Bier de Stone ( wrote,
Bier de Stone

Will blogging ever receive respect greater than being SPAT on?

In Celebs, the web and suits to spare by Harriet Ryan of Times Newspaper, we read that life without the blog would be scandalous. How so? Well, it's my opinion that people (citizens) like to take matters into their own hands. I bought a pair of shoes at Sport Chalet last weekend—the same Sport Chalet which, in '94 left a most curious message on my answering machine by a gal named Suzy—and a tall white guy in his early twenties makes a discreet remark toward me because I had paused at the Spyderco display case next to where he was standing and talking to a store clerk about something and I was supposed to know he was 'walking' there. "Excuse you." the young whippersnapper murmurs to an empty path ahead of him. He got my attention. Jocks can be morons with an entire regime behind them to give their support.

That is my explanation on how a blogless society could only be scandalous because the Times writes that Mario Lavendeira of is facing a libel suit just for writing his opinion about what he'd read on another blog called But there's more to this article than meets the eye. Apparently, the attorney who took the case to represent a celebrity because of slander being spoken, drops the case and is slapped by a lawsuit for malpractice. This trial is scheduled to take place in L.A. sometime in May of 2009. Is the attorney Martin Garbus worried? no. He is described as "one of the country's most able 1st Amendment lawyers "by Fortune Magazine. (Incidentally, FWIW, I would like to emphasize that Time printed this quote by capitalizing the 'A' in Amendment and using an Arabic numeral for the word First).

The picture used in today's article in which Samantha Ronson and Lindsey Lohan strike a pose together gave me the feeling that Samantha might indeed be an effeminate horse jockey. A guy where I work once mentioned a gig he had as a bodyguard and I know that his connections/clique include celebrities. So, if anybody read my blog, word my get around that I said Samantha Ronson looks like a dude with a testosterone deficiency. For that, I may pay dearly by having my digital camera taken away from me and hurled against a tree trunk.

If I had a digital camera and it taken away by a towering jock several inches bigger than me, and happens to be a rich SOB whom offers to replace it for free, would I stand up to him and brandish a Spyderco or much better a .45? would I say OK. Do you think I can get a better camera out of all this? Or, would I hire an attorney to try to sue the pants off the guy because the pictures saved inside the camera would never be recoverable in an artistic way? Considering I'm a peaceful type of person who doesn't carry sharp objects, would I stand up to him like a lunatic awaiting the beating of my life? writes
Ronson has accumulated a substatnial side income taking her pal in front of paprazzi cameras for money

This quote from the Times indicates Samantha is indeed female, but in the lawsuit that ensued, celebritybabylon was ordered to retract certain statements made about Lohan's driving and cocaine.

Ryan writes
Ronson was irate, and on the recommendation of a friend, turned to Garbus. Then 72, he had a vaunted reputation—Fortune Magazine calls veteran attorney Martin Garbus "one of the country's most able 1st Amendment lawyers"—and practice that included high–profile clients. At the time he met Ronson, he was representing Don Imus in a suit against CBS.

In this snip, the journalist quotes a magazine article for inclusion to her report. But when a blogger quotes another blog: LINKING TO A JUICY STORY ON AN ANOTHER BLOG CALLED CELEBRITYBABYLON.COM all of a sudden the tables are turned (like a lazy susan) and an attorney who is considered to specialize in First Amendment law is faced in the direction toward a gauntlet of buzz.
Tags: hollywood

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened