According to published reports, a blogger in California
wrote that the singer supports white supremacy. Swift’s legal team responded by
denying the blogger’s claims, demanding that the blogger retract her article
and threatening a lawsuit.
Meanwhile, yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union
came to the blogger’s defense.
Read this news article by the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/07/aclu-scolds-taylor-swift-for-effort-to-protect-reputation/?utm_term=.3b3ca4bb76c5
Did you notice the mentions about “defamation,” “actual
malice” and “retraction”? Sound familiar?
After reading the news article, return here and offer your
reaction. Should Taylor Swift be upset, and should the blogger retract the
article? Or, is the ACLU right that she should, in effect, “shake it off”?
Offer your opinion, using what you’ve learned in Media Law class and supporting
your answer.
Be sure to include your first name, last name initial and
class (morning, afternoon or online).
135 comments:
Austin Cowan TTh 2:00 p.m.
After reading the article I believe that Taylor Swift has a right to feel upset. Being accused of being racist is never good for anyone, especially for a celebrity. Racism is disgusting and makes people unloveable. Taylor Swift is a pop-star who needs people to love her in order to be successful. Swift's reputation can be harmed by the bad press that blogger wrote about here.
However, despite the fact how I feel that Taylor Swift has the right to feel angry I do think she should "shake it off." The reason why I do not believe the blogger should not have to take down this article is that if they had to the blogger's right to freedom of the press would be infringed on. I believe the court should follow the star deciscis established in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Even though the press about Taylor Swift is negative it was written by a random blogger who has no proof to back up their accusation. A reasonable person should not believe it to be true. That is my opinion.
Austin Cowan TTh 2:00 p.m.
Ernesto S
Tue, Thur, 11 am
Although Taylor Swift has the right to defend her reputation, she does not have much of a case in court.
The defamatory article on Pop-Front seemed to be about how white-supremacists have adopted Taylor as their symbol but never does it actually include a quote from Taylor that would infer her support for the group.
There is no hard evidence that would point to Taylor Swifts support for such group. Although I found the story entertaining, I did not receive it as a serious story which is what I expect most peoples reaction would be.
For her to win she would have to prove that the article has directly affected her sales and she would have to prove actual malice, both which are hard to do. She should "shake it off."
Jackie G,
T/TH 11am
I think the cease-and-desist letter is and threat of defamation lawsuit are foolish paths to take in this case. By attempting litigation, it comes across as a defensive action with something to hide. With her place as a particularly public figure, she is subject to an extraordinary amount of criticism and she and her lawyers have to accept this. I am a fan of Taylor Swift, and for a long time I didn't feel like she had an obligation to publicly announce her political leanings. However; I find reactions to incidents such as these unsettling. They don't rebuke the claims rather than insist that they be taken back from the public eye. I feel like it would be better for her personal image to just make a statement saying that she is not a white supremacist, and these claims have no grounds in reality. She needs to give us reasons to believe her, because such a lawsuit will be impossible to prove and only hurt her further.
Should Taylor be upset? If she isn't a white supremacist, of course! Even if she is, that would be the last thing she would want to come out as it would surely ruin her career.
Should the blogger retract the article? No. It is the writers freedom of speech whether I agree with the claims or not (which I don't- I find them to be a wild stretch).
I believe the ACLU is right. As a public figure, she needs to buck up and accept the criticism. If she doesn't like what people are right in this respect, prove to them otherwise.
Am I the only one who thought the blog was absolutely stupid? Herning is seriously reaching by comparing what Swift is wearing to what the Nazis wore.
While her post is idiotic, Swift really has nothing to worry about. This is just more gossip about someone famous that will just blow over by next week. (I hadn't even heard of this until class, so goes to show how pointless Swift and Herning are.)
In regards to what we've learned and how this situation applies to Media Law, I agree with some previous comments. While Swift might find herself offended by these comments, as a public figure she has to roll with the punches and cry into her millions of dollars.
Shannon D. TTHR 11-1220
Kevin S. MC4301-11:00
I think it would be hard for Swift to win this case because she's a public figure. The accusations she's accused of would be upsetting regardless of public status. But, as we've learned all semester public figures have a very difficult time winning cases like this, and the First Amendment generally always prevails to protect free speech.
For obvious reasons, TSwift should feel angry and betrayed. The singer has always shows grace and kindness to all throughout her 12 plus year career. I am not a huge fan of her work so this is an unbiased opinion, so with that, I respect her for being one of the few child turned adult stars that has kept her respectful and classy demeanor throughout it all. However, even though it is obvious to most that she has no part in racism, this can be a hard case to win. The most difficult aspect of her party being is that she is a major public figure. The actual malice could be incredibly hard to prove because there is no proof anywhere. Being a well respected public figure, it would make sense for her to just accept the criticism and move on rather than be caught up in a potentially massive legal battle.
sara lange TTh 2pm
I do agree that this is a bold claim towards Taylor Swift I don't believe that she has a case. Ultimately the blog post is an opinion post, which if I remember correctly is pretty much protected like satire is. The author can make these claims, but in the end it's an opinion just like calling Trump a nazi (which I still believe he is). So I feel like this is protected by free speech.
Sloan P. (Online)
My opinion: I'm not a fan of Taylor swift but trying to ruining her career is not cool. The blog company or person obviously have something against Taylor Swift, if this is not the first time they have tried to slander her name. I feel the blogger shouldn't have post what they said to ruin her career, but Taylor got to understand when your a public figure that's what you get when your in the spotlight. I don't believe she is racist and her team is the ones responding not her so obviously she not worried about the blog. Also she cant control what her fan say or do and the reason they like her(even if its true or not true of why they like her). Some people just want attention and they will do anything to get it. Honestly if I was Taylor or her team I would threaten to sue only if it continue, but if its just a post so the blogger can get attention then just brush it under the rug.
Erika Sanders Tues/Thurs 2p.m. class
Personally I believe Taylor Swift should feel upset about her name being in this bloggers post about white supremacy, but unfortunately she knew what she signed up for. After reading the article the blogger never quotes Swift but only compares her music. Swift knew she would be in the public eye once she gained stardom. She just just come out to the media and deny the allegations instead of trying to take it to court. By not doing so, she is ignoring the bigger picture and then people will have reason to believe that she is involved. The bloggers post is protected by the Amendment and i feel like she should not get punished. Mean things are written about "celebrities" every single day. That is just the price of fame.
Brooke V.
T/TH 2pm
After reading this article, of course Taylor Swift should be allowed to be upset; but I don't think the blogger should take down the article. Taylor Swift is a major public figure and everything she does can be seen in the public eye, it comes with her life of being a celebrity. This is why the blogger's article is protected by the amendment. Sure, her feelings are hurt, but it's just an opinion.
Conner S. 11AM TTH
Does Taylor Swift have the right to be upset? Absolutely. I would be devastated if someone called me a white supremacist. It seems like President Trump, along with other politicians, are being accused of this same thing via social media accounts daily. Does he too have the right then to sue for defamation? Perhaps not. If we live in a society where one can be sued for expressing their worries over someone who may be a threat to our diverse culture, how can we "sort out the bad guys"? I think the ACLU has a right to fight for this blogger's freedoms.
Monique F.
2 p.m. Tues/Thurs
I think Taylor Swift absolutely has a right to be offended and upset by this, but the blogger should not retract the post. We all know the Sullivan case makes it extremely difficult for a public figure to win a libel lawsuit. As a celebrity, Swift is in the public eye, and that means the public will criticize her. It would be very, very difficult for her to come up with any evidence of actual malice, so she should just "shake it off" and accept that our laws protect the public's freedom to openly share and express information. The Sullivan decision was established to prevent powerful public figures from silencing a public source that shares an opinion he/she doesn't like, so Swift most likely would not win this case.
Abigail P.
2 p.m. Tues/Thurs
In my opinion, Taylor Swift has every right to feel upset. Being a public figure, reputation is everything, and she is a very prominent woman in this day and age. Sadly, though, she does not have much of a case to make in court. These allegations were made based on close to nothing, and it would be extremely hard for her to prove actual malice. The Sullivan lawsuit case made it hard for any public figure to win any kind of libel lawsuit, and she should have ignored these accusations to the best of her ability. Sending the letter made things worse, and gave the ACLU a chance to make her look like she is hiding something and/or silly for thinking she could even have enough of a case to take the blogger to court. The blogger is not going to retract the post because she sent a mean letter, and if anything, it made them want to keep it up more. Criticism is inevitable for a celebrity like Taylor Swift, and this is not the first time she has experienced something like this. She will not be able to silence the press, or bloggers in this case.
I believe that although the allegation made against Taylor Swift is most like preposterous, she is still a public figure that must accept these type of words being said against her. Proving malice in this case would be incredibly difficult, which gives her no leverage to win in this case. Since the Sullivan lawsuit took place it has become very difficult for a public figure to win a case such as this one. I don't believe the article should be forcibly removed, the blogger has first amendment rights to say whatever they want to say about Swift. The ACLU are doing the right thing by fighting for the freedoms of the blogger.
Alejandro A. 2:00 PM TTH
The blog post should not be removed. Herning has the right to post his interpretation of Swift’s music online. Swift is a public figure that will always be heavily scrutinized and analyzed in different ways. Proving actual malice would be very difficult, the blog article serves as a political commentary. I agree with the ACLU, removing the post would suppress free speech. Swift should just accept the variety of interpretations and know that reasonable people will not associate her with white supremacy
T,Thr 11:00 am
Although, the accusations against Taylor Swift are negative I believe she does not have a case against the journalist. As a public figure she is open to public scrutiny. From the article it states "without any evidence" the blogger accused Swift of supporting white supremacy. Meaning the journalist is only making an assumption about Swift; which could be false and is her personal opinion. With free speech Swift can come out and deny these allegations without suing. I believe the journalist article is protected by free speech as well. Controversial opinions are inevitable when you are a public figure like Swift. She has made herself an open target to criticism by the public.
Aaron M 11 am T/TH
This is the first i've heard of this story, but even then I can't say i'm too surprised at Swift's behavior. I understand why she's upset, but she is a public person and people have the right to criticize her. I don't believe the blogger should take the down because they are just expressing their right to free speech. Even then, I don't think it was in actual malice involved either, the article seemed more of a statement of opinion. The best course of action for Swift to take here is to retract the lawsuit threats and denounce any affiliation with white supremacists.
Bryant B 2PM T/TH
I honestly truly don't care for Taylor Swift, however, this article was an opinion. I think the blogger is using their freedom of the press to express their opinion. There is nothing wrong with that legally. I think the article, however, is very much a conspiracy maybe, maybe not. Simultaneously, the blogger is not in the wrong. I think Taylor Swift is always suing people, even her fans. If she is in fact not racist, she should simply "Shake it Off", because her true fans will of course not believe any of this. This blog in my opinion, wouldn't do much to harm Swift's reputation, it just sounds crazy. She can easily deny these accusations and move on with her life. Being a public figure, she will receive criticism and of course people will write about her, I think the best thing to do is deny it for her fans and her reputation and not pursue the lawsuit, because I don't think she has much of a case.
Taylor Swift has been around for many many years and I know this isn't the first critical encounter for her. I do understand why she is frustrated with this situation and I see why it would bother her this much, but I also believe it isn't worth creating a lawsuit over. The blogger has stated that there was no evidence of Swift supporting white supremacy and it doesn't seem to prove actual malice. Swift could easily deny these allegations without creating too much chaos.
Christina Noriega TTH 2pm
The statement "without any evidence" makes what the blogger said a statement of opinion. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. The odds are stacked very high against Taylor Swift as the blogger has a First Amendment right to express herself. The best course of action would be to retract the lawsuit and like another student said, denounce white supremacy to clear her name from this issue.
Jacob Adix
TTH 11:00-12:20
Since this is not Taylor nor her lawyer's first rodeo at threatening to take steps towards a defamation lawsuit, they should have known how to handle the white supremacist claims. While Taylor has the right to be upset, her lawyer should know by now that this rebuttal of legal force will result in more scrutiny for Taylor. Celebrities rarely win defamation cases, therefore Taylor and her team should deny all claims and move on! This is not the first, and probably will not be the last attempt at tarnishing Taylor's so-called "reputable character". If anything, Taylor and her team have shown naivety toward the media, which may cause more opinionate people to stir Taylor's pot.
Michael Miller
T/Th 2pm
I do believe that Taylor has a right to be upset and ask the blogger to remove and retract the article. Even though she has been in the spotlight for quit some time now, and has had to deal with other accusations, A statement or accusation such as this, could definitely have an effect on Taylor's reputation and cause defamation. Even though it is a long shot for her to win a defamation case, I believe that it's worth a shot.
Amanda Harkins
Online class
Tyler Hernandez
TTH 2:00
Swift has every right to be upset that she is be associated with white supremacy, but her status as a public figure makes the criticism, ridiculous to most but probably honestly believed by the author, protected by the first amendment. Swifts' lawyer is probably bluffing as, being high tier enough to represent pop stars, he almost certainly knows that they would not be able to pass the actual malice standard.
The blogger should not remove the post and the ACLU is justified in upholding an indivduals right to criticize public figures.
Taylor Swift has a right to try and sue to blogger, but as a public figure she will most likely have to “shake it off”.
While the blogger's words may damage Taylor's reputation, she is a public figure and subject to criticism. As in the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, public figures must prove actual malice, when making a case for defamation.
This would be very hard to prove especially given that there's a bit of truth to the story. Neo-nazis have shown support for the singer. This act may be unintentional, but she is in a way getting “the lower case kkk information.” This argument of truth may prove enough to throw out a case if it was brought to court.
If you don’t want to be associated with Nazis don’t use iconic Hitler imagery in your videos and denounce those views. Attempting to use one’s power as a celebrity to block someone's right of free speech is wrong.
-Rebecca F
T Th 2pm
I think Taylor Swift definitely has the right to be upset over these nasty things being said about her -- anyone would be -- but as a pop star/celebrity, these are also things she has to expect and know how to handle. That said, I think anyone in their right mind, besides maybe the people who already hated Swift to begin with, would consider this article outlandish right off the bat and know it isn't true. It is possible that her reputation could be harmed by these comments, but I still think her presence is so strong and established in our society now that it would take a lot more than that to really change how she is generally thought of by the rest of the world.
I don't think this blog post would be near powerful enough to do any real damage; in fact, I think she's only making this issue wider-known by making a big deal out of it like she is, but we all know that's just her. It would infringe upon the blogger's right to freedom of the press if it was taken down. I think the stare decisis established in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell is very similar to this situation and could be used as an example for this case, because the blogger had no proof to back up the accusation and a reasonable person would not believe it to be true.
- Olivia Hansen, T/TH 2PM
After reading this article I agrees that Taylor Swift has every right to sue. the accusations against her are vicious and mean, however I do not think she has a strong case if brought up in court. Due to the fact that she is a public figure and not a private person, it will make the case even more difficult. For her case to be upheld and possibly win, Swift would have to prove actual malice that the blogger was purposely trying to ruin her reputation and harm her image. although the blogger doesn't any evidence that Swift is a white supremacist, Swift would have to have concrete evidence that she isn't one and that would be hard to come up with. This case is more or less just an opinion war with no concrete evidence. That being said I believe that the private person would win over the public figure on those grounds.
- Kier Rouse, T/TH 11AM
Alejandro Bazan TTH 2:00 PM
Taylor Swift has all the right to be mad about the accusations. She is a popstar, therefore she is of higher status and is prone to criticism. Being that the author used puns to some of her songs like "Shake It Off" and "Wildest Dreams," its almost as it is kind of a joke to the author of the blog, which doesn't seem that serious. And if anything she should just shrug off the fact that this is happening because her fan base is so big that does it even really matter that this is an "issue"? But then I perfectly understand the whole white supremacist thing. Because racism is major issue today, it makes sense that it offends her because she has a following of so many different races. If the defamation case does go through, I don't see her having a chance f winning the case.
Gabriela (Gabi) Morris T/TH 11 a.m.
I believe that Swift has every right to be upset, and sue Herning for what they posted late October. While it is true that the Internet is a public forum for free speech, when you use your position of power, like Herning did, to make outrageous claims that have the real potential to damage Swifts career with no proof, is actual malice. The lack of thought and evidence had when associating Swift with white supremacy is malice because calling someone a white supremacist in our political climate is one of the most damaging things you can accuse someone of. It could be likened to "fighting words."
As far as the ACLU goes, the fact that the ACLU took the chance to make multiple "cheeky" jabs using Swifts lyrics in their letter, shows the lack of taking the allegations towards Swift, what it could do to her life and career or Swift herself seriously.
I understand why Taylor Swift and her legal team are upset about a post with no real correlation between her music and white supremacy, and how she wants the article retracted because it's gotten attention and is harming her reputation. However, since Taylor Swift is a public figure and in the public eye, she should expect scrutiny from the world, and literally learn to just shake it off. To me, the article seems way too outlandish to be believable in the first place. If Taylor wants to do something about it, instead of suing she could give a statement rejecting the article and saying she doesn't support anything it says she does. I also think the article would be protected by freedom of speech and therefore the author shouldn't have to be threatened to remove it. Although the article causes defamation to her reputation, she would have to prove actual malice to win a case of libel and that would be very hard if not impossible.
Kassidy Moore
T/TH 11 a.m.
After reading the news article about Taylor Swift, in my opinion, I can understand the reasonings behind why Taylor Swift is upset. However, she does not hold a very strong case in court. She is a public figure, thus making it more difficult for her to win any case she brings to court. Being in the public eye and a big name celebrity like she is, she has to know that people are going to say hurtful things, make things up, and be mean; whether any of it is true or not. I think the news article is a bit of a stretch from the truth, but Taylor Swift should just "shake it off" and not worry about it if it has not hurt her reputation.
Iliana Martinez, Online class
Taylor Swift was right to start taking steps against Meghan Herning. Although Swift is a public figure its absurd that she should be shamed by the ACLU for protecting herself from reckless accusations of being a white supremacist.This is libel considering Herning had no evidence to back up such an outrageous claim, this could be considered reckless disregard for the truth. Of course in an actual case its much harder to prove actual malice but I don't blame Swift for attempting to defend her image. When our day to day is muddled by white nationalists I too would want to aggressively distance myself from being associated.
Megan R. M/W 11:00
Of course Taylor Swift has every right to be upset about what was said about her. Nobody likes when people talk bad about them in a public way even if the information is true or false. Just because she is a celebrity does not mean that she does not have feelings. It has been seen recently with her latest song "Look What You Made Me Do" and Reputation album that Taylor Swift does not in fact shake anything off. In the bloggers defense, she does have the constitutional right to state her opinions, so there for she does not have to take down the blog post. You can tell by the article that the blogger has no evidence to support her claims. It is kind of sad though that this is the way that people get amusement out of life is to make up stuff about people. It's also sad that a person can do one thing and this automatically makes them a "white supremacy.
Taylor would not win the case because she is a public figure, and public figure are subject to criticism.
Maroulia Solis T/TH 11am
Taylor Swift naturally has the right to speak up and defend herself but since she is a public figure, a public figure are subject to any/all criticism. Just like all celebrities or people in the public eye, it should be known that not everyone is going to have something nice to say. She knows who she is and what she isn't and her fans should know that as well. Taylor Swift should just live by her song lyrics and just "Shake It Off."
Alana Z.
TTh 11am
Taylor Swift has the right to be upset, especially if she feels that she is being talked about in a negative light. Although, as a public figure, she is subject to public criticism. I don't believe the blogger should retract their article because they have a right to state their own opinion, and it would be fairly difficult for Swift to prove that the blogger meant actual malice. Taylor Swift has such a large fan base, I don't believe this one blog post would harm her reputation; If Swift feels strongly enough about it, she could make a public statement denouncing what was written about her to "fight back" another way, rather than taking the blogger to court.
Austin B
T/Th 2:00 p.m.
Although Taylor Swift, or any person for that matter, would be upset with an article that puts themselves in the same light as Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, she does not have a winnable case in court. The blogger is mostly correct in the claim that Taylor's legal team is using scare tactics with the cease and desist request. In court however, Taylor would not be able to defend herself as she's a public figure who is subject to intense scrutiny. Although these articles aren't fun for her to read, they were not consistent with actual malice or defamation and would be easily defended if Taylor appeared in court to fight for libel.
I believe that Taylor Swift should be upset because of what the article says about her. No one wants to be known as a racist, especially someone who’s income depends on an audience. I do however, find it funny that she wants the article of a blogger, who is blogging with little to no facts to retract her story. Where does the freedom of press fall in? I see silly articles on magazines or social media everyday that I know are not true about celebrities, so why make a big deal about it? I think the ACLU is right and she should just let this blog be another absurd blog in the media.
Alejandra Avila
T,Th 2:00PM
Michael Cavazos Afternoon T/Th 2PM Class
I believe Taylor should feel upset. In these extremely sensitive times too many people are looking for anything racial to highlight and call lout. Being called a white supremacist now could harm a celeb's reputation. However, she is a public figure and one of the biggest pop stars of our time. She should understand people are going to say a lot of nasty things about her that aren't true and they're going to get away with it.
I think anyone would be upset if they were being accused of being a racist and white supremacist when they are not. So yes she has a right to be upset about this, since there are a lot of people out there that will believe anything they read. But at the same time.... it the internet, take it with a grain of salt, you shouldn't believe everything you read, especially something that came from a no name blogger that is likely just trying to get attention by writing extremely outlandish things on his blog. In my opinion if Taylors legal team didn't bring this to the publics eyes no one would even know about this random blogger, but since they made contact with the blogger telling him to take it down, it brought way more attention to the situation than necessary. The claims are so crazy, and almost comical, it would fall right in line with the Hustler vs Falwel case. Because to me this kind of comical.
-Collin Dugger
Taylor Swifts popular name alone brings attention to whom ever uses it, especially in a demeaning way. As a journalist or blogger to accuse Taylor Swift of such allegations isn't exactly ethical providing that there is no evidence to support the claim but is however material for click bait. To get more attention to your blog is an important aspect to bloggers so to create these accusations was in a way smart because it provided Herning with the publicity i'm sure she wanted.
Taylor on the other hand should drop the lawsuit because there is no way of proving actual malice against her name, nor will she win in the case of defamation. From a PR standpoint Taylor should denounce White supremacy and ensure her loyal fans she is still an innocent tear drops on my guitar type of artist.
-Joseph Sarabia, Afternoon
Mary Knight, T/TH 2pm class
Yes, Taylor Swift has a right to be upset but then again she is a public figure therefore she will be subjected to criticism. Calling someone a white supremacist is hurtful but I don't believe she would win the lawsuit because no harm has been caused to her by one person's opinion because her fans will stay loyal. I don't think that they need to retract the article because everyone is entitled to voice their own opinion. To say she needs to shake it off is a little harsh, she is a human and has a right to be upset about it.
It is completely understandable for Taylor to get upset over this blog, it was a very harsh and unfair. Once Herning compared Taylor Swift to Adolf Hitler, the blog lost all credibility in my eyes. In some ways, Taylor should have been thankful how absurd the blog was, because you can only stretch a story for far, until people stop listening. Especially with no facts to back you up.
I was surprised that Taylor was willing to take this to court, just because at this point in her career, you would think she would be used to harsh criticism. Especially since in the past few years Taylor has tried to get rid of the "good girl" image, which opened the doors for even more criticism.
But in the end, it would have been a suppression of free speech to require Herning to take the blog post down, so for that reason, I am glad ACLU came to the bloggers defense. But there was no need to tell Taylor to "shake it off", there are more professional ways to go about it.
-Brianna R.
T/TH 2pm
I believe Taylor Swift has the right to be mad and feel however she feels, however being a public figure, she knows she's going to be open to a lot more scrutiny than the average person and that's just part of the job. It definitely could affect her image or potentially cause harm to her reputation, but most reasonable people are not going to conclude that she is a nazi based off of a blogger's accusations. I don't feel that Taylor Swift could win this case, especially with the recent release of her newest album and the overwhelming response to it, which shows the accusations are not harming her career. Even though the publicity is not good, it still is getting her name out there and bringing more attention to her latest album. Although the claims are distasteful, I don't believe that as a celebrity she can say they are bad enough to substantially damage her career.
- Allie Spaulding
(T/Th @ 2)
madelyn s byers
T/Th @2
While Taylor Swift has reason to be upset over the article, she has little to no case in court as she is a public figure- being a pop star. It would be surprising if she could prove actual malice in a court room against Herrington. Swift is publicly very neutral on politics and social issues and I think that a conflict like this could motivate her to have a stand on white supremacy. Swift is known for having publicity for playing the victim and it not affecting her reputation. Swift will likely do the same in this situation alike. However I do this this blogger and publisher is being less professional and baiting Swift for media attention with their song puns like "shake it off."
Jessica P. T/TH 2pm
Taylor has every right to be upset. As a huge public figure, she is being falsely accused of something that is, at least at the moment, a sensitive topic on the rise. However, I also believe Taylor Swift is a very easy target. She has let herself being a public figure get to her and retaliates openly, thus egging on her haters.
Case wise, she truly has none. There are tabloids that state celebrity nonsense all of the time, consisting of pregnancies and eloping that are simply not true. Celebrities are targeted daily, and the best thing to do it "shake it off," even if it is a far fetched statement. Unfortunately, that is the way the cookie crumbles.
Jessi Spain
T/TH 11-12:20 class
Honestly, I feel that Taylor Swift has every right to be upset. I know I would be incredibly upset if I was being accused of being a racist. Nobody enjoys being accused of something they feel strongly they are not. That being said, the blogger is fully protected by the First Amendment. Despite the upsetting material, Taylor really should move on and "shake it off." If she feels very strongly about the article and what effect this has on her fans, she has the option to do an interview and explain herself and the errors in that article. However, I do not think the blogger should be required to take the article down. The court should follow the decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, because even thought the information was negative, it was a random blogger who had no real proof on the subject material. There was no real proof to back up her claim, and any reasonable person would not believe the information.
First off I feel like Taylor Swift should be upset, or at least I would if someone made an acusation like that and it's not true. But at the same time, I do not believe the blogger should retract the article, it is his right to post that blog and keep it up. Yes it is true that Taylor should "shake it off" as the article says, but that doesnt mean that she can't be upset about it. Really I feel like the legal team made the mistake of sending the letter, becuase it just makes them look worse. They should have known they would never win the battle because Taylor is a public figure so she would have to prove actual malice, which is next to impossible. They were just trying to scare the blogger, but thanks to freedom of speech they really have no grounds to make the assertion of proceeding with litigation. All it would do is cost a lot of money for nothing.
Sean M (T/TH 11 AM Class)
Kyle Spencer T/Th 11-12:20
I think the ACLU did the right thing in denying Taylor Swift's lawsuit. She is a public figure, which opens her to criticism, and she could not prove actual malice. The article made reference to white supremacy and gave the writers harsh and critical opinion of Taylor Swift. The ACLU basically said suck it up and I think they made the correct decision. I also really enjoy the fact that it was Taylor Swift who got denied. She is basically adored in the public eye, and it could have been real confident for the ACLU to defend her, but I guess no one gets a pass.
Alexandra Glenn T/Th 11-12:20
I think Taylor Swift has every right to be upset but her legal team has so valid reason to ask for retraction. Yes, Meghan Herning made very bold statements that take a negative aim towards Taylor Swift, but celebrities know that they are subject to harsh and critical opinion/judgment. I think ACLU made the right choice to not retract the story because there is no raw evidence that Herning's statements are "provably false and defamatory." Herning also did not use direct quotes from Taylor Swift, the blogger just simply is biased. The chances of Taylor actually winning the lawsuit would be slim to none, so ACLU saved a lot of time by denying retraction. Celebrities are public figures, and with being a public figure comes risk of opinions that may be harmful to their reputation, but the public has the right to legally express free speech.
All the elements of libel are present in this case. There is clear defamation, identification, and dissemination. However, since Ms. Swift is a public figure she would have to prove actual malice within the lawsuit. The blogger, in this case, appears to be making a critique of Ms. Swifts music video. While she might not like what is being said, it is newsworthy and an interpretation of her public work, which is open to criticism.
In my opinion I can see why Taylor would want to defend her reputation and try to get Herning to retract her blog on PopFront because there is no actual quote from Swift that says she is racist, it is only implied by white supremists taking her as a symbol of white supremacy. However from a legal view I do not see how Taylor has a very good case when dealing with defamation. I do not think she will successfully prove actual malice and I believe she should indeed “shake it off”. Being a public figure goes hand and hand with negative stories in the press and there really isn’t much anyone can do about it since it is protected by the first amendment. I do not think her cease and desist order will stand and I think she will lose her case.
Amanda Stewart 11-12:20 t/Th
Alexander Wymore 11am
In my opinion Taylor Swift needs to “shake it off”. She is a public figure and should be treated as such. The coments from the blogger are harsh and hurtful for Taylor but she needs to get over it. The blogger has every right to write her opinion no matter how harsh it may be. The blogger will be protected by the courts if this matter is pressed any further, especially considering the direction the courts have taken in the current time period we are in when referring to news stories.
Elena Q 11 am
I believe Taylor Swift has every right to be upset, the accusation is hurtful and certainly contains defamation. Although to ask for a retraction, is also ridiculous. As a celebrity Taylor deals with many critical opinions from all over the world and just because an article making such accusations got more attention than say a random persons comment on her youtube video does not mean they should have to take it down.
Elisamaria T.
T/Th 2:00pm
Taylor Swift is a public figure, not a private person, therefore she must prove that Herning made statements with "actual malice"; knowing they were untrue and publishing them specifically to destroy her character. This would be a hard battle to win for Swift. As we have discussed in class, most public figures (especially celebrities) do not succeed in these defamation cases.
While the words that Herning wrote can be damaging to Swifts image, Herning does have a right to write about her opinions. From what I gather and understand about this blog post, it is a critical commentary piece of political speech. If the blog post were more upfront for example stating lies such as "Taylor Swift holds secret KKK meetings at her house", perhaps Swift would have an easier time proving "reckless disregard for the truth" and "knowledge of falsity" aka actual malice.
It would seem to me that Swifts legal team made threats to sue only to scare Herning into taking the post down; and they failed. I don't think it wise for Swift to take legal action on a case she will more than likely lose. I sympathize with her in the regard that being associated with White Supremacy is a horrible thing; but if people are already thinking these things she should work on changing the publics view with her actions and not by trying to suppress the First Amendment rights of individuals.
Taylor honey, shake it off.
Taylor Swift really doesn't have much of a case here. She would basically have to prove actual malice since she's a public figure. She's in the public eye at all times. Everyone has their own negative opinion on Taylor Swift and people will always have a negative thing to say about her on the internet. Public figures need to be able to shake off harsh criticism and opinions. They can't force everyone to like them.
Nathan Seibert T/TH 2pm
Caroline Markham
T & TH 2 pm
Anyone would be offended if someone called them out for being a racist or white supremacist, especially if it weren't true. So, I see why Taylor Swift is upset, and being in the eye of the public doesn't make matters any better for her. Yet, even though she is extremely unhappy with this blog post, I don't believe she has any say in tearing it down or discontinuing it's dissemination. This is merely the blogger's opinion, and proving actual malice in court (which is what would have to happen as Taylor Swift is a public figure) would be extremely difficult. There's almost no way that you could prove that this blogger published this knowing that it was as false publication, because in her eyes this is clearly what she believes. Though some of the bloggers statements are a bit of a reach, nothing she says seems to be outright lies or falsehoods, at least that we can prove. So lastly, my final statement is that yes, I think Taylor Swift should indeed 'shake it off' because she really doesn't have a case to make for herself.
It's my understanding that Taylor Swift is a superstar in the public eye, there's no doubt about it. Therefor, ridicule and opinions are going to be thrown her way. If the accusation was obscurely false, then she should've ignored it or better yet, make a joke of it- making light of a situation.
Because it's Taylor Swift, of course she had to make a big stink out of nothing. I completely stand behind the ACLU. It's not even a significant news source, its a blog..gimme a break.
It's crazy what a camera and a lot of money can do to a person, giving them a sense of entitlement to silence people's opinions. That's just ugly. I miss Michael Jackson ,that's some real pop.
-Austin Kinney 11AM TR
Yajaira S. T/TH 2 pm.
I haven't always been a fan of Taylor Swift, but I do believe she should upset about this. However, just because I agree with her being upset about the blog post, I do think she just needs to "shake it off." This is not the first time someone has spoken badly about Swift. I'm sure it won't be the last time either. After reading the article we find out that the blogger didn't use direct quotes, it was just him expressing his opinion. Also, she is a public figure which means she would need to prove actual malice, which can be hard to get evidence of. She knew was she was signing up for when she began her career, she knew fake allegations would be made of her constantly. In conclusion, she needs to just "shake it off."
Britney Butler
T-TH 2:00
After reading this article about Taylor Swift I believe that she does not have a case. While all the elements of libel are in place: Defamation, accusing her of something she says is untrue; identification, using her name in the publishing; and dissemination, publishing it. Taylor Swift is so obviously a public figure, I do not believe that she would be able to prove actual malice. Public figures such as Taylor Swift in this case need to except criticism and just shake it off.
Rikki Yanez
Tues./Thurs. 11 a.m.
I feel anyone who is being criticized has the right to be upset. However, the blog post claiming that Taylor Swift supports white supremacy seems more of an opinion.The article also states that there is no actual evidence that she's involved with white supremacy, so it makes it seem like this blog is mostly based off of an opinion. It seems as if Swift won't have much of a case since she will have to prove that it's damaged her reputation. She is also in the public eye making her a public figure, which she should be use to criticism and not take things to literal if she knows they aren't true. I agree with the ACLU defending the blogger, since the blogger is entitled to free speech/opinion.
I would say that Taylor Swift may have some personal right to anger, but no legal right to suppress the opinion of the Blogger. As one of the most famous people in the world she should not only be used to constant criticism but expect it. As a public figure it is totally fair for a blogger to criticize her image, even if it as serious as comparing her to a Nazi or suggesting that she is a Nazi sympathizer.
I don't believe that actual malice is likely to be proven and I agree with the ACLU coming to the defense of the Blogger. Free speech is free speech, even if it's someone saying something silly that's likely to be untrue.
Justin S
Tuesdays and Thursdays at 2:00pm
After reading the article, I had to really think about my opinion on this. It is obvious that a person would not want to be associated with something as controversial as white supremacists, especially when it isn't true. I haven't read the blogger's complete comparison and supporting facts on Taylor Swift's 'obvious' relation to the white supremacists, but at first glance and seeing the details in the article, it is my opinion that the blogger does have actual malice. That being said, I've learned that in media law, it is much more complicated. The comparisons may seem overly aggressive, baseless, and overtly attacking Taylor's Swift's reputation (which would classify it as actual malice), but with the history of other's making these comparisons to Taylor, it isn't an off-the-wall comparison. Another factor to think about is the political climate. In the past years, the alt-right has been more active and outspoken, which has caused many to speak out against them. If this blogger sees the singer as having these ties, and finds them dangerous to the public, you can find her point (as outrageous as it may seem to some). In the end, I believe that if it went to court, Taylor would find herself, as many others labeled as public figures have, in a losing battle.
I find myself imagining what I would do if I were in this situation. If it were me, I would not pursue legal battle. Not because the blogger may or may not be harming my reputation, but rather taking a higher ground as a public figure. You can make statements about how it is untrue, and perhaps make a stance against the white supremacists and alt-right. I believe this would make a more positive wave in her fanbase, as well as others watching the events unfold.
I guess what I'm saying is that she should just...... 'Shake it off'.
David S.
Media Law
2pm
Stormi W
Tuesdays and Thursdays 11PM
I feel like Taylor Swift has the right to be upset because she believes that the article is false and that its not true. The article is published and out for everybody to read. I do not think the blogger should retract the article because its what she believes.
In the news article it says that Swift's lyrics and images in a recent music video gave the blogger a reason to believe that she supports white supremacy. You can't control how people receive lyrics or videos. In court she cannot prove if the blogger wrote it with "actual malice".
I agree with ACLU saying that she should "shake it off". I agree because she is a big celebrity and people are always going to have things to say about her wether its positive or negative. She can't stop only certain people from voicing their opinions because she doesn't agree with it.
Carter W
T/Th 11pm
I can understand why Taylor would be upset, but because she is a public figure it would be hard for her to prove libel. The blogger seems to be only making speculation about what Taylor's lyrics mean and everyone interprets lyrics to songs differently. (Flash backs to The Beatles I Am The Walrus)
Unfortunately I think Taylor has drawn more attention to the blog than it would have gotten on its own. It is not a law suit she could expect to win and now she may be viewed in a negative light for trying to push the publisher into removing the piece.
Shania Eaglin
TTH 2-3:20pm
To be labeled a racist is a crucial accusation that can hinder anyone's reputation. I understand why Taylor Swift would be upset by the blog and it's attack on her character. However, because of the Sullivan decision, I have learned that public figures are not exempt from having to "shake off" criticism. In order to successfully win a libel lawsuit, public figures have to prove actual malice. This means Taylor would have to prove the publisher had knowledge of her not being a racist and proceeded to disseminate the libelous statements anyway. If these accusations are untrue, it's unfortunate that her reputation will suffer from falsity. But, we must always acknowledge everyone's right to fairly comment.
Bryson Hennington TTH 11-12:20pm
I think Taylor Swift should have every right to be upset. Being labeled a KKK supporter is not something that you would want to be labeled with. However, Taylor would not be able to defend herself as she's a public figure who is subject to intense scrutiny. The actual malice could be incredibly hard to prove because there is no proof anywhere.
Charles M. T/Th 11:00
Taylor Swift is a whole celebrity lol. I understand why she would be mad, but she should just shake it off in this case because I'm sure this blog post isn't the only one claiming Swift to be racist. Swift is a public figure and proving actual malice would be hard af. The blog is really based off of an ongoing joke and is more of an opinion. It's criticism...ultimately, Swift would lose the case.
Alyssa Nodorft T/TH 2:00
I can see why Taylor Swift is upset about the harsh comments, but she has a history of getting mad over basically anything that anybody says. Although the piece was critical of Swift, it was also an opinion piece that does really reach for alignments between Swift and white supremacy/the KKK. I am not surprised that Herning is not required to take down her article; since Swift is a public figure, she would have to provide proof of actual malice, and I think she would rather focus on her music than trying to scramble up some proof that doesn't exist. Celebrities must deal with critical interpretations of the music that they release and the actions that they take. Swift has a history of these sorts of things but until she flat out says her political views, she is up for interpretation by critics, and those critiques are protected by the First Amendment.
Tafari R. T/Th 11:00
Taylor Swift has a history of trying to intimidate people with lawsuits. I think in this case, the blogger has a valid analysis of how swift's music is being utilized by the alt-right. Her being aware of this but rather than take the simple stance of denouncing Nazis, she's suing a blogger. Taylor swift is undoubtedly a public figure and should 100% have to prove actual malice. I don't think Taylor Swift should be upset about this blog. She should be upset that Nazis are using her as apart of their platform. I agree with the blogger; if she's aware that some of the biggest names in the alt-right (nazi) movement are proudly claiming that she's sending subliminal messages of white supremacy to little girls everywhere but doesn't think that's worth denouncing, she's a part of the problem.
Gustavo Figueroa 2pm T/Th
After reading the article, I believe Tailor Swift has the right to feel upset about the blogger's claim, especially taking into account the current political landscape. The statement could potentially affect her career. However, in order to sue she would have to prove actual malice, and I hardly see a chance of that succeeding. I believe her best option is to denounce her stance against the groups she doesn't want to be involved with and just shake the blog post off. There's not much else she could do.
I found this article to be a defamatory statement given that she is being labeled as a supporter of white supremacy with no proof. However, she is a public figure which is important to consider because she should expect to be criticized.
This was clearly a journalist attempting to damage her reputation and disseminate her audience. The writer had reckless disregard for the truth in this piece. However, you cannot punish someone based on opinion or something you don't like.
Ramzi Alradaideh TTH 11 am
Taylor Swift has every right to be upset, being called a racist is a hard thing to shake off. However any bad blood this has caused between her and her fans as far as legality goes un-punishable. The reporter didnt make any claims based in fact and merely took things that she saw from Swift's videos public attitude and simply made an observation. It isnt libel its simply a badly written opinion piece, the thought of a mega star like Swift even engaging with something like this is concerning in and of itself. The claims are so outlandish that Swift is actually hurting herself more by engaging with it to this degree. In order for her to even put together a libel case she would have to prove actual malice and that it has directly affected her career which I highly doubt even analysts her money could by could figure out.
Kaelynn D T/TH 11:00
I definitely feel like the article should be retracted because when we talk about opinions, opinions are not protected by the 1st amendment and from what the blogger wrote it seems to be an assumption not fact. Maybe some of her things in the video could have been taken one way or the other but until it proven fact how is there a case? I believe if Swift’s takes this to trial there is a low success rate but I don’t believe the blogger has enough evidence to back her claim
Laura V 11am
Because Taylor Swift is a public figure which complicates a lot of things for her. The accusations made towards her can ultimately change people's way of viewing her. Famous or not, no one should be accused of such thing especially if it harms her reputation. Free speech is protected and it is very difficult for public figures to win these types of cases. Even though I'm not a fan of Taylor Swift, I do believe she has the right to be mad and try her best to save her reputation.
Raquel R T/TH 2:00 PM
Yes, I think Taylor Swift has a right to be upset, the claims they are making against her are defamatory. She is one of the biggest pop stars so this article would have captured a lot of readers who may believe the claims the author is making, therefore harming her reputation. The decision in Sullivan made celebrities have to prove actual malice which is hard for public figures to prove so although the article is outlandish I don't think she should sue because it would be hard to prove actual malice and may bring even more attention to the article but I do fully think she has a right to be upset with the whole situation.
Sierra Wiseman (TTH 2)
While I understand why Taylor Swift would be upset, she does not have a legal standing. She is a public figure. She is voluntarily setting herself up for these kind of remarks. I believe she, and her team, is trying way too hard to push a new image. The image of a woman who does not take anything from anyone. I do not think the blogger should have posted what she did; that is my opinion, and she posted her own. Taylor will have a very hard time trying to find actual malice to prove libel guilt.
Kelly Newton (TTH 11)
The blogger's article, while far-fetched and probably nonsense, is covered by free speech. The ACLU has every right to back that blogger up. It's like the majority of the cases we've studied - just becuase we don't like what they've written, doesn't mean they're not allowed to write it. And as a public figure, Swift would have a lot of work to do to prove libel or emotional distress in court. It seems like she was threatening libel with the language being used (defamation), but she would have a hard time proving actual malice or proof of damage to her reputation.
Kyndal Runnels
T/TH 2-3:20
I do believe that Taylor Swift has every right to be upset about these accusations made against her, just because she's a public figure and celebrity doesn't mean she can't still be upset about this. With that being said though, she is a celebrity and public figure so by default being ridiculed comes with the territory and celebrities know that going into the profession. Although Taylor Swift probably doesn't actually support white supremacy, there are no hard stated facts anywhere proving that she actually doesn't support it. With no proven facts I would say that the blogger did not use actual malice against Taylor, so Swift and her team cannot sue for libel due to there being no evidence of actual malice. In terms of retracting the article I believe that's really up to the blogger if she wants to retract it or not, since no actual malice is proven I don't believe she would be forced to take down the article by the court so it would just be an ethical decision at that point for the blogger.
Terell McDonald - Tuesday and Thursday 11 a.m.
Because the blog is written based on opinion, I believe Taylor swift wouldn’t have a case. The court is right, she’s a public figure and with that comes articles like these to say the least. Also, the article doesn’t have proof, so if anything, Swift’s reputation wouldn’t be altered because of her largely committed fan base. She would have time pricing actual malice or proof of damage because of this reason. The editor of the article did the right thing by keeping it up because that’s the right that they have under free speech. I understand why it would trigger Taylor Swift- we’re all human- but she would have no legal standing here.
Mariah, W.
Afternoon class, T/TH 2:00pm
I believe that the ACLU is right. From what we have learned in class, celebrities have to expect criticism from being in the public light. That is what comes with the job whether they like it or not. It will be hard for Swift to prove actual malice.
Also, they are threatening her with a lawsuit to produce the chilling effect that we've talked about in class too. Writers should not feel as though they have to retract their stories in fear of a lawsuit. It is the blogger's right to have an opinion and write about it. Swift needs to shake it off.
Molly Johnson 11am
I think anyone would be upset if they were portrayed as a racist, if they really aren't. Of course Taylor would want the article retracted, but the article is protected by the free speech (which includes political speech) part of the First Amendment.
In defense of the article and author, the ACLU pretty much destroyed any case that Taylor might try to pursue with the simple statement, “The blog post is a mix of core political speech and critical commentary; it discusses current politics in this country, the recent rise of white supremacy, and the fact that some white supremacists have apparently embraced Ms. Swift, along with a critical interpretation of some of Ms. Swift’s music, lyrics, and videos.”
I do think the ACLU was being insulting in their response that she should "shake it off" and that "not even in your wildest dreams" could her claims "constitute defamation."
Naomi G. 11am
I personally love Taylor Swift! And I am no white supremacist. I think every one should just give Tay Tay a break and just enjoy her new album!
Personal feelings aside, and back to Media Law. Yes I feel bad for Taylor, but she is considered to be a public figure, who voluntarily places herself before the public eye. Not only will she have to prove actual malice to win a libel case, but but she also has one of the major defenses for libel against her. Just like in the case of Hutchinson v. Proxmire, the defense of fair comment and criticism protects hostile opinions and reinforces the idea that people in the public eye should expect criticism. So I'm sorry Tay Tay, but you have no case, so "Shake It Off."
I personally think Taylor Swift should "shake it off" because it is going to be very hard to prove actual malice. She is a public figure which means she is available to more media platforms to address the issue. It is going to be hard for her to prove that her support for white supremacy is false, therefore, she should just shake off the issue. She should really practice what she preaches.
Leean V T/Th 11am
Taylor Swift is constantly getting tossed around by the media. I do not believe that she has done any wrong. It would be difficult to prove malice.
The blogger had a very strong opinion about Swift and people who are to lazy to seek the truth are getting pulled into believing that she is actually a malicious person.
She cannot change who she is as a person or a public figure. She honestly shouldn't worry about it or "Shake it Off".
If she continues to defend herself as a non-racist person, it may seem that she is hiding something.
Eric R. T/Th 2PM
Maci N T/TH 2 pm
While I believe that Taylor Swift has the right to be upset, I think she should just "shake it off". Nobody wants to be labeled as a white supremacist, especially not a celebrity who relies on good publicity to generate revenue. From a public relations standpoint, this is not a good situation. However, Taylor Swift is a public figure and attracts attention, both good and bad. Part of me wants to say that she should be prepared for some backlash and accusations, even if they are not true. It is hard to prove any actual malice unless she can document a significant decrease in sales after the blog post was released, so I would advise Taylor to just shake it off and wait for the next celebrity to be accused of something. After the slew of sexual harassment cases occurring in the media, Taylor Swift's only relevance at this point is her new album.
Because Taylor Swift is considered an "all-purpose public figure," I think she should certainly "shake it off." She does not have a case for actual malice or emotional distress because I do not think that she could prove that this blog post caused harm to her famed reputation, humiliation or mental suffering. White supremacy is an extremely controversial topic right now, so the content of the blog post is protected by the First Amendment because it is critical commentary and considered political speech. I do not think the defendant had reckless disregard of the truth, therefore, I do not think the plaintiff, Taylor Swift, has a case against her.
Judith S. Krell T/Th 2:00
Alex B. T/Th 11am
I think since Taylor Swift is such a well-known public figure, she has to accept that articles like that are going to come up, regardless of how ridiculous it might sound. The bloggers post is protected by the 1st Amendment, and Swift has no case against the blog. I'm pretty confidant that the post isn't hurting her reputation, because nothing she herself does supports that she is a white supremacist, and to say that it hurting her is arguably false. If anything, it could be claimed that the increased publicity or the supposed white supremacist supporters are helping her record sales.
In my opinion, rather than taking legal action against such claims, she should use her unique public platform to disprove the false claims through her actions. I'm not saying that she should go to rallies or political events on the opposite side just to prove she's not a white supremacist, but she could talk about why she doesn't condone the actions of white supremacists if that's her view.
Although being accused of white supremacy is a kind of a big deal these days, I don't think Taylor Swift really has a chance of winning any case. She's considered a public figure, even though I'm not a fan of her. When you throw yourself into stardom, naturally people are going to have an opinion towards you whether it is negative or positive. Besides, I don't believe one person's opinion could cause her any harm especially since her album is still selling. Very hard to prove damages in this instance, so I'm going to say that Taylor Swift should just "shake it off".
Jenise Jackson
T/Th 2:00
Taylor Swift should not be angry, hurt or aggressively responsive to anyone who may or may not question her reputation. If Taylor was actually hurt she would respond like a private citizen with respect and forgiveness. She could also use her power as a public figure to address false claims but that isn't what she wants and it has never been what she wanted. Taylor Swift has been subject to slander and libel in the past on multiple platforms such as Tumblr, Youtube, pintrest, etc. and has reacted the same way. Lawyers, lawsuits and crying victim have become almost routine with this singer/songwriter and to no surprise she decided to attack a California blogger with a strong opinion.
If white supremacists have openly claimed her as their goddes, icon or whatever and she herself hasn't sent lawsuits to their door for malice and libel but to the people that criticize her for it, she has zero right to have the blog post or any opinion published removed.
Arlene Mendez
T/Th 2:00
Taylor Swift is way too big to win a libel case, especially giving the context. A lot of people hate Taylor and a lot of people like her, so she is guaranteed to receive negative feedback in the public eye. I believe she should just shake it off because it could always be worse. Clearly Taylor Swift is not a White Supremacist and I understand her being upset, but regardless of how she feels about it, a lot of people hate on her worldwide, predominantly online hate. I have seen numerous amounts of hate thrown her way so she should take it on the chin and move on. Her loyal supporters will not think she is a racist and I don't think it will hinder her career in any way. She has plenty of nasty comments coming her way for the remainder of her life because of how big she is in pop culture.
Victoria S (11:00 Tuesday Thursday)
I understand why Taylor Swift was upset, however if she was actively using her public figure status to denounce any allegations of her being racist to begin with I honestly do not think this article would ever have been written. I think if anything it is a reality check for her that staying neutral is not beneficial.
Instead of threatening a lawsuit which isn't always the best in situations like this, she could have focused on her fans and made a statement to her fans. They are the ones that keep her reputation afloat. Not saying she should need to shake it off, I definitely think she should address it but address it to her fans. Especially since she is a public figure and it will be hard for her to win the case buy proving actual malice.
Stephen Bunten (2 p.m. Tuesday Thursday)
Taylor Swift could have used the media to address the allegations against her. Someone like her probably doesn't need money. If she used the media to counter the allegations, she would probably be better off than proving actual malice.
Molly Armstrong (2 T/TH)
While it is not hard to see why Taylor Swift is upset, she is a public figure - a massive one at that. People saying unsavory things about her is nothing new. Yes, the allegations are awful, but at the same time they are extreme allegations. I do not think that Swift is a White Supremacists, but going after this person is not going to prove fruitful for her. Her image is way too large in the public for this lawsuit against the article and its allegations to have any standing in court for her to win. The comments by the ACLU are petty but not untrue.
Taylor Swift , whether she likes it or not is a public figure and has to live with that. Being subjected to this public ridicule can't be easy but it is part of the deal when a person acquires fame. The sad truth is that Taylor even though the blogger is linking her to white supremacy, has no hope of a defamation case because there is no actual malice. Her lawyers seem to be hoping that the blogger is going to get scared of legal trouble and issue a retraction, which will not happen. Taylor has a right to be upset but needs to accept that people are going to criticize her.
Connor T , T-Th 2:00 pm
I personally feel that while it is horrible to be called a racist, Taylor Swift is a public figure and that comes with scrutiny. While there is no hard evidence that the Taylor Swift has any connection to these white supremacist groups, she should denounce them for idolizing her as their "queen." With that being said, Swift and her legal team do not have a strong case against this blogger; they are hoping that the legal threats while scare the blogger in to stepping down and retracting his blog statements about Taylor Swift.
After reading the article, I agree that the accusation is mean, but because Taylor Swift is a celebrity things like this are going to happen and there isn't much you can do. I personally do not know anyone who was a fan that stopped being a fan because of this. Most people I know haven't even heard of this article, so as far as I am aware this has not harmed her reputation. Of course it was a mean thing to say if it is not true, but she is famous and bad things will always be said, I personally think she needs to get over it.
Gabriella Carrizales
TTH 2 p.m.
While I am not a fan of Taylor Swift and most times will tell people, " I don't know her." I feel that the blog post was a reach at some points. Like comparing Swift to Hitler just because she was standing at a podium...really?! It's a bit much. However, I do agree that if Swift knows a portion of her base likens her to being a supporter of white supremacy and believes she is trying to indoctrinate people through her music, it only makes sense that she would denounce the notion. Her silence IS a bit worrisome. But not Hitler worrisome.
So to answer the question at hand, should Swift be upset? Absolutely. So much so that she should've openly spoken out against the people she was being compared to in the blog post as opposed to going straight to legal action in a case she knew she would lose.
The idea of fair comment and criticism couldn't have been lost on her or her legal team when they sent their letter of cease and desist to the blogger. Swift is a public figure, so while it is unfortunate that she and other celebrities have to shake their criticism off, it is just something that comes with the job they chose.
Tawana B T/TH- 2pm
Austin Halford- Online
I think it's absolutely nutty how some of these bloggers make the most vague and frankly, ridiculous, connections to what ever they happen to be angry about today to random celebrities they've got some unspoken grudge against. I would pursue legal actions against a nut like her, too. There's a difference in actual journalism and reporting vs. these incessant lonely bloggers who get offended at someone sneezing. You shouldn't just be able to make outrageous claims with the most vague "proof" and then try to hid behind the first amendment when you're called out on your bullshit.
Antonia Ramirez -online
I understand why Taylor Swift would want to sue, but I don't think she should do that. Even though the post puts her in a negative light, I think the ACLU have a right the right to express their opinions of Swift's actions or lack of actions. If Swift did sue for actual malice I really doubt she would win her case. There wouldn't be a
way to prove actual malice especially since Swift is a public figure.
Michael S. -TR 11am
Taylor Swift could definitely be upset, but the way the ACLU has presented their statements makes it seem like opinion. She would have a hard time proving actual malice, which sucks for her, but at the end of the day she is a public figure.
Samantha Rojas - TTh 11 a.m.
As a person who isn't necessarily a Taylor Swift fan, I have to say that I feel for her and I understand why she decided to go to court for this blog post. Meghan Herning, the person who wrote about Swift on the blog PopFront, to me seems to be taking Swift's lyrics and actions too literal and taking them out of proportion. To say that Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" lyrics and music video are inspired by Hitler and the events of the Holocaust and that her lyrics talk about white supremacy is taking assuming things to the next level. White supremacists might take like Swift's music and misinterpret their messages, but to assume without evidence that Swift is a Neo-Nazi without no proof is ridiculous. So yes, I agree in the fact that Taylor took action and decided to fight this blogger, because if someone wrote lies about my association with a group of people like the KKK, Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists, I would fight to take that libel off of the internet as well.
Emma G. TTh 11 a.m.
The blog post is outlandish, distributed on an obscure platform and ultimately has no traction to harm Taylor Swift's reputation. The accusations would not likely hold up in court, as actual malice is both extremely difficult to prove and necessary for Swift to win a lawsuit as a public figure. If I were in Swift's position, I would not be happy with the post. However, would it really kill her to just denounce white supremacy? There's no need for the blogger to retract the post. If Swift and her legal team succeeded in intimidating the author into retraction they would successfully be suppressing free speech.
I think Taylor Swift and her team of lawyers would have been better off not responding to the article at all. I believe the concept for her album was centered around not responding to media scrutiny, so it was an odd choice to pursue defamation lawsuits but warranted if they felt her character was being assasinated. After reading the article though, I didn’t actually see the journalists use liner per se, but there might be a case for libel per quod. However, I think responding to this article gives it more attention than it may have without the scandal. It’s an example of the Barbra Streisand Effect we discussed briefly in class.
Justin Zuloaga 11am T Th
In my honest and educated opinion, I believe Taylor Swift should indeed "shake it off." She is a celebrity admired by millions, thus making her vulnerable to public scrutiny. She has chosen to put herself in the public eye, thus rendering her vulnerable to negative opinions she may not like. Even though the things the blogger said may be hateful and may harm the way people look at her, it is protected under our rights, more specifically the first amendment, as citizens to proactively express our opinions, whether it be face to face or on a computer screen. The article seemed more of an opinion from the blogger, and a reasonable person would be able to make the judgment required to conclude that as well. It’s more than likely that hundreds of people write opinion based statements about her (good or bad) on an everyday basis. Does that mean she should throw a lawsuit at each and every one of them? I would hope not, and like we discussed in class since she is a public figure she would also have to prove actual malice, which would probably be the hardest thing for her to prove in this case. On top of that, she would also have to prove that this blog post directly affected her in a negative way, most likely by monetary losses, something that would also be quite difficult to prove. Swift better start making some phone calls to her legal team, telling them to retract those lawsuit threats, and to also set up positive PR events ASAP!!
Celebrities such as musicians and even sport athletes of today receive a large amount of criticism and allegations. Taylor swift is an iconic pop star but that does not mean she shouldn't be able to respond to allegations. All celebrities still have their own personal life. As we discussed in class, Taylor swift would have to prove a few elements from libel and actual malice. I have learned from lecture that public figures such as herself have a difficult time proving such harm.Personally, I believe the blogger should have retracted the article just because his story contains falsity and it isn't positive for the community. Legal wise he does not need to remove the article because of the 1st amendment and Taylor swift has to prove a lot for this to happen. As a result of this article, I believe Taylor swift should ignore it because knowing she is a famous musician that hate words and criticism will be thrown at her.
Nathan E, TTH 2PM
Personally, I think anyone being accused of being of a white supremacist would have reason to feel upset (unless they are a white supremacist, I guess). But the Taylor Swift situation reminds me of the Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v Hepps case from Chapter 5, where we have a public figure upset by a publication connecting a public figure to a controversial group of people. Whether or not I agree with the blogger's opinion of Swift doesn't matter, because the precedent set by Sullivan decision demands that Swift prove "actual malice" since she should be considered, by all means, an all-purpose public figure.
In class you asked us to provide Hepps with a defense, a way to prove he wasn't connected to the mafia. We learned in that case that the burden of truth falls on the plaintiff. If Swift takes this to court as a defamation case, she'll have to prove the blogger knowingly published falsities to damage her reputation. But like in Hepp's situation, it's hard to prove you don't know someone, and just as hard to prove someone knowingly said something false about you. The blogger's right to freedom of speech allows her to publicly criticize public figures like Swift. Even if it isn't easy, Swift will have to shake off the criticism and realize that her chances of winning a libel suit aren't great.
Jonathan Gonzalez
T/TH 2PM
Alex Walkuski, ONLINE
I definitely think Taylor Swift should be upset. And not just because I may be a little biased and I'm a huge Taylor fan LOL, but truly, that a horrific claim like that can ruin someones image. Taylor, already known for being dragged through the mud, should take every precaution to protect her Reputation. Pun intended. But the topic of the blogger deleting her article, now that is a tough situation to sort through. The blogger is protected under our first amendment right to say what she feels and what she thinks. But when it comes down to it and claims like that are made against someone who sleeps in money, the repercussions can be damaging. That could affect her sales, image, etc. Taylor would of course have to prove the damage but I think its really risky for the blogger to head down that path without solid evidence of her claim.
I think that Taylor should be upset. I doubt that she is a person that condones white supremacism. But that does not mean that if she chooses to take them to court, that she will win the case. I believe it is in her best interest to shake off the claims, as well as vehemently deny them. The blogger has freedom of speech to call on her action through the article based off of the fact that she is an all purpose figure.
Although Taylor Swift has the right to be upset, she does not have the right to sue this particular blogger for her piece. Swift is a public figure who is vulnerable to criticism by the press, bloggers and private persons. This goes back to what we discussed in class with public figures suing for libel as soon as somebody says something they do not like or agree with. This blogger's piece is protected as free speech because it is opinion based and not a statement of fact. In the blogger's piece she never truly states a fact, but instead, criticizes Swift's lyrics and video in her own interpreted way, therefore, her opinion is protected.
Chris Harris
T/TH 2:00 p.m. class
Taylor Swift has a right to be offended and angry, but her emotional anger over the matter would not hold up in court. By threatening a lawsuit, Swift as created more awareness of the blogger's post. I think it is safe to say that most people would not take the blogger's post seriously or genuinely believe that Swift has ties to the white supremacy movement.
There is no hard evidence of Swift being involve in the white supremacy movement. Her anger is justified, but legally, any declaration of actual malice would most likely be disregarded. As a public figure, Swift must understand that there will be things written and said publicly against her character, brand and music. Although the content and accusations by the accuser were disturbing and tied to present political rhetoric, Swift must understand her place as a public figure. Rather than take legal action, she should deny the accusations, explain why she denies them, and move forward.
Alejandro Hinojosa TTH 2:00 p.m.
The article that mentioned the details of the blogger’s post and how Taylor Swifts’ actions were towards the article itself can make anybody feel empathetic towards Taylor. Whether the pop artist should feel upset or angry is completely up to how she chooses to react toward the situation. Sure this article has the potential to ruin Taylor’s reputation in the music industry and as a celebrity in general, but one way to look at it is that she has the eyes and attention of millions of fans and supporters in which she can clearly show her intentions from her actions and lyrics by speaking to them directly instead of choosing to battle lawsuit. She can defend her reputation in other ways and possibly even write a new hit single from it. Like it was mentioned in the topic of the post, she should “shake it off”
This opinion might be biased just from a Mass Communications major perspective because I know when someone who chooses to blog, post, or write a story. This post/comment is only to attempt to view this through a different perspective.
Section 001 Tues and Thurs
I think Taylor Swift and her team of lawyers would have been better off not responding to the article at all. I believe the concept for her album was centered around not responding to media scrutiny, so it was an odd choice to pursue defamation lawsuits but warranted if they felt her character was being assasinated. After reading the article though, I didn’t actually see the journalists use liner per se, but there might be a case for libel per quod. However, I think responding to this article gives it more attention than it may have without the scandal. It’s an example of the Barbra Streisand Effect we discussed briefly in class.
Colton D. - morning class
This is another perfect example of the Streisand effect. If Taylor Swift hadn't drawn so much attention to this obscure website, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, wouldn't have read the article and had its ideas planted in their heads. I think Swift is in the wrong, because a) she has a MASSIVE victim complex, and b) as the article says, she is a public figure, and this would be very difficult to prove actual malice on the part of the blogger
After reading, I do believe that the ACLU right that she should, in effect, "shake it off." It is very difficult for celebrities to win thee types of cases since they are public figures. We can see the accusations towards Taylor were very harsh and cruel. Anyone would be mad too if they were compared to Hitler and his Nazi regime. However, since she is a public figure Taylor would have to prove actual malice. If Taylor can prove that the writer was writing with actual malice, then she has grounds to ask to retract that story. If she is unable to, then the author of the article has protection from the First Amendment to post that story.
I believe that Taylor Swift and her legal team had a right to send the letter to the blogger and that they should urge her to take the post down. However, the blogger does hold a constitutional right to post how she feels and her opinions on Swift, despite the consequences because Swift is a public figure and there are going to be millions of people that judge her actions. If I were Swift I would release a statement to all fans denying the allegations and assuring that there is no relation nor support of white supremacy involved in her songs or beliefs. Celebrities in the public eye are always going to be judged and talked about but it is their choice and responsibility to respond and handle situations like this.
I believe that Taylor Swift and her legal team had a right to send the letter to the blogger and that they should urge her to take the post down. However, the blogger does hold a constitutional right to post how she feels and her opinions on Swift, despite the consequences because Swift is a public figure and there are going to be millions of people that judge her actions. If I were Swift I would release a statement to all fans denying the allegations and assuring that there is no relation nor support of white supremacy involved in her songs or beliefs. Celebrities in the public eye are always going to be judged and talked about but it is their choice and responsibility to respond and handle situations like this.
Christopher M., morning class.
After reading the article, I can sympathize with both sides of this argument. I think the blogger, and the ACLU have a strong point in that it can be considered 'political speech' and 'critical commentary.' I do believe that the blogger has the constitutional right to post her opinions about Taylor Swift on her blog because she is a public figure and criticism is almost guaranteed when you are recognized around the world as such. I think that if Taylor swift has such a problem about being called out for not denouncing white supremacist, then she should just denounce white supremacists. I think that is the easiest way to prove that the allegations by the blogger were false. I am not sure if Taylor Swift has a case because yes, the elements of libel are there, defamation, identification and dissemination, however, I can also see how this blogger's words may be seen as simply an opinion. And as we know it is impossible to prove an opinion false. I am interested in seeing how this legal issue plays out.
Pamela Ochoa
TTH 11 AM
Based on what we learned from class and from the article, I think Taylor Swift should just drop the case. She has the right to be upset but she is a public figure, therefore, she should expect criticism. The blogger had the right to express her opinion and shouldn't be worried to tell it because opinion is protected by the first amendment. Also, a rational person wouldn't think much about the story because the blogger didn't have much proof, plus many people have much to say about all kinds of celebrities, so criticism like this is very common. I really don't think Taylor Swift will win, but then again the cases we learned about in class had unexpected results.
Karla M. Tue/Thurs. 11:00 AM - 12:20 PM
If we were going based off of past cases. It must be proven that Meghan was writing the article against Taylor Swift with the sole intention of ruining her reputation.
Though it does suck for Taylor Swift that she was called these mean things, she is prone to being criticized by the public because she is a public figure.
I would say that just like many other public figures that have been criticized before, Taylor Swift will just have to learn to deal with the critics.
Taylor Swift would have a difficult time proving actual malice I think. Her lawyers threatening to sue obviously backfired as all its done is give the story more exposure. I personal thought the blog made some ridiculous claims that were pretty funny and could be seen as something satirical you'd see on The Onion. I don't any rational person actuals views her as a white supremacist.
I understand the plight of the Swift Team. This could potentially do harm to her reputation. However, there is nothing I believe the Swift Team can do. I think that the better approach would have been to ask for a redaction of the article or to ignore it completely. By fighting it, it makes it look like there is something they are trying to hide.
The reporter/journalist/author seemed aimed at destroying her. If the site is aimed at that type of "integrity" articles, then they achieved. However, I feel like this would have never been in Rolling Stone or Pitchfork. I have never heard of this site, but now that I know of it I will never frequent it. haha
Ryan Reissig
Martinez
T/TH 11:00a.m.
I believe that Taylor has every right to be upset but I also feel that the blogger shouldn't have to retract the post. Being that Taylor Swift is a public figure, people are going to target her online no matter what. I don't think she should waste time trying to take legal action as it would be difficult for her to prove actual malice.
Sarah B. 2pm class
While I do not agree at all with the opinion of the blogger, I support the ACLU position that Taylor Swift should "shake it off." Taylor Swift is about as public as public figures can get. In addition, her songs reveal her personal feelings and therefore, she is willingly putting her thoughts and feelings into the public arena to be scrutinized. Although I disagree with the blogger's interpretation and opinion about Swift, the artist should expect all types of criticism and comments towards both her and her work. Therefore, I think that the free speech of the blogger, not matter how wrong I think that they are, trumps any possible damage this could do to Taylor Swift's reputation, which considering her enormous fame, will most likely be small.
I don't really understand why Taylor Swift is so upset, as a public figure she should be used to these kinds of ridiculous statements. Although all the elements of defamation are present, she would have a really difficult time proving actual malice. It sucks that she has to put up with being called all of these horrible things, I'm sure a nice spending spree will make her feel better. What is crazier to me is that she thinks she would even win a case like this. What lawyer told her this was a smart case to pursue? I'd be surprise if it wasn't thrown out.
Justus Stafford
T-TH 2-3:20pm
Brianna Zemlicka T-TH 2-3:20pm
I see both sides of the story. Taylor Swift is a public figure and she has every right to be upset, but on the other hand she is putting her personal life and feelings out in the open for everyone to hear. She should not be shocked by the scrutiny of critics. I think she should definitely be used to nasty comments by now. I feel bad that she has to deal with mean people 24/7 but she needs to learn how to ignore the hate.
Michelle Lapinsky 11am
I think that Taylor Swift has every right to be upset--I would be too--but I also think that it is unreasonable for her to threaten a lawsuit. However, I also think that she's more bark than bite. It wouldn't make sense for her to file suit, and her team of lawyers know that. More than anything, I think that she's trying to intimidate the blogger, as she has in the past. I do think that this is a gross misuse of her power/money. Threatening someone who is exercising their free speech rights with legal action is no way to go about this situation.
After reading the article I'm confused as to why Taylor is more upset about being called a racist than by th violent racist actions occurring or the use of her material by white supremacists. I don't think it is defaming make note that someone's music is being used or praised by a certain demographic of people who center themselves on hate and discrimination. The blogger was well within her first amendment rights to make such a claim about Taylor Swift and i doubt her case would hold up in any court of law.
After reading the article I'm confused as to why Taylor is more upset about being called a racist than by th violent racist actions occurring or the use of her material by white supremacists. I don't think it is defaming make note that someone's music is being used or praised by a certain demographic of people who center themselves on hate and discrimination. The blogger was well within her first amendment rights to make such a claim about Taylor Swift and i doubt her case would hold up in any court of law.
Kayla Galindo TR 2 pm
I can understand why Taylor Swift is upset, she is a very prominent celebrity and has many young girls that look up to her. To have the label of a “racist” would be upsetting to anyone.
I do think it is ridiculous though to threaten to sue. The blogger has every right to make their opinion known and Taylor Swift has gotten plenty of scrutiny throughout her career, this should be no different. I don’t think the blog post will greatly effect her record sales or even her fan’s opinions of her. She should definitely “shake it off,” write a song about the issue, and move on.
Alexus Garcia
T/R 11 am
There was no wrong doing on the part of the blog writer. The fact that Taylor Swift want's to take something off the internet because she doesn't like it is a reflection of the privilege and entitlement she has come to envelope. The idea that you can have an expensive legal team infringe on another persons freedom of speech is a dangerous precedent.
Josh M. 2pm
I think that Taylor Swift has cause to be upset though if it's not true then she shouldn't be too worried. Public figures get criticized and roasted every day and said people see it all the time and are used to it( or at least most of them say they're used to it). As for the blogger, technically speaking she shouldn't have to take the blog post down because she has a right to keep writing. The blogger has no proof so these claims are only theoretical.
I found that the blogger’s comments were very far-fetched and biased. Taylor Swift has elevated to one of the most notable pop singers in the United States.
Taylor Swift is definitely understood in regards to her reaction to the blogger. Being labeled as a racist is always a very hard name to commit to someone, especially with her popularity.
Whether the blogger’s claims were correct or not, that has a huge impact on her image and personal reputation. Not being a fan of hers personally, I don’t have any sort of bias when it comes to her and her career.
Jerremy Hall
TTh 2:00-3:20pm
I feel like Taylor Swift drew a lot of unnecessary attention to this article and saying that she would sue the person who wrote it probably did her more harm then good. Being upset is one thing, but this reaction is a bit much. I assume that she (or the people submitting this claim) know she doesn’t have a case, and threatened to sue her hoping that the writer didn’t know her own rights. Taylor should 100% shake it off, it would be near impossible to qualify her as a private figure
Avery Moran 2PM T-Th
I believe Taylor Swift has a right to be upset, but I feel like her public life brings with it scrutiny. Taylor Swift may not be a racist, but it is not against the law to speculate. Taylor Swift has little chance at proving actual malice.
Wesley Higgins 2pm T-Th
Given this situation I do not think Swift would have any valuable argument to create a legal case. The blogger may be exploring conspiracies and may publish those theories. Swift is a public figure, and would have to prove actual malice to win any libel case. So with this story, I believe Swift would be wasting her time trying to stop something that is not effecting her badly.
Post a Comment