Popsquire

After numerous protests, Perez Hilton finally issued an apology for the gay slur he hurled at Will.I.Am. The best part is that he’s donating any money he recovers from the civil lawsuit he filed to the Matthew Shepard Foundation.  Good move, Perez.

[Bauer Griffin Online]

PS: When will he apologize for those pants?!

Read the lawsuit.

Weigh in on whether Perez can win in the court of public opinion.

Follow Popsquire on Twitter!

UPDATE: The Matthew Shepard Foundation rejected Perez’s offer:

The Matthew Shepard Foundation was surprised to learn this morning via media reports that blogger Perez Hilton (Mario Lavandeira) has announced he plans to donate, to our organization, the proceeds of a lawsuit he is contesting over an altercation which has been widely reported in recent days.

We had no advance notice or contact from Mr. Hilton or his representatives regarding this proposal, nor any communication since he posted this plan to his website.

We do not know the details of the lawsuit, whether it has been filed, the nature of his claims or the likely outcome. But because the lawsuit presumably involves the physical attack prompted by Mr. Hilton’s admitted use of an anti-gay slur, the Foundation will be unable to accept any funds obtained in such a manner.

Citing his new (and valid) mantra, “Violence is never the answer,” Perez Hilton filed a lawsuit in LA Superior Court against the Black Eyed Peas’ road manager, Polo Molina.

[Bauer Griffin Online]

Perez is suing for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  If you didn’t watch his 12-minute video tirade, then you should read this lawsuit (click here).  Otherwise, you know the story.

The real question is how this will end.  Civil lawsuits typically are about money and most often end in settlement.  Perez likely has plenty of cash, so this lawsuit seems to be about proving a point and defending his right to blog.

You can hate him, but you can’t blame him for defending himself.

Related Story

Can Perez Win The Court Of Public Opinion?

Follow Popsquire on Twitter!

Technorati Tags: battery, black eyed peas, blogger, emotional distress, lawsuit, Perez Hilton, polo molina, pop culture law, violence is never the answer

Perez Hilton says: “I look forward to standing up for my rights in a Toronto courtroom shortly, as I fully intend to seek every lawful remedy against the man that attacked me.”

[Bauer Griffin Online]

He’s obviously referring to the infamous incident that occurred after Toronto’s MuchMusic Video Awards.  From a legal perspective, Perez is right. If someone hit him, then that person is guilty of battery and, as a result, may face criminal penalties and civil damages.  Case closed.

But, that’s only the legal case.  He’s also facing the court of public opinion, which often differs from a court of law and carries larger consequences.  So, let’s take a look at two big issues looming large over this incident.

First, Perez consistently asserts that violence is never the answer.  He’s right, but many people view his scathing blog posts as violent attacks and, as a result, believe he deserved what he got.  If Perez is truly surprised by this response, then he lacks introspection.

He has to understand that while no one previously hit him, many people have wanted to do so.  Moreover, his physical injuries clearly were minimal, which may explain some support for the violence.

The answer might be yes, despite a denial by Will.I.Am.

[Bauer Griffin Online]

Early this morning, Perez Hilton asked fans via Twitter to call the police on his behalf because he allegedly was “assaulted by Will.I.Am of the Black Eyed Peas and his security guards.” Will.I.Am says he “did not hit” Perez, and the blogger later posted an emotional video statement (click here).

So, who is telling the truth?  Technically, they both might be.

Assault is different from battery.  To be guilty of assault, Will.I.Am didn’t need to hit or touch Perez.  Instead, an assault can be carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.  In other words, if Will.I.Am threatened to hit Perez and got close to doing so, then he may be guilty of assault.

Since the incident, the Black Eyed Peas’ manager turned himself in and is under investigation.  The manager may be guilty of battery, but Will.I.Am also may have committed assault.

Popsquire will keep you posted!

Technorati Tags: assault, battery, crime twitter, denial, muchmusic awards, Perez Hilton, polo, pop culture law, violence, will.i.am

The beauty queen collision between pop culture and law continues on Today.  Miss California says she has no regrets about she answered Perez Hilton’s question concerning gay marriage.  Of course she doesn’t — now she’s more famous than the pageant winner!

Technorati Tags: carrie prejean, gay marriage, miss california, Perez Hilton, pop culture and politics, pop culture law, prop 8

Update: After being the first to report the lawsuit, Popsquire has obtained a copy of the (ironic) defamation complaint filed by Perez Hilton. In case you don’t want to read the entire document, Perez vs. Taylor, here’s what you need to know.

Perez is suing for: (1) libel; (2) slander; (3) invasion or privacy; (4) harassment; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The allegations include:

1. The defendant is Jonathan Wayne Lewandowski, aka Jonathan Taylor, aka Jaxson — a fellow blogger.
2. Jaxson made defamatory statements to the New York Post, Page Six, and other media outlets about a “purported agreement” between Jaxson and Perez to help Jaxson publicize his blog (www.jonathanjaxson.blogspot.com).
3. The statements include: (a) that Perez was using Jaxson as his “personal porn service;” and (b) Jaxson sent Perez sex tapes of himself in exchange for alerting Jaxson to breaking celebrity news.

Popsquire assumes he is not alone in celebrating that the sex tapes are not starring Perez! Either way, these guys have lots of ‘xplainin’ to do, and Popsquire is here to listen.

[digg=http://digg.com/celebrity/Perez_Hilton_Sues_Another_Blogger]

Technorati Tags: defamation, jaxson, jonathan taylor, law, lawsuit, lewandowski, mario lavandeira, Perez Hilton, pop culture, popsquire

In a new twist of irony, Perez Hilton is suing someone for defamation. According to the Los Angeles Superior Court docket system, a defamation case entitled “Mario Lavadeira dba Perez Hilton v. Jonathan Wayne Lewandowski aka Jonathan Jaxon aka Jonathan Taylor” was filed yesterday.

The docket states: “Defendant claimed Hilton was manipulating him for sex. He also disclosed his cell phone number.”

Popsquire is working on getting the complaint. Stick around!

For the update and complaint, click here.

Technorati Tags: defamation, jonathan taylor, jonathan wayne lewandowski, lawsuit, Perez Hilton

To get even for a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Zomba Records, Perez Hilton announced last night that he will not blog about any Zomba-related artists, including Leona Lewis, Jennifer Lopez, Whitney Houston, Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguilera, Pink, and many more. Zomba filed a lawsuit against Perez on October 11, 2007, because Perez allegedly leaked approximately ten songs from Britney Spears’ Blackout album before its release date.

Perez makes two big admissions in his strategy announcement:

1. Perez claims that Sony BMG — which owns Zomba — is making “outrageous demands” to settle the lawsuit. This means that the parties are discussing settlement, which always starts with “outrageous demands.” Expect Perez to cough up some dinero to make the case go away, although he may be kicking and screaming the whole time.
2. Perez writes, “Sony BMG may win this battle, but at the end of the day we will be the ones laughing.”  If  Zomba’s attorneys are awake, they will grill Perez about this statement in deposition.  Perez clearly has reached the conclusion that he may be held liable.  Find out why!

Popsquire ponders…

Unless you’ve somehow managed to avoid the most popular gossip blog on the web, you likely know that Perez Hilton’s YouTube account was suspended on Monday and then reinstated yesterday.  According to tvweek.com, YouTube emailed Perez a notice of potential copyright infringement regarding a clip of an allegedly drunk Liza Minelli and subsequently disabled his account because it considered him to be a “repeat offender.”

At the time of his suspension, Perez claims he was unaware of any prior offenses: 

Now, however, Perez blames YouTube for not emailing him at more than one account to notify him of the alleged violation.  ”I literally get 4,000 to 5,000 e-mails a day. They sent it to my regular address,” he told tvweek.com.

Um, I’d think Perez could afford to hire an assistant to keep track of his emails…he also might want to get someone else to brief him on YouTube’s copyright policies and procedures so that he’s not surprised by their standard practices.  He can find them right here.  

Having said that, if I were YouTube, I’d be rolling out the red, pink, or blue carpet – whichever matches Perez’s hair color of the week — to make sure he can post videos and draw infinite hits to my site!

TMZ and Perez Hilton are reporting that 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant.  Soooo many legal issues involved with unwed teen mothers, but let’s start with marriage. 

If Jamie Lynn wants to get married in California at age 16, she will need to make an appointment with a counselor, appear before a superior court judge, show certified copies of her birth certificate, and have one parent appear with her when/if she applies for the marriage license.

In Louisiana, she will need consent from her parents to obtain a marriage license.  However, if Lynn Spears has legal custody of Jamie Lynn, then Lynn’s consent alone should be fine so long as Lynn can present a certified copy of her divorce judgment/custody order.

Technorati Tags: california, casey aldridge, Jamie Lynn Spears, law, louisiana, pop culture, popsquire, russell wetanson, statutory rape