# Statistically speaking, do tabloids fare better in law suits than the people they smear/libel? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 20, 2020, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920 "2020-03-20T20:27:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2020, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/1 "2020-03-20T20:27:03Z")
Hi Statistically speaking, do tabloids fare better in law suits than the people they smear/libel? I’m not sure whether laws vary from state to state in the US with regard to libel by the gutter press, but they probably do from county to country. I remember reading about a popular defence that tabloids are just entertainer and allowed to exaggerate or lie. That may be oversimplified. I hope someone can give me an overview of how the Enquirer in the US and perhaps Mail on Sunday in the UK fare in libel cases. I look forward to your feedback ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2020, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/2 "2020-03-20T22:20:38Z")
Having read A Wild Hog Ate My Baby ( a book about tabloids in general with special focus on the National Enquirer), I’ve noted a few things. For a long time, suing tabloids was considered ‘beneath’ celebrities. They simply didn’t do it. The book also mentions that under US law, you can’t slander the dead. A living target can sue you. A dead celebrity is fair game. Finally, the best tabloids are expert trolls. They know exactly how far they can go and not be liable. OTTOMH I remember Liberace suing a tabloid for saying he was gay. He sought millions in damages. He settled for something like 1% of what he originally wanted. So, I’d say the tabloids come out ahead financially. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2020, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/3 "2020-03-20T22:40:06Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > OTTOMH I remember Liberace suing a tabloid for saying he was gay. He sought millions in damages. He settled for something like 1% of what he originally wanted. > So, I’d say the tabloids come out ahead financially. And when he said he had AIDS they asked for their money back. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2020, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/4 "2020-03-20T22:53:25Z")
A quick look at Wikipedia yields > [@](#): > > Liberace fought and settled a similar case in the United States against Confidential. Rumors and gossip magazines frequently implied that Liberace was homosexual throughout his entire career, which he continued to vehemently deny. A typical issue of Confidential in 1957 shouted, “Why Liberace’s Theme Song Should Be ‘Mad About the Boy!’”[60] ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2020, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/5 "2020-03-21T02:50:42Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > And when he said he had AIDS they asked for their money back. He never said he had AIDS. Indeed, he prevailed on his doctor to list his cause of death as heart disease, never mentioning AIDS. It was the autopsy by the County Coroner, against the wishes of Liberace’s doctor, that noted the AIDS cause. And neither of the 2 tabloids that he had won awards from ever seriously asked for their money back. They could have filed a legal claim against his estate, but neither did. They just tried to use this for publicity (as tabloids do). ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2020, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/6 "2020-03-21T04:49:48Z")
Carol Burnett probably should’ve gotten a lot more after she sued the _National Enquirer_: [Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v._National_Enquirer,_Inc). ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2020, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/7 "2020-03-21T14:41:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Liberace v Daily Mirror is a 1959 English legal case in which the American entertainer Liberace sued the Daily Mirror columnist William Connor for libel after Connor, who while writing under the pen name Cassandra,[1] published an article strongly hinting that he was a homosexual. At the time homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom.[2] Liberace was successful in the action and was awarded £8,000.[3] The award was the largest libel settlement for any case in British legal history to that date.[4] The Argus has described the case as “one of the most sensational libel trials of the century”.[1] (Wikipedia) Perhaps the problem is that lawsuits didn’t used to end up settling for millions way back when, especially in Britain. IIRC in 1959 the exchange rate was about $4/£1 so about $32,000 at the time when $5,000 a year was a decent working class wage or the price of a house, so not exactly chump change. OTOH, there’s this lawsuit over the movie about Rasputin, which supposedly resulted in the famous words added to every subsequent movie, “Any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is strictly coincidental.” In those days being raped implied somehow the woman was “damaged goods” so was a blow to her reputation. This is the danger of making movies about relatively recent events where the people involved may still be alive. > [@](#): > > The model for Princess Natasha was Princess Irina Yusupov, the wife of Felix Yusupov, one of Grigori Rasputin’s actual murderers. Attorney Fanny Holtzmann filed a lawsuit by Yusupov against MGM in 1933, claiming invasion of privacy and libel. The film portrays her as a victim of Rasputin, and it is implied that he raped her, which never happened. She won an award of $127,373 in an English court and an out-of-court settlement with MGM, reportedly of $250,000, in New York. As others mention, the requirement for serious damages is to prove actual malice when the action involves public figures. Not only do they have to be wrong, but the plaintiff AFAIK has to prove they knew or should have obviously known it was wrong, and chose to publish anyway knowing it was harmful. Barbara Streisand in her old age invented the Streisand Effect, which before then every celebrity already knew - by making a stink and suing, you draw attention to something that probably would have just caused minor ripples and been forgotten. (Also, IIRC, it was reporting by newspapers like the Enquirer that drew attention to the Lewinsky scandal and other Clinton peccadilloes when the mainstream press did not want to touch the topic with a 10-foot pole, probably giving such supermarket tabloids since then far more prominent profiles than they used to have. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2020, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/8 "2020-03-21T17:22:43Z")
There’s a recent, pretty good documentary on the rise of the _National Enquirer_ to semi-respectability which is worth a look: [Scandalous - Official Trailer - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqDsc4oChWo) ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2020, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/9 "2020-03-21T17:47:15Z")
To defame someone who’s considered a public figure in the US, actual malice must be shown. This differs from most defamation, which is based on what a reasonable person would know, because actual malice is based on what the person _actually_ knew. And that’s damn difficult. The celebrity would have to show that the tabloid knew they were printing a lie. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/10 "2020-03-22T02:22:16Z")
> [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > To defame someone who’s considered a public figure in the US, actual malice must be shown. Isn’t that a “relatively” recent development in libel law (for some value of “relatively”)? (Like, maybe, within the last 30 or 40 years or so?) ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/11 "2020-03-22T03:11:10Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Isn’t that a “relatively” recent development in libel law (for some value of “relatively”)? > > (Like, maybe, within the last 30 or 40 years or so?) 1964, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/12 "2020-03-22T05:37:02Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Isn’t that a “relatively” recent development in libel law (for some value of “relatively”)? > > (Like, maybe, within the last 30 or 40 years or so?) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). So if 66 years ago isw what ypou call recent. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/13 "2020-03-22T17:56:17Z")
Should also point out that British law is far more friendly to those suing for libel or slander, to the point where (IIRC) California declines to enforce British libel judgements. Whenever possible, celebrities like to sue in Britain. ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/14 "2020-03-22T18:12:19Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Should also point out that British law is far more friendly to those suing for libel or slander, to the point where (IIRC) California declines to enforce British libel judgements. Whenever possible, celebrities like to sue in Britain. It’s my understanding–and I hope I’m completely wrong–that truth wasn’t a defense in the UK until 2013. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statistically-speaking-do-tabloids-fare-better-in-law-suits-than-the-people-they-smear-libel/849920/15 "2020-03-22T19:05:55Z")
> [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > It’s my understanding–and I hope I’m completely wrong–that truth wasn’t a defense in the UK until 2013. Recall the case of the fellow who was head of the Fomula 1 Racing organization(?). A tabloid exposed his fun sex parties with dominatrix and Nazi themes, IIRC. He sued and won. The main point being - not that it wasn’t true, but that there was no valid reason to publicize his private life. I assume that’s more of an “invasion of privacy” issue than libel, but the point was they published something that harmed his reputation, even though it was true.