Gay couple sue USANext for anti-AARP slime

[Sikander]

They are right about one thing, AARP is a scummy organization whose entire raison d'etre is to maintain the undue political and economic influence of the wealthiest and most influential segment of the American populace. Whatever the merits of the case against USANext, the AARP should be opposed reflexively by anyone under 55, and anyone over 55 who cares about anyone beyond their own demographic. They are simply bad for future of the country.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Sikander
They are right about one thing, AARP is a scummy organization whose entire raison d'etre is to maintain the undue political and economic influence of the wealthiest and most influential segment of the American populace. Whatever the merits of the case against USANext, the AARP should be opposed reflexively by anyone under 55, and anyone over 55 who cares about anyone beyond their own demographic. They are simply bad for future of the country.

Right, the AARP isn't a nice organization (it helped sell the country out to the pharmacutical companies), but having an ad bashing it for being against the troops and for gay marriage? That's just deep deep in the Nedaverse.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boshko


Right, the AARP isn't a nice organization (it helped sell the country out to the pharmacutical companies), but having an ad bashing it for being against the troops and for gay marriage? That's just deep deep in the Nedaverse.

I agree. It's political warfare, and I guess that USANext is trying to cut into the AARP's membership rolls by seperating the geriatric wack right from the rest. This sort of message seems tailored to that group, as it seems unlikely to have much traction with any other.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Sava
nope

militant.
Main Entry: mil·i·tant
Pronunciation: -t&nt
Function: adjective
1 : engaged in warfare or combat : FIGHTING
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause)


ex·trem·ism
Pronunciation: ik-'strE-"mi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being extreme
2 : advocacy of extreme political measures :


Now, I challenge you again... name one issue that I hold an extreme position on. I can only think of one, and that's legalization of all drugs.

What kind of fighting are you actually engaged in besides here on poly that does something useful? What cause are you aggressively active in, and legalizing pot cant be used as a political activity.

[SpencerH]

I dont see how this couple has much of a case (some but not much). From what I can see USAnext merely used them as an example of a gay couple (which I assume they are). I see no negative connotations to that portrayal. USAnext doesnt call them unclean sinners or minions of satan, its just their happy picture. Nor does the ad directly associate them with the USAnexts opinion. I'm sure they were unhappy with any association with the attack ads but $25M is bull****. This is as politically motivated as the origial ads themselves.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Afraid you don't know what you're talking about again, DD.

A judge just issued a restraining order in the couple's favor against USANext. That strongly implies that he sees legal merit in their case.

And use of the couple's image is grounds for libel, as it used them against their will as "spokesmen" for a campaign which was both slanderous and repugnant to them. Having their photo published in the Tribune doesn't give people the right to use the photo as they see fit.

I'm curious about the libel charge. They are gay, aren't they?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
DD wants to claim Rule 11 sanctions for any case he doesn't like.

Yes, I think stupid lawsuits (the cookie suit which is the one you refer to, this one. etc.) should be thrown out and the lawyers involved punished for wasting the court's time. So sue me. This doesn't come close to meeting the grounds for libel or even an invasion of privacy IMO. Copyright infringement is another matter but they don't have the standing to file suit on that point as far as I can tell.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm curious about the libel charge. They are gay, aren't they?

That's not what the libel suit is about. It's the idea that they are being used against their will as a means of attacking the AARP. In that sense, they were made unwitting "spokespeople" for the position of USANext.

Beyond that, the ad insinuates that being in favor of gay marriage (or being a part of it) is somehow anti-soldier and ergo anti-American. I think that is the truly dispicable aspect of the case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes, I think stupid lawsuits (the cookie suit which is the one you refer to, this one. etc.) should be thrown out and the lawyers involved punished for wasting the court's time. So sue me. This doesn't come close to meeting the grounds for libel or even an invasion of privacy IMO. Copyright infringement is another matter but they don't have the standing to file suit on that point as far as I can tell.

When you actually learn the law, perhaps then you can come back to talk about what is frivilous or not .

If you think this is frivilous, then you really need some schooling before you run around parroting your tired old line. Especially when it is highly likely that this gay couple will win.

[Boris Godunov]

Here's a summary of the judge's ruling:

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.

[SpencerH]

The ad campaign "was obviously “done for the purpose of bashing gay marriage" ?

While there clearly is a homophobic tenor to the ad, I have to wonder what the judge was looking at?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
Using someone's image without their permission as part of political propaganda is not illegal in the US?

Using someone's image to advertize is illegal if you don't have their permission. Depending on what permission they gave the newspaper, they may well have standing to sue.

[KrazyHorse]

It seems to me like they have a case. You can't use a private citizen's image in an advertisement or advocacy campaign without their consent.

The damages being asked are obviously excessive, however.

[SpencerH]

It looks like a conflict between the non-existant (but perhaps emerging) 'right to privacy' vs the entrenched right of freedom of speech. This ad is not selling anything, its not campbells soup, its political speech. AFAIK thats gonna take precedence especially if there is no real injury.

I'm not saying that what was done by USAnext was kosher. Nor am I saying that these two people dont have a point to make ie USAnext was wrong to use their likenesses in this way. I just dont see any decision in their favour (if it happens) being upheld by higher courts.

[Asher]

It's selling an idea (read: promoting).