Great news: James Woods is totally stable emotionally and 100% definitely not a cocaine addict

http://gawker.com/james-woods-sues-t...ine-1721102183



Movie villain James Woods filed a $10 million defamation suit Wednesday against a Twitter user who called him “a cocaine addict,” according to The Hollywood Reporter. The probably-pseudonymous Twitter user, “Abe List,” made the crack July 15 in response to an asinine Woods tweet that called Caitlyn Jenner “Bruce” and hyped up the bogus Planned Parenthood “baby parts” scandal in one foul breath.


To which Abe List retorted: “cocaine addict James Woods still sniffing and spouting.”

Not much is known about the Twitter troll, but the Hollywood Reporter made some guesses based on his(?) now-deleted account: “The defendant’s social media profile suggests that he or she is based in Los Angeles, a partner in private equity, possibly Harvard educated and luckily, married to an attorney.”

James Woods Sues Twitter Troll for Calling Him "Cocaine Addict"

Abe List had previously called Woods a prick, a ridiculous scum clown-boy, and a joke, all of which are (delightful) opinions, and thus not anything on which to hang a defamation case. The “cocaine addict” crack (sorry) looks more like a statement of fact, one that Woods denies in his suit.

As THR points out, the burden of proof is on Woods to prove the statement was made maliciously. And, of course, he’ll have to identify “Abe Listed” first, probably by subpoenaing Twitter.

The defendant could attempt to vindicate himself by offering evidence that James Woods does cocaine, but basing a case on Woods’ cartoon alter-ego in Family Guy (who shares a dealer with Kate Moss) is probably not a winning strategy.

Better might be to argue that trolling tweets are a dime a dozen and a reasonable person wouldn’t treat them as true, and that Woods was better off reporting the tweet, blocking the troll (who only had 2,300 followers), and moving on with his life instead of filing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.

At least that way, he wouldn’t have entered the words “cocaine addict James Woods” into the public record and hundreds of Google results.

That's so James Woods

James Woods is faggot (allegedly).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

James Woods is faggot (allegedly).

---

hes actually addicted to faggots.

faggots made of cocaine.

James Woods lives with Scott Walker in a cocaine filled butt.

I will take this all in stride and re-watch Salvador.

Interesting.

I actually went through this same process last year when I contacted an attorney to commence a lawsuit against a "certain individual" who was harassing me and writing untrue/defamatory blogs/tweets about me.

It was actually pretty eye-opening.

Regarding defamation on the internet, you have to both prove that the statements are untrue (if they're true, you can say them, even if unflattering) and that they were posted with malice.

And opinions don't count as defamation.

So in the case of the person I was considering suing, my attorney stated that the most actionable claims were the ones that referred to me as "a scammer", "a fraud", "a tax cheat", and "am under investigation by federal, state, and local authorities", as I could disprove all of these allegations.

He also said that the malice part wouldn't be hard to prove, because this individual's blog disproportionately focused upon me, and all of the articles took a clearly negative tone. Furthermore, this individual tweeted these blogs directly to hundreds of otherwise uninvolved third parties who were connected to me in some way.

So he felt that I actually had a pretty good defamation case.

That was the good news.

The bad news was that, due to free speech laws, there was no way I could get an injunction against him writing further blogs about me. At best, I could simply force him to remove the provably untrue portions of the blog, and win a monetary judgment against him for what he had already published. If he were to write new blogs, then I would have to sue him all over again. Since this individual was also broke with zero income or assets, he would be uncollectable for life. And he lived 3000 miles away. And it would cost 5 figures to sue him each time.

So it was a no-go for that reason.

I, for one, would pay money to watch film of James Woods, swearing over a bible in court before a deposition, claiming he's never done cocaine in his life.

high comedy

Exhibit A your honor:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hufdWicJVE...eg/s1600/6.jpg

I would also like to introduce to the court Exhibit B, as freebasing most certainly is considered "using cocaine":

http://i500.listal.com/image/1914935/500full.jpg

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.NlCF...w&pid=15.1&P=0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

James Woods is faggot (allegedly).

---

hes actually addicted to faggots.

faggots made of cocaine.

---

Never forget james woods' cock driving sean young insane


"The Synopsis: As breakups go, theirs was a terrifying one. He, after a brief affair, had unceremoniously dumped her to return to his fiancée. She, enraged, began a retaliatory vendetta. Hate mail suddenly appeared in his mailbox. So did pictures of corpses and dismembered animals. Then, one night, he found a mutilated doll at his door—apparently a macabre reminder of his fiancée's abortion. The doll's neck had been cut and iodine splashed on its chest to simulate blood. White makeup was caked on the face to make it resemble a corpse.

A sequel to Fatal Attraction? Not quite. This drama isn't being acted out on the screen. According to court papers, it's taking place in the lives of two of Hollywood's most talented and troubled performers, actor James Woods and actress Sean Young. The description of the mail above, and the mangled doll, all come from lawyers and legal documents. Woods, 41, has filed a $6 million harassment suit alleging "intentional infliction of emotional distress" against Young, 29, his co-star in last year's The Boost. At a time when both their careers are on the rise—Woods in True Believer and Young in Cousins—both are playing roles in a real-life whodunit that has even Hollywood shocked.

While Young has denied the accusation to police and FBI investigators, and even denies having had an affair with the actor, Woods remains adamant that she is his anonymous persecutor. Wherever the truth may lie, the pair are now locked in a poisonous feud. While the movie grapevine buzzes with wild rumors about the entanglement, emotions are mounting on both sides, and lawyers are preparing for a mudslinging court showdown.

Woods's suit alleges that starting in the late fall of 1987, coinciding with the filming of The Boost, Young harassed Woods and his fiancée, Sarah Owen, 25, trampled $500 worth of flowers in their Beverly Hills garden, made threatening phone calls and put the couple on antiabortion mailing lists. Court documents claim that the material Young allegedly caused to be mailed "includes but is not limited to written letters and also...photographs and graphic representations of violent acts, deceased persons, dead animals, gore, mutilation and other images specifically designed to cause Woods and Owen...great emotional distress."

The butchered doll was particularly grisly and particularly sinister. The day after its appearance, says Woods's attorney, Dale Kinsella, "a note was placed on Woods's doorstep apologizing for the delivery, but indicating that the person who had done so had done it at Ms. Young's instruction and that Young was upset because he had [not hung] it from one of the rafters per specific instruction."....."

http://www.people.com/people/archive...119824,00.html

BTW, you guys might be wondering why the "with malice" part exists in the law.

It prevents people from being sued for simply posting rumors that they find interesting.

So, for example, take the recent thread I created about Crazy Mike being broke and owing 7 figures. It is clear that I am simply repeating things stated by others, and then adding opinion to it based upon my own experiences with Mike. However, at the same time, I don't have any kind of feud with Mike, nor have I ever bashed him on the internet (or elsewhere) in the past. So clearly my thread about him was for discussion and to be informative, rather than to slam him.

Therefore, even if Mike could prove that my statements in that thread were untrue, I couldn't be successfully sued, as he could never prove the malice part. (And indeed, there is absolutely no malice, as I don't have any personal issues with Crazy Mike.)

At the same time, the "individual" I discussed a few posts up clearly has malice against me, and has for 2 1/2 years. There are plenty of indicators of that, and it would be a snap to prove such malice in court.

So basically the "malice" part separates the people repeating internet gossip (or even just making up LOL stories for fun) from those with vendettas meant to actually harm the victim of the defamation.

In Woods' case, it's a gray area. It seems that the guy who posted the cocaine accusations has bashed him repeatedly in the past, but I'm not sure for how long or how often. If it can be shown that this tweeter was repeatedly attacking Woods, and then graduated to the cocaine statement, then it's possible Woods could have an actionable case. But given that Woods plays himself on Family Guy and his animated character does all kinds of outrageous/illegal things, there could be a reasonable defense that the tweeter legitimately thought that Woods really did these things in real life.

That, plus the fact that Woods is clearly a public figure, and is entitled to fewer rights when it comes to defamation from the general public than a private person has.

So this case is probably going nowhere.

JAMES WOODS IS THIS TRUE ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Interesting.

I actually went through this same process last year when I contacted an attorney to commence a lawsuit against a "certain individual" who was harassing me and writing untrue/defamatory blogs/tweets about me.

It was actually pretty eye-opening.

Regarding defamation on the internet, you have to both prove that the statements are untrue (if they're true, you can say them, even if unflattering) and that they were posted with malice.

And opinions don't count as defamation.

So in the case of the person I was considering suing, my attorney stated that the most actionable claims were the ones that referred to me as "a scammer", "a fraud", "a tax cheat", and "am under investigation by federal, state, and local authorities", as I could disprove all of these allegations.

He also said that the malice part wouldn't be hard to prove, because this individual's blog disproportionately focused upon me, and all of the articles took a clearly negative tone. Furthermore, this individual tweeted these blogs directly to hundreds of otherwise uninvolved third parties who were connected to me in some way.

So he felt that I actually had a pretty good defamation case.

That was the good news.

The bad news was that, due to free speech laws, there was no way I could get an injunction against him writing further blogs about me. At best, I could simply force him to remove the provably untrue portions of the blog, and win a monetary judgment against him for what he had already published. If he were to write new blogs, then I would have to sue him all over again. Since this individual was also broke with zero income or assets, he would be uncollectable for life. And he lived 3000 miles away. And it would cost 5 figures to sue him each time.

So it was a no-go for that reason.

---

In similar vein I was once a footnote in UK defamation law, or more to the point, my avatar was.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2...l_eady_mosley/

Comments

Dan Druff: so the Wiganer mentioned there was really you?


Yup. I looked into suing for the libel against "me" but was told I wouldn't win as you can't libel an avatar unless folks know who the real person behind the avatar is. meanwhile as people knew who "anomalous" was, he could launch his libel case. Someone Paid him £5000 out of court settlement, before the main case fell through. Fear makes folks do strange things.

Not sure about this but I recently heard someone else getting slammed on twitter and the thought from them was a "public figure", which they were, has little to no chance against a twitter blast as opposed to Joe Individual.

Also,

Mosley orgy judge blocks web forum libel writ onslaught

I took a look at that headline, then a second and decided I just can't at this point.

What literary giant put those words together and what in gord's name has Wiganer

done now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Not sure about this but I recently heard someone else getting slammed on twitter and the thought from them was a "public figure", which they were, has little to no chance against a twitter blast as opposed to Joe Individual.

Also,

Mosley orgy judge blocks web forum libel writ onslaught

I took a look at that headline, then a second and decided I just can't at this point.

What literary giant put those words together and what in gord's name has Wiganer

done now?

---

Are you suggesting that his towers are faulty?

Yipee!! Him not addicted means there is more for the rest of us!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Not sure about this but I recently heard someone else getting slammed on twitter and the thought from them was a "public figure", which they were, has little to no chance against a twitter blast as opposed to Joe Individual.

Also,

Mosley orgy judge blocks web forum libel writ onslaught

I took a look at that headline, then a second and decided I just can't at this point.

What literary giant put those words together and what in gord's name has Wiganer

done now?

---

Are you suggesting that his towers are faulty?

---

Dunno. Some Geordie editor no doubt.

Bye tunderin jessus bay, he might j'us as well be born on da rock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Are you suggesting that his towers are faulty?

---

Dunno. Some Geordie editor no doubt.

Bye tunderin jessus bay, he might j'us as well be born on da rock.

---

Why-aye man, he's off on the Toon gettin' mortal.

Druff with attempted murder of thread.