Legal News

Free Speech Prevails for 'CSI' in 'Libel-in-Fiction' Case

By Matthew Heller, Editor

CBS has won a major free-speech victory as a California appeals court ruled that it could not be sued for misusing the identities of two Los Angeles real estate agents in an episode of ?CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.?

Scott and Melinda Tamkin

A ?CSI? episode, which was broadcast in February 2009, featured the characters of Scott and Melinda Tucker, a pair of hedonistic married realtors involved in fraud and possibly murder. The original version of the script written by Sarah Goldfinger used the names of Scott and Melinda Tamkin, real-life married realtors who had met Goldfinger while representing the owners of a house she was interested in buying.

The Tamkins ? aggrieved at having their good names allegedly associated with the Tuckers' "reckless lifestyle of sexual bondage, pornography, drunkenness, marital discord, depression, financial straits, and possibly even murder? ? sued CBS for ?libel-in-fiction,? claiming Goldfinger falsely portrayed them as ?hedonistic, selfish and deviant.?

But the 2nd District Court of Appeal said in a recent opinion that CBS was immune from suit under California's anti-SLAPP law, which protects ?free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.?

?[T]he creation and broadcasting of CSI episode 913 is an issue of public interest,? the court said. The public's interest, it noted, was ?shown by the posting of the casting synopses [for the episode] on various Web sites and the ratings for the episode.?

The decision may be the first in which a court has recognized a ?creative process? defense to a ?libel-in-fiction? suit. ?The opinion appears to hold that virtually anyone's name can be taken in vain with no consequence to a media defendant,? laments Tamkin attorney Anthony Michael Glassman (Glassman Browning Saltsman & Jacobs, Beverly Hills).

A different 2nd District panel had opened the door to libel-in-fiction cases in 2007 by finding that a man could sue the producers of the Ben Stiller movie ?Reality Bites? for portraying him as a ?rebellious slacker.? Dyer v. Childress, 147 Cal.App.4th 1273.

The Tamkins alleged numerous similarities between themselves and the Tuckers depicted in the ?CSI? episode. Among other things, they shared the same first names, worked in the real estate business, and Scott Tamkin and his alleged alter ego both used prescription toothpaste for gum disease.

Goldfinger testified that she used the Tamkins' names as ?placeholders? for the names of characters, a common scriptwriting practice. But citing Dyer, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled in November 2009 that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply to the suit.

In reversing that decision, Justice Nora Manella wrote for the 2nd District that ?the Dyer court focused on the lack of a 'discernable public interest in Dyer?s persona.'?

?We believe,? she continued,

the statutory language compels us to focus on the conduct of the defendants and to inquire whether that conduct furthered such defendants? exercise of their free speech rights concerning a matter of public interest. We find no requirement in the anti-SLAPP statute that the plaintiff?s persona be a matter of public interest.

Manella's position echoes that of another 2nd District panel, which held in January that the free-speech law applied to a case in which two women alleged Dr. Phil duped them into appearing on his "The Dr. Phil House" show.

Any misrepresentations made to the women were protected speech because they were ?in 'aid of,' or in furtherance of, the Program,? the court said in Dieu v. McGraw.

By Matthew Heller
On Point

Full post as published by On Point News on March 09, 2011 (boomark / email).