Perez Beats Samantha Ronson

46. Love Perez

Posted at 6:02PM on Nov 1st 2007 by www.sugar-shoes.co.uk

47. How can this be justice?

That pink-haired, fat-assed SOB should not have won! It's past time to shut these bottom feeders down. They make up things just so that they can make money off of their advertisers.

I really hate Perez Hilton. He is such a big, slimy LOSER!

Posted at 7:34PM on Nov 1st 2007 by dalia

48. Sam sux

Posted at 9:13PM on Nov 3rd 2007 by Isabelle

49. According to a news article I read about this a little while ago -- Perez was being sued by Ronson for slander/libel for publishing an article accusing her of planting coke on Lindsay's car and tipping the paparazzi off as to where they would be, so Lindsay would take the fall for coke possession, etc. Ronson claimed it wasn't true and was suing Perez.

According to the article, the only reason Perez would like;y get away with this being sued, was not because Samantha may not have a valid case of slander/libel against him, but because her lawyer in order to sue him, had to prove that Perez was putting the information on his site for malicious purposes. And TPTB decided there wasn't enough evidence to show he was doing so maliciously and instead he was exercising his right to free speech. So it was likely the suit would be dropped. Which is far as I'm concerned is b.s. Anyone accusing someone of something like this on a website...such as Perez's, has to realize they are hurting that person one way or another - esp. if that info. may not be true. If it wasn't for that loop hole, the burden would be on Perez to prove (according to his "sources") that Samantha Ronson was guilty of the things he claimed she did.

I'm so glad I don't live in CA....you guys have some messed up laws. In my state --- slander/libel is not covered under the free speech...it's viewed defamation of character and false accusations -- that the one making the libelous statements has to prove are true, if the other party sues them over it. In this case, it would include Perez accusing Ronson of possessing coke and deliberately planting it for starters, which is against the law. And Ronson should have been able to sue him over it, unless his sources can prove their statements. If Perez can't back up his statements about Ronson with facts, she should be able to sue him.

Posted at 8:30PM on Nov 1st 2007 by SinCity

50. I like Perez's blog, but he's annoying (but he can rap a little) . I'm so glad I don't know who DListed is. please keep it that way.

Posted at 9:35PM on Nov 1st 2007 by Mollybird

51. "the only way that she would have had a case was if she would prove that he was slandering her, and she couldn't."

Ronson didn't have to prove in her suit that Hilton was being slanderous in order for it to be slanderous. She had to prove that his intent in printing those accusations on his site were done so maliciously before the suit could go to trial. The judge felt there wasn't proof of, which is not the same thing as Perez proving Ronson was guilty of anything he claimed. This is how Perez was able to get out of the lawsuit and thus was also able to then accuse her of infringing on his freedom of speech rights and the judge ordered Ronson to pay for his legal fees. That would be very much like, ScarletFBL, if someone knew your actually name, then printed on the net that you like to have sex with children, not in their opinion, but as a fact. Which I would assume would not be the case with you, but still, someone could make that statement as true even if it weren't. In which case, if you wanted to sue that individual for publically accusing you of being a pedophile, then according to what I've seen in the news, if the CA courts are involved, before your case even goes to trial, your lawyers would have to prove that that person had acted maliciously, regardless if the accusation is correct or not.

As printed in a recent CBS article on the case of Ronson vs. Hitlon, it was noted that:

"Ronson must prove that even if the report was erroneous, Hilton acted maliciously, Freedman said after the hearing."
http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/entertainment_story_284062033.html

I completely disagree with California's treatment of the issue of slander (accusations made verbally) / libel (accusations made in writing, or through pictures, etc). Slander and libel are illegal actions that are handled differently depending on where you live. If a person falsely accuses you of something as a fact, esp. something very serious, they must prove that their accusations are true - through evidence. The issue of whether that person did so maliciously or not, should not be used as gauge as to whether the case goes to trial. That part should be discussed, if at all, if the person accused of slander/libel is found guilty and the judge is deciding on the settlement Perez got away with his actions through the loop hole of intent (because of where this issue was addressed).

However, he has still not proven that Ronson did anything that he claimed on his site. Had this case gone to trial, Perez would have to prove that information - if he couldn't prove in court that his accusations were true, he would be guilty of libel . And if Hilton did prove that his accusations were accurate, then I would agree that Samantha should pay his attorney fees.

Posted at 10:32PM on Nov 1st 2007 by SinCity

52.
I get it now thanks # 50 by SinCity, But I sure do not agree with the way California handles this, It's just not right.
I believe that Perez did act maliciously in writing that article and a jury not a Judge pre trial should decided that.
Why do I have the feeling that if Ronson was someone with more star power it would be going to trial

Posted at 2:21AM on Nov 2nd 2007 by Bon

53. This guy better be careful... he's going to end up lying dead in a dark alley one day!

Posted at 6:43AM on Nov 2nd 2007 by tccbaby

54. Before we judge too quickly here - let's us not fall prey to Perez' propagandistic assertions that this is some sort of meaningful victory for free speech. Free speech in Perez Hilton's case consists of a morally bankrupt gutter-level form of lie & hearsay publication. To clarify the judge's ruling, he had to rule in favor of Perez only because it was impossible for Ronson to prove malice - not that she was wrong & Perez was right. This doesn't mean that what Perez did was noble, right, or truthful in any way. It just means that the famous must endure more [as TMZ put it] "drawn-on coke boogers."

Perez Hilton is a retarded 5th grader trapped in the unfortunate looking body of a grown-up man - he is not anyone's hero. His brand of lameness should not be encouraged. His day will come. He will be shut down, not by anti-free speech advocates, but by those who fully know what he is and the karma he deserves, and he will come to know unspeakable regret over his pathetic excuse for a life.

Posted at 9:30AM on Nov 2nd 2007 by chad b

55. Dont Like Perez, but good for him...this lesbo thought she could get rich, trying to sue someone for something as frivolous ast that...this record spinning bitch probably did give her the coke............hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha go back to spinnig you records, like any monkey can do......by the way is this chick a he/she or just plain girl that wants to be a guy........hard to make out what this lesho is, but what she couldnt do was get into Lindsays Pants...That was its main goal was!!!!

Posted at 11:57AM on Nov 2nd 2007 by GOD & POWER

56. Perez's Hilton i beg you go play on the freeway your the boy girl version of Rosie O'Donnell you need to get a cocaine hook up-cuz your fat -stop eating every thing you see-you are scareing the children-farm animals are afraid of you- just go away!!!! p.s. Jenny wants you BLABBERMOUTH.

Posted at 7:12AM on Nov 5th 2007 by Wonder Bread

57. BTW, did you ever posted your profile to a celebrity and millioniare dating site called BillionaireCupid.com? I just saw your profile yesterday on that site.

Posted at 4:46AM on Jan 3rd 2008 by Jennifer