would harm her career. These newspapers
seemed to be intentionally targeting her with false stories to make her
seem untrustworthy or unreliable, which could effect her ability to get
work...especially if the potential employers feel that she is falsely
name dropping instead of doing it the genuine Hollywood nepotism way.
Post by anim8rfsk
He said "Rebel" wasn't her birth name! And ... he was right, it's not.
He (the publication) apparently lied and claimed that she said it was
her birth name, which apparently she never did. Again, the publication
was falsely trying to portray her in a bad light.
The damage amount seems outrageous, but it is hard to feel bad for the
publisher given that they did repeatedly lie in their stories in ways
that reflect negatively on her.
Oh, sure, but it's also hard to feel sorry for her, as she's a less
talented more obnoxious Melissa McCarthy. It's hard to imagine any of
this is why Hollywood won't hire her.
As long as the PITCH PERFECT franchise is alive and well, she will
always have work in Hollywood.
It doesn't have to be the ONLY reason why Hollywood won't hire her.
Anything that diminishes her marketability would presumably be a reason
to award damages.
I think many other countries also have far more liberal libel and
slander laws than we do in the US. In the US I think there has to be
some malice or intent to do harm to the career, while in the UK the mere
act of knowingly publishing lies may be enough.
Actual malice must be proven only if the person is a public figure.
. . . which the media utterly controls. Actual malice is a high threshold.
"But I wasn't a public figure before you published those lies about me
in yesterday's newspaper!"

anim8rfsk
2017-09-13 19:14:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamat
io
n-s
uit/
Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian Women’s
Weekly, NW and
OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
This is beyond idiotic. That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her age
needs to move to OZ.
It would seem to increase her chances of winning. then again, this
$3.66million is a record verdict in OZ and wouldn't be a drop in the
bucket compared with the idiotic damage amounts given out in US courts.
Post by anim8rfsk
It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???
Her side successfully proved in court that the publications made up
stories about her. At that point, the jury probably did feel inclinded
to give her some sort of compensation so it would at least 'seem' like
the publisher was then under obligation to prove that their lies didn't
harm her.
Post by anim8rfsk
My God! He reported she said she was related to Walt Disney! I can see
where *that* would be a career ender.
Actually, I can see how that would harm her career. These newspapers
seemed to be intentionally targeting her with false stories to make her
seem untrustworthy or unreliable, which could effect her ability to get
work...especially if the potential employers feel that she is falsely
name dropping instead of doing it the genuine Hollywood nepotism way.
Post by anim8rfsk
He said "Rebel" wasn't her birth name! And ... he was right, it's not.
He (the publication) apparently lied and claimed that she said it was
her birth name, which apparently she never did. Again, the publication
was falsely trying to portray her in a bad light.
The damage amount seems outrageous, but it is hard to feel bad for the
publisher given that they did repeatedly lie in their stories in ways
that reflect negatively on her.
Oh, sure, but it's also hard to feel sorry for her, as she's a less
talented more obnoxious Melissa McCarthy. It's hard to imagine any of
this is why Hollywood won't hire her.
As long as the PITCH PERFECT franchise is alive and well, she will
always have work in Hollywood.
Then let's hope for an early and especially painful death.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-09-13 20:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamat
io
n-s
uit/
Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian Women’s
Weekly, NW and
OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
This is beyond idiotic. That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her age
needs to move to OZ.
It would seem to increase her chances of winning. then again, this
$3.66million is a record verdict in OZ and wouldn't be a drop in the
bucket compared with the idiotic damage amounts given out in US courts.
Post by anim8rfsk
It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???
Her side successfully proved in court that the publications made up
stories about her. At that point, the jury probably did feel inclinded
to give her some sort of compensation so it would at least 'seem' like
the publisher was then under obligation to prove that their lies didn't
harm her.
Post by anim8rfsk
My God! He reported she said she was related to Walt Disney! I can see
where *that* would be a career ender.
Actually, I can see how that would harm her career. These newspapers
seemed to be intentionally targeting her with false stories to make her
seem untrustworthy or unreliable, which could effect her ability to get
work...especially if the potential employers feel that she is falsely
name dropping instead of doing it the genuine Hollywood nepotism way.
Post by anim8rfsk
He said "Rebel" wasn't her birth name! And ... he was right, it's not.
He (the publication) apparently lied and claimed that she said it was
her birth name, which apparently she never did. Again, the publication
was falsely trying to portray her in a bad light.
The damage amount seems outrageous, but it is hard to feel bad for the
publisher given that they did repeatedly lie in their stories in ways
that reflect negatively on her.
Oh, sure, but it's also hard to feel sorry for her, as she's a less
talented more obnoxious Melissa McCarthy. It's hard to imagine any of
this is why Hollywood won't hire her.
As long as the PITCH PERFECT franchise is alive and well, she will
always have work in Hollywood.
Then let's hope for an early and especially painful death.
For my money, Rebel Wilson is much more entertaining than Melissa
McCarthy.

Side note: It looks like the size of this court judgement was also
influenced by the argument that the publishers timed the release of
their magazines to coincide with the release of PITCH PERFECT 2. So,
the publisher was not only trying to slander the actress, but also
trying to maximize their profit while doing so.
Dimensional Traveler
2017-09-13 22:14:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://pagesix.com/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-wins-record-damages-in-defamat
io
n-s
uit/
Rebel Wilson won $3.66 million against a variety of magazines
(Australian magazines Woman’s Day, Australian
Women’s
Weekly, NW and
OK
all published by Bauer Media) that published various lies about her
claiming that she had lied about her name, age, and background.
This is beyond idiotic.  That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her
age
needs to move to OZ.
It would seem to increase her chances of winning.  then again, this
$3.66million is a record verdict in OZ and wouldn't be a drop in the
bucket compared with the idiotic damage amounts given out in US courts.
   It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???
Her side successfully proved in court that the publications made up
stories about her.  At that point, the jury probably did feel
inclinded
to give her some sort of compensation so it would at least 'seem' like
the publisher was then under obligation to prove that their lies didn't
harm her.
My God!  He reported she said she was related to Walt Disney!  I
can see
where *that* would be a career ender.
Actually, I can see how that would harm her career.  These newspapers
seemed to be intentionally targeting her with false stories to make her
seem untrustworthy or unreliable, which could effect her ability to get
work...especially if the potential employers feel that she is falsely
name dropping instead of doing it the genuine Hollywood nepotism way.
He said "Rebel" wasn't her birth name!  And ... he was right, it's
not.
He (the publication) apparently lied and claimed that she said it was
her birth name, which apparently she never did.  Again, the
publication
was falsely trying to portray her in a bad light.
The damage amount seems outrageous, but it is hard to feel bad for the
publisher given that they did repeatedly lie in their stories in ways
that reflect negatively on her.
Oh, sure, but it's also hard to feel sorry for her, as she's a less
talented more obnoxious Melissa McCarthy.  It's hard to imagine any of
this is why Hollywood won't hire her.
As long as the PITCH PERFECT franchise is alive and well, she will
always have work in Hollywood.
Then let's hope for an early and especially painful death.
For my money, Rebel Wilson is much more entertaining than Melissa McCarthy.
That's not really saying much.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2017-09-13 20:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
This is beyond idiotic. That nitwit suing IMDb over reporting her age
needs to move to OZ. It's up to the publisher to prove articles about
her "were unlikely to harm her career"???
Publishers have an ethical obligation to report the truth. It appears
they were quite sloppy about the truth, indeed, may have deliberately
lied. They deserve to be punished.
Loading...