Scoop’s Views

The attorney for former high-priced Washington, D.C.-based call girl, “Kristen”, seems to have forgotten something he may have learned in law school. Perhaps he didn’t learn it, which is why he’s flapping his gums so much, basically trying to intimidate newspapers and TV news stations.

It seems this attorney, Don D. Buchwald, is trying to say the media has “thrust” — interesting choice of words, especially given his client’s employment history — into the “public glare without her consent.”

What Buchwald is forgetting is that, well, she basically gave her consent multiple ways. Whoa. Again, double entendre time, it seems. First, prostitution is illegal, even in Washington, D.C. Second, she prostituted herself to a public figure. Third, she’s tied to a federal investigation, which is now public. Voila! She is a public figure. She has no say in the matter. If she didn’t want to be a public figure, all she had to do was lead an upright, moral life, obey the laws of the land, and keep her panties on for all but her husband. That is, of course, if she ever marries. <shivers> Bleck. Who’d want to marry an ex-hooker? Talk about sloppy seconds, that’s more like sloppy, um, I don’t … even … want to know.

I just love the part where Buchwald says “we feel” in his press release. I will get to the rest of the sentence in a minute. For now, focus on that part of the comment. We feel.” Are the two a team? Or does he just like to make it sound as though he is more than an attorney? I have no idea, but every attorney I’ve ever seen has always spoken in third person or first person, but never as a “team” — using “we” to discuss possible legal strategy. It’s generally something like, “I’ve been advised to …” or “My client wishes …”, so this “we” makes me think back to my high school days when people would say, “We? We who? You and the mouse in your pocket?” In this case, though, the mouse wasn’t in a pocket, per se, but more in the wallet and in the bed.

Back to the esteemed attorney’s comments.

Buchwald, in a press release, was quoted as saying:

“In view of what happened, we feel constrained to put the media on notice that as counsel for Ms. Dupre we will take all steps that we deem necessary or appropriate to protect Ms. Dupre from any unwarranted exploitation of her name, picture, voice or likeness for purposes of profit.”

It seems Buchwald and his client, Ashley Dupre, oops, he is calling her, “Ms. Ashley Dupre,” so please forgive me for my ignorance in recognizing a lady of the eveni-, er, lady of society and of social grace. It seems he and his client, Ms. Ashley Dupre, are upset that media outlets — newspapers and television stations — have visited her social networking site on MySpace and Facebook (nope, no links to her profiles, as I don’t want to try to wash myself after that encounter) — and used her photos, and in a few instances, it seems used some of her downloadable “music” she had available for her wannabe singing career.

But see, there’s this funky rule about “public figures” in the media. It came as the result of New York Times vs. Sullivan. Yes, there were other cases over the years, including Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc and Time vs. Firestone, so if you want to do some interesting historical legal learning, there is some information to get you started. Also be sure to learn about a few other factors that could figure into all of this mess. They include:

• The public official rule
• The public figure rule
  • General purpose public figure rule
  • Limited purpose public figure rule
• Private figure rule

Yes, they are all things I had to be familiar with years ago while working in newspapers. It’s hilarious the number of times people try to threaten or intimidate journalists, tossing about “lawsuit”, “libel”, “slander”, “defamation”, and all sorts of other cool words, but the people, all too often, haven’t a clue what the words mean, let alone the legal requirements. Then, too, attorneys often toss the same words about freely, and it seems they are hoping, at times, the journalists have no idea what the legal definitions are, and that they journalists will just “disappear.” Not likely.

So, was the not-even-innocent-in-the-bedroom Kristen, thrust into the public glare without her consent? It’s immaterial. She had sex — no, she hooked, she was a prostitute that sold her sexual services at $2,000 or more per hour, to a public official. Her very act was illegal, and I believe, though I haven’t checked lately, that Washington, D.C. a law about sex between people who are married but not to each other. Perhaps that has been tossed away, as outdated, as too many politicos on Capitol Hill would face charges under that law if it remained in effect today.

Then there’s the part about newspapers, TV stations, and Web sites that have “splashed” photos of Ms. Dupre in “suggestive” poses. Did the media outlets steal the photos? No. She had them posted on her public profile on MySpace and Facebook. What happens when you post things publicly? If you really don’t know, I mean, if you are really that naive, get off the Web now. Cancel your Internet account, turn off your computer, and forget about getting back on the ‘Net until after you’ve read, at the minimum, a book called, I Love the Internet, but I Want My Privacy, Too!, by Chris Peterson.

I Love the Internet, but I Want My Privacy, Too! by Chris Peterson Read more about this book…

Buchwald wants to argue, in the media, anyway, that “Ms. Dupre has not consented to the use of her photos in this manner, and it appears that certain of those photos were obtained in violation of Ms. Dupre’s privacy rights and federal copyright law.”

I think his arguments would fall in any court, as she posted her “suggestive” poses in a public place on a social network. Yes, there could be arguments about “copyright,” but as far as “privacy,” yeah, right, she gave that up when she was a prostitute and then sold her sexual tricks to a politician. Well, that privacy was shattered, too, when she was caught on tape. If the case goes to trial — and I hope it does — those tapes will be played. It would be interesting to hear her describe her talents, as perhaps they could give some insight into why she thought she was worth $2,000 an hour (or more) in the sack.

In the end, Buchwald and Ms. Dupre, it seems, are doing nothing more than trying to capture all the pennies they can while she is “popular” with the sick part of society. The part of society that thrives — and buys — anything tied to scum, scam, and scandal, such as books by former Mafia hit men, former prisoners (think Lady in the Kitchen and yard on her knees with an ankle bracelet), and others. Even Heidi Fleiss made money off the public once her name was made public. Then the money dried up, just as it will for this, um … Ms. Dupre.

In fact, I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. That will be when prostitution charges — multiple counts, even, and possibly “deviant” charges, such as for various yet-undescribed sex acts which she performed on the Spitzer or others — and hauled off to jail. That will be the funniest part of this entire story.

_____________
Technorati Tags: Heidi Fleiss, Ashley Dupre, Ms. Ashley Dupre, lawsuits, slander, defamation, libel, journalists, media outlets, newspapers, television, TV, news, New York Times vs. Sullivan, Gertz vs. Robert Welch Inc, Time vs. Firestone, public official, public figure, general purpose public figure, limited purpose public figure, private public figure, Kristen, Eliot Spitzer, New York, New York Governor, prostitute, prostitution, hooker, call girl, lady of the evening, hooking, ex-hooker, ex-call girl, callgirl, Don D. Buchwald, Washington DC, laws, prostitution laws, prostitution illegal, sloppy seconds, MySpace, Facebook, Chris Peterson, privacy, Internet, social networks, tape, FBI, investigation, recordings, copyrights, Mafia