The Moss Muse

Perusing through recent articles, I came upon one reporting a suit filed by Kate Moss against News of the World because they had printed that she was three months pregnant. While it doesn't seem that big of a deal whether she is or isn't, and it's very unlikely that someone that read this had an epiphany concerning their feelings toward Moss (or anything else for that matter), she is of course very offended. The reason why isn't very clear, but this is the United States of America where everyone has a right to sue whether it is logical or not.

By typical standards, Kate Moss should not win her suit. Actual malice has not been proven and the newspaper stated that they, "now accept that [their] information was incorrect and that Kate is not pregnant."1 By this statement, they are expressing that they were not previously aware that their claim that Kate Moss was pregnant was false. Without intentionally spreading the rumor that she was pregnant, the newspaper cannot be held liable. Of course she still feels they owe her a sort of tangible proof of their apologetic feelings...

That celebrities sacrifice some of their privacy for their large paychecks is no secret, but whether they still have "equal rights" when it comes to defamation is debatable. While the celebrity may have negative things said about them, such rumors may actually improve their reputation while also providing advertisement for any upcoming ads, movies, or CDs that may be soon distributed. 2

The question therefore must always be in the back of one's mind whether "celebrity treatment" should carry into the courthouse, whether in favor of celebrities or not. In a case such as Moss's, News of the World would not be held liable for reporting that a civilian was three months pregnant if they had thought so. Then again, News of the World would never print something like that about a civilian. Which of course calls into question whether such a false rumor about a celebrity must have been done intentionally or not. It is possible that someone had it out for Moss and decided telling the world she was pregnant would somehow make them feel a little bit better about their less-than-celebrity-style lifestyle. Still, "actual malice" cannot be proved. Unless the publisher or author of the story states that they had known Kate Moss had not in actuality been pregnant when writing the story, no actual malice can be proven in court and the newspaper should not be sued.

No true damage other than a factor of annoyance can be derived from this case. People thinking that Kate Moss is three months pregnant should by no means alter their opinion of her. There is a slight possibility that some agency may have though Moss should not be hired given her appearance would not be as suited to Calvin Klein underwear ads as in the past, but whether the rumor had caused such a misunderstanding is not mentioned in the article.

In November of 2006, Britney Spears attempted to sue for 10 million dollars. The judge ruled that published rumors that Spears and her husband were trying to prevent the release of a sex tape were not enough to cause defamation since Spears "put her modern sexuality squarely, and profitably, before the public eye." 3 The judge never even addressed the issue of whether the rumor was true or not. While Moss had not put her sexuality "before the public eye," a report of her being pregnant is not of a prurient nature as the rumor of a sex tape can be considered. As Moss is married to her husband, it is not far from the public's mind to believe that the two would have "sexual relations," and so stating that she is pregnant is not defamatory in accusing her of having sex, either.

An interesting act passed in 1998 by the State of Washington was the "New Act," which "provides that every person (including individuals and entities) has a property right in the use of one's name, voice, signature, photograph or other likeness in any medium or any manner."4 Such an act puts to question the expanse to which this wording can be applied. If a person has property rights to their name, it is unclear whether this just applies to commercial usage of the name or use of the name in general. While Washington most likely refers to the commercial use of such personal property, it can be argued that using a story about a specific celebrity is in fat used to sell the newspaper. For the latter interpretation, any use of a person's name would then require an approval for that usage. in this case, Moss or any other celebrity would have the right to approve any use of their name. This right could be viewed as prior restraint. Any newspaper or tabloid would not want to report anything that could aggravate the person of whom it referred. While the "New Act" is not a federal law, it does open a whole new can of worms when it comes to First Amendment rights. By libertarian beliefs, anyone should be able to report anything and anyone should be able to report their own variation of a retraction of the material. By neoliberal terms, the government should monitor the usage of individual names and decide whether the information given is in the public's interest or not.

I wish I had lived in Washington and someone had for some reason plastered my name everywhere to sell...suncreen or something. I could've had one heck of a college fund.

1. Brooke, Stephen. "News of the World apolgises to Kate Moss for pregnancy rumour." Guardian News and Media Limmited 2009. 02 MAR 2009. Guardian Co. 09 Mar 2009 .

2. Mandela, Nelson. "Celebrity Lawsuits." Personal Injury. 2005. Personal Injury Info. 09 MAR 2009

3. Associated press, "Judge dismisses Britney Spears' libel suit; Pop star had accused US Weekly of fabricating story about sex video." Entertainment/Celebrities. 07 NOV 2006. msnbc. 09 MAR 2009 .

4. Ryan, Swanson & Cleveland, "Protection of One's Name, Voice, Signature, Photograph, or Other likeness." FindLaw Library. 1999. FindLaw. 09 MAR 2009 .