I was thinking about how gossip rags will print stories like “I am celebrity XXX’s gay lover!” and they get sued for slander, or the person claiming it gets sued.
What exactly is the actionable component to the claims? The claim of sexual intercourse, or the claim of homosexuality?
Could I sue a woman who claims she slept with me and I am heterosexual? Or if someone claims I am heterosexual? Does it require me to have a publicly stated orientation?
Possibly UL but the famous clip in the Woodstock movie of the hippy couple gettin’ it on resulted in a lawsuit from the guy because he worked as a hairdresser and relied on pretending that he was gay for his business.
It depends on the jurisdiction. Which one are you talking about? Generally speaking, the key to defamation is that a claim has damaged the reputation of the aggrieved party. (Most, but not all, jurisdictions also require the claim to be false.) So if you believe that a claim of homosexuality (or of heterosexuality) has demonstrably damaged your reputation, you can probably go ahead and sue for slander/libel/defamation.
You can sue for anything, but your chances of winning are pretty much none.
The idea behind the suit is that saying a particular person is gay, will hurt their career.
For instance, Tom Cruise is an action star and being associated with being gay could make him less marketable.
On the other hand someone like Bette Midler who has tons of gay fans, it would not change her marketability one way or another.
So the claim of “being outed” would not be applied across the board. It would depend on each individual case and how the process would effect that person.
Of course in the USA, truth is pretty much a solid defense.
The suit having a snow ball’s chance in hell was implicit in my question.
I realize every country has different laws too but I was thinking of the USA or Britain where it seems a lot of these suits are filed.
Is it really only based on damaging your career and not being provably true(at least in the USA) because anything could hurt someone’s career.
The libel (if written) of slander (if spoken) has to of have the tendency lowering you in the estimation of right thinking people. If the circumstances are such that a claim that you are straight will tend to do so, then yes certainly a lawsuit has a reasonable prospect of success.
Again, it depends on the jurisdiction, of which the United States alone has scores. Certainly in many of them all the plaintiff needs to show is that he was damaged in some way, which may constitute emotional distress rather than actual or potential financial loss. Different jurisdictions may also provide for different remedies based on the nature and amount of the damages; in some cases a prevailing plaintiff may get a monetary award, while in others he may have to settle for an injunction, while in still others the jurisdiction may treat the defamation as a criminal offence and sentence the convicted party to a term in prison.
“UL” 
UL = “urban legend”
“UL” = Urban Legend
It means that the story was safety tested not to shock you.
Yep. Last month I defended myself (successfully 
) against a civil lawsuit. When the magistrate discussed his ruling, he used the “you can sue for anything” statement to sorta denigrate the plaintiff.
How does one prove that? And does it conflict with moral ideas that being gay should not affect your ability to be an action star? Could Obama not sue those who say he is a Muslim for the same reasons?
In the US, defamation of a public figure also requires that the person making the statement knew or should have known that the statement was false. So the standard would not be whether you could prove it was true but more like whether you had a reasonable basis for believing it was true.
It’s not always clear who’s a public figure, but certainly a major movie star or prominent politican would count.
I think the “reasonable belief that the statement is true” is always a defense, even with an ordinary individual. Public figures are just also fair game for “opinion and commentary”, which covers a lot of ground.
Not in England nor (at least originally) in most of the commonwealth. It had to actually be true.
In the absence of direct evidence that a movie studio specifically decided to pass over the actor for a certain role because he was gay, then you would have to resort to more indirect (but probably just as admissible) evidence, such as market research. For example, get some independent survey firm to ask some suitably large randomly sampled group of people whether they’d want to see an action film starring Mr. X. Then have them ask another randomly sampled group if they’d want to see an action film starring Mr. X if they knew he was gay. If fewer people in the second group answer yes, and if the difference is shown to be stastically significant, then you’ve just established the most important part of your argument for potential financial damage. (Next you would have to show that a movie star’s salary and/or chance of getting roles is linked to his popularity, though that’s very easy to establish.)
Why would that matter in a claim for financial loss?
True. I was referring to the US, which has much higher standards for defamation. Here, a defamation claim only has a chance if the defendant showed “reckless disregard for the truth” or simply knew the statement was false.
Take a look at the Carol Burnett lawsuit against the National Enquirer.
The Enquirer had published an article that implied Carol Burnett had gotten drunk at a restaurant and made a scene. That might not be enough to constitute “damaging” by itself. However, Carol Burnett’s mother was an alcoholic and her daughter had substance abuse problems, and Burnett had often talked about the dangers of drink and drugs, so the article would have painted her as a hypocrite. That was her reason for claiming damages.
So part of it depends on what’s being said about whom. Claiming an action star is gay might be damaging, while claiming a choreographer is gay might be stereotyping, but not actually damaging.
The Enquirer printed a retraction but it was also discovered that the tipster who had given the Enquirer the information had never said that Burnett was drunk - that was a detail the paper had added on its own.
Now, here’s where it gets tricky. In New York, printing the retraction would have gotten the Enquirer off the hook, but Burnett sued in California court. That court ruled that printing the allegation in the first place, when the editors knew there was no basis, was enough to prove mailice and allow Burnett to sue for damages. If Burnett had sued in a federal court, there might have been yet another ruling.
Grude, here is a famous Ohio case I remembered from past research on defamation.
Although this involves a public official ( i.e., the govt.), it outlines the basic 3 “elements” of defamation for a NON public figure. State case law is of course individual in nature, but if the defamation is per quod, damages must be proven. If the defamation if per se, damages are on thier face.
Ohio case
Tom Cruise is a public figure, as was mentioned, the New York Times v. Sullivan case cited internally mandates MALICE be proven in such a suit. For a public official, also MALICE, different case applying the Sullivan standard. The tabloid in mention was British, such defamation law may not be similar? This “may” be why he won, a weaker burden/standard of proof is needed?