Problem
Lavely & Singer has become the law firm that celebrities turn to when they are concerned about a pending story in anything from the National Enquirer to the Wall Street Journal. Lavely & Singer represented Britney Spears against US Weekly in a libel suit for its publication of a story it ran on a sexually explicit home video that she and her ex-husband made. A California court dismissed the suit, explaining, basically, that given Ms. Spears's reputation it was difficult to defame her. The court said that because Ms. Spears has "put her modern sexuality squarely, and profitably, before the public eye," the publication of such information could not be considered harmful to her reputation, thereby meaning that one of the elements of defamation could not be established.
i. Is the court correct on the Britney Spears decision? Why or why not? Explain and support.
ii. Do you think that if she was not a famous person the court would have reached the same decision? Explain and support.
iii. Do you think the extra element of "malice" should be required for persons who are "famous"?