Blake v Justin: Nerdiness, mean girls and how to dress for court

12:51Shaun Kent:I'm just thinking about this, though. In order to explain the metaphor that's being used and how it damages the defense, are they going to have to explain the plot of Game of Thrones? because I've just had to do that for you a little bit.

13:05Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:Yeah, you're exactly right. Because if I had Taylor Swift understand, I'd have her explain it. You know, we'd sit in front of the jury. What does this reference mean? Tell us a little bit about this. And good lawyers will be digging into all that stuff and looking for the metaphors, looking for the colloquialisms. They'll be looking for information that could influence the jury. It is a simple, believe it or not, Anushka, when we are picking the jury, we might be looking for Game of Thrones fans. You know, looking for somebody who has said we want this person on there. They will understand the reference.

13:34Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:They'll understand how mean they're being. That's how much these lawyers will put into something as simple as that reference. And that's why we say your credibility goes on the stand. So it might seem like something simple. But something like that could sway the entire case.

13:47Shaun Kent:Yeah, but it's a to Lola's point of what she's asking. The inconsistency that she's referencing is this article that came out, which was supposedly supposed to have been leaked by Taylor Swift's camp. Oh, I just got the reference. Oh, the song. You know, for a real smart man, you could be real slow. That's a song. That's a song. Yes, granddad, you can get that on the jukebox. Gold star for Marcus. Gold star for Marcus. I get it. Okay. But what Lola's saying is about inconsistencies. We have absolutely no information, evidence or anything to substantiate the claim that that headline was leaked by Taylor Swift.

14:23Shaun Kent:So the only way that they could question her about that on the stand was say they had subpoenaed text messages where she's asking for that. or it came out in a deposition, etc. But they could get her on the stand and say, when you referred to yourself as being her dragon, were you basically saying, I will help you steal this man's film from him? Which obviously Blake Lively wholeheartedly denies. To the second part of that question from Lola, how could Taylor Swift recover from being part of this whole unfolding legal drama, especially with those text messages, which many people, and we know Lola feels this way, are seeing as cringey.

14:56Shaun Kent:I think she called her a complete weeb in that voice note. You know, we're not inside Taylor Swift's head, but I think if you look at her past, you can probably get a good picture of the future. Her artwork is very self-referential, so I'd probably be keeping an eye out for a future album that tells her side of the story of what it's been like through all of this. If we remember the Kanye West, Ye West debacle that went down with Taylor Swift a while ago, first him running on stage. Remember, this should have gone to Beyonce. She released a song about that. Then afterwards, when she was sort of cancelled for that back and forth voice note that Kim Kardashian released, she had a whole album about that and what it was to be cancelled and sort of refinding herself in the industry.

15:39Shaun Kent:I would wager that if she, you know, if there needs to be a version of this where she tells her side of the story, it would be in the form of music, in the form of sweet music. And I'm going to return to Lola now because we have a part two. Hey Lola. We have more. Sean is a lawyer and a certified fashion diva.

15:57Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:What was the legal strategy behind this last two comedy of showing up in the exact same fit? Diva, you said. Lola just became my favorite person. I need to, with all due respect, I did not hear the rest of the question when she said certified fashion diva. I need to hear it again. All I heard is Lola called me pretty. I didn't hear anything else after that. Was there any way I could hear the question?

16:22Shaun Kent:We have it again. Sean is a lawyer and a certified fashion diva what was the legal strategy behind this slap to comedy of showing up in the exact same fit so this is a reference to them turning up to mediation and they're both dressed in olive green and I thought this was a great question to you because me and you have spoken at length about the level of thought and detail that is put into outfits colors cologne you name it and you in particular I mean I'm not going to give away all of your secrets, but you in particular are very attentive when it comes to presentation. So they turned up both in kind of olive green, very neutral tone outfits, which unfortunately ended up matching.

17:03Shaun Kent:Can you talk through the thought process that you go through when picking outfits for clients and for yourself? Because I think that's some of the most interesting stuff.

17:12Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:It is. And I'm glad Lola, it's an interesting question. I didn't say great. It's an interesting thought.

17:20Shaun Kent:That's because, can I just say this? Because we are compiling a list of Seanisms and he has this, anytime you ask him a question, he goes, that's a great question. And then he goes, John Q. Public. And then he goes, well, what happened was, so yeah. And if anybody has any other Seanisms, do send them in because I got a little list going.

17:41Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:They do exist. Well, if you want to go back, Lola, and you look at fashion and the fashion choices that lawyers think about when they're getting their clients dressed for court, it's a big deal. We can go back to, say, the Menendez trial when Lyle and Eric Menendez were on trial back. And I don't know how old the listeners are out there, but if you go back and look at it, one of the big things in that trial was the fact that we are going to have the Menendez brothers wearing sweaters and cardigans because we wanted to make them seem much more wholesome, much more down to earth. fashion goes a long way of influence how individuals think we put people on the stand depending on the type of trial depending on the jury we want to be very conscious on what they're wearing because there are certain colors no matter what you are thinking that distract people if you look at cardi b's trial cardi b as much as she is outlandish as much as she is crazy when she was in trial she was wearing very muted stuff but it was still fashion forward if you look at aesop Rocky's trial, when Rihanna went to watch his trial.

18:45Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:I guarantee his lawyers were very conscious on the things that Rihanna was wearing because those are the things the jury are going to focus on. So if you look at Justin and if you look at Blake, the color of the season is olive. That is a color that individuals are wearing more and more. So I guarantee you they had two different fashion houses and say the public is going to be watching. We want to ingratiate ourselves with the people. So why don't we wear a muted color of the season? And they both just happened to pick the same color, a color that is going to make John Q public. Damn you. It's going to make the public look at these people in a very nice way.

19:19Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:You know, there used to be the old theory that we wanted to be careful when we dressed for the public that we didn't want to look too fancy or we didn't want to look too outlandish. But that has long gone the way of the Dodo. What we don't talk about is at the end of every day or on every single lunch break, if If you remember the Diddy trial, they would take breaks all the time, Anushka. And what would end up happening is in that break, the jury would go back to the jury room. They would sit down together. Now, they're not allowed to talk about the case. So what they're allowed to talk about are the lawyers and the client and possibly what they're wearing or whatever the other people are in the courtroom.

19:56Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:And so lawyers are very conscious. Good lawyers are very conscious on how their clients look, how they act, how they dress, because they know the client, the jury is watching.

20:09Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:What they are ultimately trying to create is going to replace humans. What it's doing is par-boiling the inside of your brain. This could be a turning point in the history of social media.

20:22Shaun Kent:Welcome to The Interface, the show that explores how tech is rewiring your week and your world.

20:27Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:Coming up next in our latest episode, we look at the secret meetings at the world's biggest AI summit, the truth about the mystery of a brain-melting weapon, and the lawsuit that could shift the future of social media. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

20:50Shaun Kent:Let's go on to the Candace Owens and the Macron's case. Reminder, the Macron's, that's the French First Family, are suing right-wing influencer Candace Owens for defamation. She has repeatedly claimed that Brigitte Macron was born male and transitioned to a woman in her 30s. In fact, she's regularly repeated the claims on her podcast and her many social media channels. And in March 2024, she stated that she would stake her, quote, entire professional reputation on her belief that Mrs. Macron is, in fact, a man. That's a direct quote. The Macron say this is a far-fetched fiction. They have repeatedly denied everything Candice has said.

21:24Shaun Kent:If you want more on that, please go and listen to the full episode we did with the Macron's lawyers, where they answer all of our questions head on. but we have a really good question from Kate from Australia. Hi Anoshka, love the potty being with you guys from the beginning. I had a question about the Macron situation. I don't really understand what the big deal is if the allegations were true. So what if she used to be a man? Isn't that her decision? If the uproar is over the fact that it was hidden from the French people, I kind of think that's the last thing that people should be worried about.

21:58Shaun Kent:I am sure politicians hide much worse things. Anyways, if you have any further clarification on this, I'd love to hear it. Keep doing the amazing and entertaining work you're doing. Big love from Australia. Brilliant question. Had this question so many times. What is inherently a defamatory about saying that somebody is trans? Like straight off the bat as an answer, the allegations that Candice has made are very, very layered. It's not just saying that she transitioned. It's saying that she stole somebody else's identity. It's saying that they're lying to the French people. If you pull directly from the Macron's complaints, you can see some of the other stuff that Candice has said.

22:36Shaun Kent:It says, quote, she then escalated her rhetoric, falsely alleging that the Macron's a part of a very small group of elite oligarchs who routinely practice homosexuality and paedophilia, believe in Baphomet, that's a satanic deity and worship a transgender deity that controls the world. This is yet another baseless, inherently implausible claim. claim obviously as well practicing practicing which is a weird way to put it practicing homosexuality isn't defamatory either but we can hear some of the other stuff that's in there incest she has claimed that potentially Brigitte and Emmanuel are actually related there's a whole list of stuff and the complaint is very very long and it really goes through every single thing that she said and why they're filing for defamation my question to you Sean is if she hadn't made any of those other allegations and she just said I think Brigitte Macron was born a man and transitioned in her 30s, would they still be able to file a defamation lawsuit?

23:28Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:Absolutely. And I love that interest in what Kate is focused on because it does make a lot of sense. And people need to understand, what does they say? One man's trash is another man's treasure. The case is not about what the public believes happened at this point in time to Brigitte. It's how she feels that she was defamed, that she feels what somebody has said about her, that she feels that somebody has said something that has put her in a defamatory light. The reason why I enjoy this inquiry so much, you see, I'm staying away from the word question. The reason that I enjoy this inquiry so incredibly much is times have changed.

24:05Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:And so what she's saying has so many cool layers to it because it's the world does not view the trans public the way that they used to, that it is not necessarily an insult that people are starting to understand significantly more. And so that is something that she still can say she's defamed, but somebody on the jury can say, I don't think that is a defamatory contact to simply that say somebody is trans. But their lawsuit doesn't stop there. As you said, it's got so many levels of the things that they have done that put her in a negative light. And she believes it has defamed her. But you're still going to have to prove the actual malice stance.

24:45Shaun Kent:Yes. So it still has to prove actual malice that Candace said something. thinks she knew to be false and said it anyway, or presented something as the truth while recklessly disregarding that it might be false. But I just want to add on to what you were saying about Brigitte will have to prove how it's damaged her. And I just want to add to that about cognizable damages. You have to prove your damages in a civil lawsuit. And when we spoke to Tom Clare, who is the Macron's lawyer, who's filed the lawsuit in Delaware against Candace Owens, he made really clear what Brigitte and Emmanuel have said their damages are in the wake of everything Candace has said about Produmacrom.

25:19Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:They get asked about this at events. I mean, imagine going to an event and having a friend or a colleague or somebody you're just meeting for the first time, you know, want to ask you about this, or even somebody who doesn't say something to you about it, right? You walk into a room of 100 people and you have to know that there are people in that room that are wondering, is this true?

25:43Shaun Kent:And there's another layer onto that, because they say in the complaints, defendants have subjected the Macrons to a campaign of global humiliation, turning their lives into fodder, for-profit-driven lies. So they're saying there's damages there with Brigitte because she's been on a global humiliation tour. That's been part of her damages. But on top of that, they say, you know, Candace has monetized this content. She's on multiple different platforms where you can monetize content. And she was also selling merchandise. She was selling T-shirts that said Times Man of the Year with Brigitte's face on the front.

26:13Shaun Kent:So there's an extra layer there. I mean, they don't, I think I'm correct in saying this, Sean, they don't have to prove motive for what Candace was doing to prove actual malice, but they have included that extra layer. So when they're telling, well, this is what they told me in the interview, when they're explaining to the jury what was going on, they will not only say what Candace has done, but why she's done it. You're spot on. Okay, so our next question is from Emily in the UK. She didn't want to send a voice note, so I'll read it out. She says, you talk about the defense of being a bad journalist as a defense against defamation.

26:46Shaun Kent:Is there a legal definition of a journalist or can anybody use this? I think this is a fantastic question. Sean, can you just unpack what she means when we say we've talked about the defense of being like a shoddy journalist before?

26:58Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:New York Times versus Sullivan, even though it says New York Times versus Sullivan, is actually a case in Alabama. It happened in the 1960s. It was dealing with everything that was going on with race issues in America. A gentleman by the name of Sullivan was a commissioner down in Alabama. He was trying to, you know, this is when we're talking about busing schools and things are going on and segregation and things that were end up happening. Well, there was an editorial or an article written about what was happening in Alabama, what was happening with Mr. Sullivan. And the New York Times put several inaccuracies, things that were just wrong inside of this article.

27:34Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:OK, they just put just some stuff that was just wrong. Well, Mr. Sullivan sued the New York Times. He got like a$50 ,000 verdict,$50 ,500 something. He got a big verdict against him. They were all happy. Well, New York Times appealed this all the way up to the Supreme Court. And our Supreme Court unanimously said, uh-uh, journalists can make mistakes. They can make innocent mistakes if they're in the effort of trying to provide the truth. And they came up with an actual malice standard because they didn't want to chill the right of a journalist to try to report on things. They wanted to give journalists a good faith, attaboy, you're trying to do the right thing.

28:13Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:So they created an actual malice standard. They said if a journalist is actively trying to hurt somebody, if a person is actively trying to hurt someone who is a public figure, then you can file your lawsuit, then you can go after them. They made that an element of something that needed to be proven. So what our Supreme Court in the United States has basically said is journalists have a right of journalist freedom because they have to dig. They have to try. They have to try to get that story so that the public can hear it. But every now and then you do have to answer your question. You do have a crappy journalist who doesn't do their homework, doesn't do it the right way, doesn't do things.

28:53Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:Should they be sued necessarily? No, but they still can get fired. They still can be blackballed. They can still say you're a bad journalist. But getting to the level that you should be sued and cost money, You have to crest that threshold that what you are doing is done with actual malice. To go back to the Candace issue, what they're having to prove in that case is Candace may be, and I'm saying may, may be a bad person. She may be a crappy journalist, but the McCrones are going to have to prove that the stuff that she put out was with actual malice to destroy them. It's not stuff that she reasonably believed to be true and not just a good faith mistake.

29:29Shaun Kent:But so if she says, I genuinely believe this from the digging, from the interviews I've conducted, from the research I've read, this was a genuine belief. And as a journalist, I am protected. I think, you know, from Emily's question, it's who gets that protection as a journalist? Because who's a journalist? Is there a legal definition of a journalist in the US?

29:51Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:There's really not. OK, like we all talk about like there's not a legal definition of a journalist because for Christ's sakes. It's involving everybody on social media. If you go on your TikTok right now, everybody is giving a story. Everybody is talking about things. Everybody is saying things. So there's not a legal definition of a journalist.

30:09Shaun Kent:Well, I wonder if there will be some sort of enshrined or entrenched definition of a journalist at some point, because when we were at the Diddy, well, I'm assuming so, because we are entering a world of newsfluences and they don't ring fence for credentialed media in the U.S. And I've told you a million times when we were at the Diddy trial, It was like there was the old guard, traditional media, and then there was the new kind of influencer journalists who were doing their own reporting unchecked. And that's only going to continue to grow because it grows profit as well.

30:40Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:So don't forget, we talked two weeks ago about a YouTuber was sued by Nicki Minaj, who was offering herself as a journalist and Nicki Minaj won. So even though I'm saying people are just on social media, public figures can still file lawsuits against YouTubers because, remember, defamation isn't limited to just being a journalist. Now, what we talk about is the reason that journalists are the ones who are usually sued is they have the larger platforms. They get out to more individuals and they usually have more money backing them. And so when we're filing lawsuits, I'm not going to file a lawsuit against John Jackson living in Minot, North Dakota, who lives in his mom's basement, who said something nasty about Donald Trump.

31:23Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:Trump's not filing a lawsuit on defamation to get him to get a dollar thirty five. Now, if John Jackson works for the Wall Street Journal and wrote a defamatory article about Donald Trump, then he's like, oh, there's money there. That's who I'm going to file the lawsuit against. So don't think the journalist title is what causes the bar for being sued. It's talking too much and utilizing that actual malice standard against a public figure.

31:46Shaun Kent:Well, that was a thoroughly enjoyable episode. I love these questions. If we didn't get around to your question. I do like these questions. Yeah, they're good. if we didn't get around to your question this week please keep sending them in because we'll do more of these where we scoop up all of the questions into one episode Sean thank you so much for being a diva I need that clip I need that quote I need to get a t-shirt

32:08Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:made that I am a fashion diva and I do not find any assault to that none whatsoever yeah merch

32:13Shaun Kent:incoming well thanks so much for spending some time with me today and answering those questions thank you for having me in the sky I appreciate you guys

32:25Shaun Kent:That was our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matandadati. If you want to send in more questions, which we want, we really, really want them. They are fantastic. You can DM me on Instagram and TikTok. It's Anushka underscore MD. And make sure you subscribe and turn on those push notifications so you never miss a thing.

32:52Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:Hello, I'm Alan Davis, and on BBC Radio 4, we're off into alternate realities mapped out by science. This is Life Without, where I pull one thread from the magnificent fabric of life and watch what unravels.

33:08Shaun Kent:Scientists around the world would be crying themselves to sleep. A bunch of mammals would be worrying about where their favourite snack was.

33:15Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:And we'd bring it down to Earth.

33:17Shaun Kent:David Beckham. I can imagine him putting that on the socials. My bees of my girls have all disappeared.

33:24Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:Sometimes we patch it up and crack on.

33:26Shaun Kent:We will survive. We will survive. Humans are ingenious. That is our hallmark priority. We should prize above everything else. But sometimes it's bigger than us.

33:37Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:Join me to find out just how far the unravelling can go. Subscribe to Life Without on BBC Sounds.

33:49Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:What they are ultimately trying to create is going to replace humans. What it's doing is par-boiling the inside of your brain. This could be a turning point in the history of social media.

34:02Shaun Kent:Welcome to The Interface, the show that explores how tech is rewiring your week and your world.

34:08Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty:Coming up next in our latest episode, we look at the secret meetings at the world's biggest AI summit, the truth about the mystery of a brain-melting weapon, and the lawsuit that could shift the future of social media. Listen on bbc.com or wherever you get your podcasts.