Spears and her spouse, dancer Kevin Federline, sued the publication last December over claims that she and husband Kevin Federline made a sex tape and feared it would be made public. .
A spokeswoman for the magazine said in December: "Us Weekly has a credible source, and we stand by our reporting."
According to the details of the case, US weekly reported that Britney and Kevin had told their lawyers that "a member of their entourage had threatened to release raunchy footage of the two".
Us Weekly also reported that the couple gave a copy of the tape to lawyers on 30 September 2005 and were "acting goofy" while watching it with them.
"There was no laughter, disgust or goofy behavior while watching the video in the company of lawyers because they did not watch any video, and because there is no such video," the action said.
According to the legal action, Ms Spears went to court after Us Weekly refused her request for a retraction, and "is instead maliciously standing by the bogus story".
“The article is libelous on its face, since it maliciously and recklessly portrays [Spears] as acting ‘goofy’ while watching? the video with their attorneys, the suit said.
The judge disagreed.
“It is clear that plaintiff did not bring this lawsuit because she was falsely accused of acting goofy,? Hart Cole wrote. “The issue is whether it is defamatory to state that a husband and wife taped themselves engaging in consensual sex.?
The judge went on to conclude that Spears has “put her modern sexuality squarely, and profitably, before the public eye? in a way that would make it unlikely for the magazine article to be found defamatory.
The judge cited Spears’ 2005 television reality show “Britney & Kevin: Chaotic,? which chronicled her courtship and marriage to Federline based largely on home videos shot by the pop star.
The judge noted that the series included scenes of Spears filming Federline naked in a shower, Spears interviewing Federline during a night-time bus ride while she was naked, and ?otherwise catching plaintiff talking uninhibitedly about her sex life.?
|
(2)
Comments
Judge Lisa Fart Hole should be disbarred. I guess this pathetic loser don't know what the definition of libel is.
("There was no laughter, disgust or goofy behavior while watching the video in the company of lawyers because they did not watch any video, and because there is no such video," the action said. )
Posted by: Julie | November 7, 2006 1:31 PM
I think I wanna see the Scarlett Johansson sex tape more.
Posted by: Joy | November 7, 2006 2:53 PM