Dead Heat in Pennsylania
3 minutes ago
Thursday, March 10, 2005
New AP story on the gay couple vs. the USANext goliath
From AP:
A federal judge on Thursday prohibited a conservative group supporting President Bush's Social Security plan from using a photo of a gay couple in its online ads attacking AARP....Hmmm... I didn't hear "we won't use them." I hear "we don't 'intend' to use them." I was always taught in the law that there's no such thing as future intent. Meaning, intent is only here and now. It's what you're CURRENTLY planning and thinking. It says nothing about tomorrow. And notice that suddenly they're now saying "claimed" with regards to the pictures being misused. Uh, guys, you already admitted you were guilty. Read More......
`We took the banner ad down before we even learned that these gentlemen claimed that their picture had been misused. We have not used their picture since then. We do not intend to do so,'' USA Next Chairman Charlie Jarvis said after the judge's ruling.
Frank Rich gets op ed slot with NYT
Excellent. He's a great guy, and does amazing work. I've never seen anyone take such disparate topics and weave them together.
Read More......
BREAKING NEWS: Judge grants Temporary Restraining Order against USA Next in anti-gay anti-AARP ad lawsuit
UPDATE: You can find key legal documents in this case online here.
There was news today in the $25 million lawsuit of a gay couple whose image was stolen by USA Next and used in a high-profile ad campaign attacking the AARP’s position on social security legislation.
In Washington, DC today, US District Judge Reggie Walton (an appointee of President Bush (41)) granted the gay couple’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against USA Next. The TRO requires USA Next to cease and desist from further use of the couple's photos for any purpose. This is a big deal because it means the judge has found that the guys have reasonable likelihood of winning their case, and he also said he could see how they could get damages.
Basically, the couple’s lawyer, Christopher Wolf (counsel with Proskauer Rose, LLP), argued that a TRO was necessary to stop USA Next from using the couple’s image for additional ads. USA Next’s lawyer would not promise that the image wouldn’t be used again. And USA Next’s ad consultant even said in an AP story last night that the gay couple was to blame for getting married!
USA Next’s lawyer, Robert Sparks, argued that there was no indication that the couple would be irreparably harmed if the TRO wasn’t granted (that’s part of the requirement for granting one).
Wolf responded that had USA Next come to the couple in advance, and offered them money in exchange for the couple signing a model’s release so their image could be used in this hateful campaign, the couple would have said NO, there’s NO amount of money you could offer. Thus, the damage from USANext running the ad again was incalculable – there is NO amount of money that could compensate them adequately as no amount of money would have led them to cooperate in the first place.
The first sign of trouble for USA Next, in my opinion, was when the judge said today “I can see how they [the couple] may be entitled to damages for the misappropriation of their images.” After a lot of back and forth between the attorneys, the judge retired to chambers, then came back. Here’s what he said:
There was news today in the $25 million lawsuit of a gay couple whose image was stolen by USA Next and used in a high-profile ad campaign attacking the AARP’s position on social security legislation.
In Washington, DC today, US District Judge Reggie Walton (an appointee of President Bush (41)) granted the gay couple’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against USA Next. The TRO requires USA Next to cease and desist from further use of the couple's photos for any purpose. This is a big deal because it means the judge has found that the guys have reasonable likelihood of winning their case, and he also said he could see how they could get damages.
Basically, the couple’s lawyer, Christopher Wolf (counsel with Proskauer Rose, LLP), argued that a TRO was necessary to stop USA Next from using the couple’s image for additional ads. USA Next’s lawyer would not promise that the image wouldn’t be used again. And USA Next’s ad consultant even said in an AP story last night that the gay couple was to blame for getting married!
USA Next’s lawyer, Robert Sparks, argued that there was no indication that the couple would be irreparably harmed if the TRO wasn’t granted (that’s part of the requirement for granting one).
Wolf responded that had USA Next come to the couple in advance, and offered them money in exchange for the couple signing a model’s release so their image could be used in this hateful campaign, the couple would have said NO, there’s NO amount of money you could offer. Thus, the damage from USANext running the ad again was incalculable – there is NO amount of money that could compensate them adequately as no amount of money would have led them to cooperate in the first place.
The first sign of trouble for USA Next, in my opinion, was when the judge said today “I can see how they [the couple] may be entitled to damages for the misappropriation of their images.” After a lot of back and forth between the attorneys, the judge retired to chambers, then came back. Here’s what he said:
- There’s no real case on point with regards to this fact pattern, but “it seems to me that an individual obviously does have a privacy right in their physical image.”
- He went on to say that there is no evidence that the plaintiff’s put themselves in a position to be photographed – meaning, they had to stand in line with everyone else in order to get their legal marriage at the courthouse. It wasn’t like they chose to be photographed, they were standing in line. (Wolf made an interesting comparison: If the judge had affirmatively chosen to put his wedding picture in the Washington Post “weddings” section, would that give Campbell Soup the right to put the judge’s now-public photo on a can of soup?)
- The judge went on to say that even if the couple had consented to the newspaper snapping a photo, did that mean that they were giving away their rights, so the image could be misappropriated by anybody?
- He continued, saying that USA Next used the photo “in a manner inconsistent with their [the couple’s] perspective on an issue.” “Clearly there was a misappropriation of their image…. The public does have an interest in an individual’s image not being misappropriated.”
- He said that the ad campaign was obviously “done for the purpose of bashing gay marriage…. It seems to me a misappropriation inconsistent with the desire of the plaintiffs” and “it is in fact an infringement of their privacy right.” The use of the photo by USA Next was “inconsistent with the desire of the plaintiffs” and the use “does cause harm.”
- He concluded that the harm in this case “does rise to the level of irreparable harm.”
- He then granted the TRO and ordered that a $500 bond be used to secure the TRO.
Afternoon Open Thread
John just stopped by my office...he says "hey"...chat away....
Read More......
Bush Embraces Terrorist Group
Yes, after years of (properly) denouncing Hezbollah, Bush is forced into acknowledging it might play a political role in Lebanon's future, much as the IRA's political arm is struggling to do in Ireland. Ain't reality a pain in the neck?
Yes, after decades if not centuries of despotic leaders, twisted "education," harsh religious strictures, miserable living conditions for the many and unimaginable luxury for the few, Bush is discovering that the will of the people won't immediately be for secular Western-style democracy with full rights for women and respect for others.
Imagine his confusion:
Bush: You want me to say something nice about Hezbollah?
Dick: That's right, Mr. President.
Bush: But I thought they were the bad guys.
Dick: They are the bad guys, Mr. President. Unfortunately, they've also been providing basic services for the Lebanese people (like water and power) and have millions of supporters there.
Bush: Maybe we should start providing those services to the Iraqis.
Dick: I'll be sure and let someone know.
Bush: So Hezbollah are good guys now?
Dick: No, but we have to deal with them.
Bush: I don't understand.
Dick: It's like Saudi Arabia -- they're our friends, aren't they?
Bush: Sure! I like them.
Dick: But they're the single biggest supporter of terrorism around the world -- much bigger than Iran or Iraq was.
Bush: Really?
Dick: Yep. And Pakistan. They're our friends but they've sold more material and know-how to build nuclear weapons to rogue governments and terrorist groups than anyone else in the world.
Bush: [sigh] Do we still hate the French?
Dick: Yes, Mr. President. We'll always hate the French. Read More......
Yes, after decades if not centuries of despotic leaders, twisted "education," harsh religious strictures, miserable living conditions for the many and unimaginable luxury for the few, Bush is discovering that the will of the people won't immediately be for secular Western-style democracy with full rights for women and respect for others.
Imagine his confusion:
Bush: You want me to say something nice about Hezbollah?
Dick: That's right, Mr. President.
Bush: But I thought they were the bad guys.
Dick: They are the bad guys, Mr. President. Unfortunately, they've also been providing basic services for the Lebanese people (like water and power) and have millions of supporters there.
Bush: Maybe we should start providing those services to the Iraqis.
Dick: I'll be sure and let someone know.
Bush: So Hezbollah are good guys now?
Dick: No, but we have to deal with them.
Bush: I don't understand.
Dick: It's like Saudi Arabia -- they're our friends, aren't they?
Bush: Sure! I like them.
Dick: But they're the single biggest supporter of terrorism around the world -- much bigger than Iran or Iraq was.
Bush: Really?
Dick: Yep. And Pakistan. They're our friends but they've sold more material and know-how to build nuclear weapons to rogue governments and terrorist groups than anyone else in the world.
Bush: [sigh] Do we still hate the French?
Dick: Yes, Mr. President. We'll always hate the French. Read More......
Good morning, good morning
It's a miracle. Blogger is back. I swear, it wakes up even later than me. It's been dead since this morning - the big hoohas in the Google sky promise me they're trying to find out what's wrong once and for all.
Update on the USA Next lawsuit. For those who are interested, we've now posted a copy of the legal complaint (i.e., the lawsuit) online. You can find it, and other public documents from the case, here. As you may know, AP wrote a story about the suit.
Interestingly, they updated it last night, AP does that, and included new quotes from Mark Montini, the Internet consultant who helped work on the ad for USA Next.
Update on the USA Next lawsuit. For those who are interested, we've now posted a copy of the legal complaint (i.e., the lawsuit) online. You can find it, and other public documents from the case, here. As you may know, AP wrote a story about the suit.
Interestingly, they updated it last night, AP does that, and included new quotes from Mark Montini, the Internet consultant who helped work on the ad for USA Next.
A consultant hired by USA Next, Mark Montini, took the photo from the Portland Tribune's Web site. He said Wednesday that "it looks like we made a mistake" in not first getting permission from the Tribune.Doesn't sound like an apology to me. Read More......
"At the end of the day the worst case scenario was something fell through the cracks in our office," he said in an interview. Asked if he felt badly about using the photos of people who did not agree with his group's agenda, he said: "They were posing for pictures in the newspaper. Nobody would know about this if they haven't made a big deal about it."
Take a deep breath...."Clear Skies" Dies in the Senate
A major part of Bush's plan to destroy the environment took a hit yesterday when a Senate Committee killed his so-called "Clear Skies" legislation, according to AP.
President Bush's top environmental priority - giving power plants, factories and refineries more time to reduce their air pollution - suffered a major setback Wednesday as a Republican-controlled committee rejected it in the Senate.So you can breathe easy....but not for long. Next week, the Senate will take a vote on drilling in the Arctic. There's plenty of environment left for the Republicans to destroy. Read More......
The Environment and Public Works Committee deadlocked on a 9-9 vote on Bush's "clear skies" bill, a name that Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., described as "akin to calling Frankenstein Tom Cruise."
The tie vote came after weeks of fruitless negotiation to get a bare majority required to recommend the bill to the full Senate. The committee vote doesn't preclude GOP leaders from scheduling the bill for floor action anyway, but they would have fewer parliamentary tactics available to pass it over Democratic objections.
Congress is addicted to porn
And the good people of CREW have caught them:
CREW TO RELEASE NEW REPORT THURSDAY ONRead More......
CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS AND PORNOGRAPHY
News Conference, March 10, 11:00 am to Release:
Addicted to Porn: How Members of Congress Benefit from Pornography
WASHINGTON, DC – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) will release its new report, Addicted to Porn: How Members of Congress Benefit from Pornography at a news conference on Thursday, March 10 at 11:00 am at 11 Dupont Circle, Second Floor Conference Room.
CREW’s report details Members of Congress who publicly rail against the evils of pornography but accept political contributions from corporations and their executives who make money on pornography. Addicted to Porn lists members’ contributions by name and corporation from the 2002 through the 2004 political cycles. The report also includes quotes from members decrying pornography and indecency.
“Hypocritical does not begin to describe Members of Congress who vilify pornography, call for decency standards and then turn around and fill their campaign coffers with contributions from corporations and executives profiting from pornography,” Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today. “Our report, Addicted to Porn, will expose those Congressional members that choose to accept contributions from sources that profit from the very material they are railing against.”
Frederick Lane, the author of Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber-age will also discuss how mainstream corporations benefit from pornography ventures.
WHO: Melanie Sloan, Executive Director, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Frederick Lane, author of Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age
WHAT: News Conference to release Addicted to Pornography: How Members of Congress Benefit from Pornography
WHERE: 11 Dupont Circle, Second Floor Conference Room
WHEN: 11:00 am, Thursday, March 10, 2005
Poor Tom DeLay is busted for accepting handouts from registered foreign agent
Now he's using the old "I didn't know" excuse. Sorry, but that just doesn't hold water. You have enough people on your team to know better. BTW, how the hell does one spend $13,000 on transportation and still call themselves a conservative?
Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
