Posted on 11/03/2014 8:41:48 AM PST by jimbo123
Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book.
On Saturday, HBO’s Lena Dunham sent a “cease and desist” letter to TruthRevolt demanding that we remove an article we posted last Wednesday on sections of her book, Not That Kind of Girl. The letter threatened legal action if we did not both remove that article, as well as print a note, the suggested language of which read as follows:
We recently published a story stating that Ms. Dunham engaged in sexual conduct with her sister. The story was false, and we deeply regret having printed it. We apologize to Ms. Dunham, her sister, and their parents, for this false story.
We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman’s book does not constitute a “false” story, even if she is a prominent actress and left-wing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book – and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like.
In particular, the letter from Ms. Dunham’s lawyers labeled as “false and defamatory” our claims that she “experiment[ed] sexually with her younger sister Grace,” “experimented with her six-year younger sister’s vagina,” and “use[d] her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet.” In her desire to curb First Amendment freedoms, Dunham’s attorneys threatened legal action seeking “millions of dollars; punitive damages which can be a multiple of up to ten times actual damages; and injunctive relief.”
We assume that both Ms. Dunham and her attorneys are capable of reading Ms. Dunham’s book, which contains the following direct excerpts:
(Excerpt) Read more at truthrevolt.org ...
If I was TruthRevolt, my reply would be “We look forward to the litigation. We shall be countersuing for court and legal costs as well as actual and punitive damages”
She is catching a lot of flak over this. She’s had to cancel a book tour because of it.
The truth is a complete defense to libel and slander.
IF it even gets litigated, she will shop for venues and Judges.
Probably be on the same ticket as sandy fluke (rhymes with duck). The header should have read: lena dumbass, revolting.
It matters not at all what the book says, much less what the facts are. All that matters is the selection of the judge. Given the possibilities there, I would expect this leftist bimbo to collect big-time.
She is just another sick liberal wanting her 15 minutes of fame.
There is something chemically wrong with this chick’s brain.
I really wish that this disgusting toad would go away and never return.
Doubtful it will go that far. Getting publicity for the types of kinky ‘experimenting’ Dunham admits to will not help her career (and a trial would bring plenty of publicity). Not even liberals are really comfortable with paying little sisters to kiss them on the lips, and timing the kiss to make sure it lasts long enough as, in Dunham’s own words, a ‘child molester’ would do. Not all publicity is good publicity. Somebody will get to Dunham eventually, and tell her to just let this go and hope people forget. Bank on it.
There are exceptions, one of which is for criticism.
There’s a hundred more just like her wandering around at Oberlin.
She must have thought that people would buy her book, because she’s “hip,” but not read it, perhaps because they can’t actually read.
It appears only Truth Revolt actually read her book. It’s been out for over 1 month.
Wouldn’t know her if I dropped a big stinking “deuce” on her head....which after reading about this pervert might actually turn her on.
There is also a reprinting rule that turns on what percentage of the original you quoted. This makes it nearly impossible to quote parts of songs w’out permission, since they are so short that almost any quote comes to a large percentage of the whole.
When it comes to books, however, quoting several paragraphs or even a whole page doesn’t infringe the rule. It will still only be a very small percentage of the whole.
Actually, no. Truth Revolt particularly states that they only found out about the most questionable quotes by reading another site—one that quoted the excerpts first.
It will be interesting to hear Dunham explain why she sued Truth Revolt for being just one of many sites to quote the excerpts, and not even being the first one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.