Over the last few months pics have been doing the rounds of the Internet of Jared Leto grabbing his junk during a concert and revealing what looks to be an extremely large package. However it appears some lawyers working on his behalf would prefer if no one mentioned it (or perhaps it’s a genius piece of reverse psychology to get everyone to talk about).
Techdirt writes, “Paul Levy at Public Citizen alerts us to how a lawyer working for Lavely & Singer, Allison Hart, has sent a ridiculous cease & desist notice to the website Lipstick Alley on behalf of actor/musician Jared Leto because some people in Lipstick Alley’s forums made some comments about Leto in forums like this one and this one.”
Apparently the lawyers objected to comments both about the alleged size of Leto’s penis, as well as some potentially more troublesome ones speculating on rumours of his treatment of women during sexual encounters. So Lipstick Alley came up with a great response, which includes: ‘Having reviewed the posts that you have identified, I conclude that you do not have any non-frivolous defamation against any of the posters.
‘Some of the posts of which you object do not appear to me to be defamatory. Two of the posts simply mention claims found elsewhere in the Internet that your client has a large penis. It is hard to see how those statements would hurt your client’s reputation, even if they are false. It is, as I understand it, the accusation of having asmall penis that is understood to be an insult.
‘Other posts about Leto’s allegedly rough and inconsiderate behavior during alleged sexual encounters with fans, and about the age of one of the fans, might well have been defamatory when originally posted, assuming that they are false. I recognize that your letter claims that the statements are false. I assume that you do not have personal knowledge about the size of Leto’s penis or about whether he is rough with sexual partners, and you do not cite any evidence supporting your claim of falsity…
‘Moreover, none of the posters on Lipstick Alley claims to have personal knowledge about Leto’s conduct during sex with his fans (or about the size of his penis); some simply express their views about what they have read elsewhere, and some have reposted comments from other web sites that purport to reflect first-person descriptions of activities in which the original writers claim to have been involved. Your demand letter mentions that at least one of the linked-to posts has been deleted from the original site, and you seem to suggest that the removal of various posts in response to demand letters from your client supports your assertion that the posts are false. But at most, it only shows that the individuals whom your client threatened decided that the issue was not worth litigating. Lipstick Alley, however, stands up for the First Amendment right of its users to comment on celebrities, and to make those comments anonymously, unless their statements have been proved false and defamatory. It does not remove posts simply because a wealthy actor is able to hire a law firm to send threatening letters.’
So is it defamatory to talk about Leto’s allegedly large man bits? Perhaps a bit of picture evidence can do more than words (and we’d also suggest that if he doesn’t want people to notice and talk about it, grabbing your crotch on stage in front of thousands of people – and cameras – probably isn’t the best plan):
Leave a Reply (if comment does not appear immediately, it may have been held for moderation)