Limiting Free Speech

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Or taking back privacy?

Legal reps for Angelina Jolie gave journos a jolt during the run-up to "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" with a legal agreement that attempted to set new precedent in the already tense relations between celebs and the press.
The agreement, faxed to journos from the law firm Sloane, Offer, Webster & Dern, demanded as a condition of an interview with Jolie that journalists agree to not ask any questions about "personal relationships," that the interview "only be used to promote the picture," and, incredibly, that the interview "not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning and derogatory."

Junket vets are accustomed to pre-interview agreements.

But journos carped that the Jolie agreement took media management to an absurd level, and that even if they wanted to sign, their lawyers wouldn't allow them to agree to such a broad and vague contract.

"Many of the people who covered the junket felt it was an example of the publicists taking it one step too far," says Mark Coleman, exec news director of Star Magazine. "You can't really say it's an interview when you're so constrained as to what you can ask that you might as well be talking to a studio executive."

Despite the serious legalese deployed in Jolie's agreement, it appears few in the entertainment press opted to sign it as written.

Variety

How long before someone who knowingly signed this agreement breaks it & claims it's too restrictive, even though they signed it?
 
Gonz said:
How long before someone who knowingly signed this agreement breaks it & claims it's too restrictive, even though they signed it?

Or more importantly, who cares. If you don't want to answer questions about something to the media, don't. When they make the shit up (as you would expect them to) well, isn't that what litigation is really for? Strictly a publicicty stunt, IMO.
 
chcr said:
Or more importantly, who cares. If you don't want to answer questions about something to the media, don't. When they make the shit up (as you would expect them to) well, isn't that what litigation is really for? Strictly a publicicty stunt, IMO.



Is litigation still a private matter? Besides the media loves to slander celebs. Its a price that they paid for being famous
 
Back
Top