Mtv sex2k dating documentary
In reality, things are far more complex, raising all sorts of questions pertaining to misogyny, property, privacy, First Amendment, battery, defamation and libel. Her web site the type of saccharine fluff that would make most people nauseous, although, in Ms.Johnsons defense, pre-teen girls are its intended target.However, dig a little deeper and youll find an intelligent, articulate writer with a law degree and a pretty wicked sense of humor. Santuccis press release referring to him as a "parasitic smut peddler" who lives "off the good names of others." "If I made money off the site exploiting pornography I would be lot richer," he told me in a telephone interview for this article his first since the order was issued, and having declined, through his agent and attorney, a request for an interview by The New York Times. To portray him as a pornographer or smut peddler, however, is an easy way out for those quick to arrive at conclusions and are invariably wrong.
Youve perhaps had one too many drinks; youve gone home with someone you might not have otherwise, and then suddenly one morning you wake up and every single sordid detail you dreaded would ever be revealed anywhere ever, has been published on a web site alongside your image, exposing your weaknesses and flaws for the whole world to see. On May 6, 2003, a Palm Beach, Florida judge for the Fifteenth Circuit, Diana Lewis, issued a temporary injunction that was the legal equivalent of shoving the constitution as far up her ass as physically possible.When Katy Johnson, a former Miss Vermont and Miss Vermont USA in 19 respectively, experienced this horror following an extended encounter with a notorious writer with a pretty decent memory and a remarkable ability to recollect every nuance, if not tongue stroke, she did what any red-blooded American would do. The order contained -- among other constitutionally precarious items -- a prior restraint so broad and ill-considered it is almost certain to be reversed.As is most often the case with prior restraints on speech, Lewis lack of respect for, or understanding of, the constitution has done, and will do more to damage the reputation of the supposed victim in this case than the actions of the defendant.Are stalking, slander and "sex harassment"and "guys who disrespect sex" common enough themes with men in Ms. Johnsons suit is that "plaintiff maintains a childrens web site which details her personal and professional resume" and "commercially exploits her name and likeness in connection with her business, and has never publicized any facts relative to her relationships, or her personal and/or intimate affairs." Ms. Maxs site as containing "his personal biographical and private sexual exploits with various women, as well as related books and merchandise for purchase including womens panties, thongs, aprons, jackets, shirts and hats." (Italics ours). Johnson submitted in the original court filing refers to Mr. Max from "disclosing any stories, facts or information, notwithstanding its truth, about any sexual or intimate act engaged in by Plaintiff" and prohibits him from linking to his web site, or any other he owns, controls, or maintains, and finally, from "making any statement, written or oral, about the subject matter of this litigation." Should Mr.Johnsons life enough to impart this worldly wisdom to pre-teen girls (as she characterizes the target audience of her site) -- or is she as guilty of exploiting her understanding of her experiences with Mr. Publishing biographical information on a web site can not be characterized as "personal" any more than his graphic descriptions of his sexual exploits can be characterized as "private." "The issue would be different if she sued me for libel or defamation which would assert I am lying, rather than public disclosure of private facts," says Mr. An interesting component to this story is that real names are seldom used in most of the essays on Mr. Maxs narrative as his "claimed private sexual affairs with me" and later states she did not "consent to or authorize such private information, notwithstanding its truth or falsity, to be disclosed publicly." Nowhere in the affidavit does Ms. Max one day own, control or maintain Annoy.com, for instance, he would have to remove the code that links the letters the said URL.