Saturday, March 16, 2013

David Beckham Loses In Hooker Case Again

An appeals court has ruled against David Beckham in his lawsuit against In Touch which reported he had sex with a hooker in London. The hooker, Irma Nici said she had sex with him in a hotel in London on a day when Beckham was actually out of town at a funeral. In Touch admits the story is not true, but the woman said it was true and In Touch is off the hook. As for Irma? The appeals court says that she can say whatever she wants because her speech is protected by the First Amendment and free speech.

27 comments:

Christopher Cruz said...

Can somebody explain this moron's appeal to me?!

Katie said...

I think someone just did. I don't know how it could be any clearer. And you might not want to throw around the word 'moron' so loosely.

auntliddy said...

What kind if doublespeak is this?? The story ISNT true, but she SAYS its true, so in touch off the hook?? Forget even what the story is about; it mskes no sense!!!!

memyselfandi said...

I'm fairly certain he meant appeal as in interest or fascination. not appeal as in Mr Beckham's appeal case....

Groovy said...

There is a first amendment in the U.K.?

timebob said...

haha @memy that is funny, I see how that comment could be taken two ways. Good one Cruz.

I thought to go with a story the rags just needed two sources to confirm it. If the hooker and the pimp or whoever say it's true, In Touch would be off the hook for damages.

That is how the Enquirer won its case against Eddy Murphy and the transvestite case.


timebob said...

@Groovy In Touch is a US paper.

Christopher Cruz said...

Who did? And yes, the guy IS a moron. Have you ever heard or seen him being interviewed? Oh. Em. Gee. My infant niece connects dots faster than this guy.

Anna Nonymous said...

He's gay.

Vita19a said...

I believe if you lie in a UK court case you could end up being jailed; so I doubt this is a UK court ruling.

Agent**It said...

Entwarded omitted a few details. Might want to read the article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294314/David-Beckham-loses-appeal-sue-magazine-prostitutes-claims-sex-protected-freedom-speech-laws.html

ms_wonderland said...

I don't read anything in the Daily Mail, it has a very strange take on the world. I would say it's all lies, but as only 90% of it is, I could be sued for defamation ;)

Is the story anywhere respectable?

S.joy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Agent**It said...

Why don't you take your time and google for another reference?

S.joy said...

@Agent thanks for posting a link to the full article! Enty loves to paraphrase and leave details out lol

ms_wonderland said...

Thanks Agent It, I checked Google. Only DM and two papers lifting their story. As this is a US case, it's odd that no US sources have the report.

Rox (used to be Roxxx) said...

@ Cruz:
I agree, he is a total moron. I don't get his appeal either and when he speaks, he's got such a squeaky, high pitch voice, just don't find him attractive at all.

Sherry said...

Funny how "appeal" was misconstrued here. As was moron.

Sherry said...

I have heard that he's got a funny voice but the few times I heard him speak I've never noticed it. Off to Google sound bites and the whole story.

sifichick said...

I hate that I'm doing this but there is a clear cut difference between freedom of speech & defamation of character.

Freedom of speech is being able to say things like the government blows without being jailed for it.

Defamation of character is:
"Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person."

What this woman did is definitely defamation of character because she knowingly lied & knew the kind of damage it could do. She should have been legally nailed for it.

I won't get into libel because there are loop holes to get out of it. One of them was already mentioned. At least 2 sources are needed to get out of any libel case.

I hate that I'm defending this guy. I understand his appeal. He's a good looking guy. I just don't care for him or his ice queen wife.

hothotheat said...

In Touch (US Mag) printed a story from a hooker that said she slept with David Beckham.

He filed a lawsuit against the magazine saying the story was false. In Touch, now says the story isn't true so they get out of the lawsuit. The hooker is still saying its true but isn't named in the suit and Beckham hasn't sued her for defamation - even if he did she can say what she wants because of freedom of speech. I don't agree with the last part. Seems like defamation to me. She's a hooker, what's he gonna get if he sues her and wins?

Comma Chaser said...

Wait, there's actually a hooker named Irma?

MILDRED PIERCE said...

More importantly Irma the hooker has not been seen for several months. Yikes.

Anyway Beckham is only being this bold with legal action because for once he is being accused and in this instance it looks like he is innocent. As opposed to the 8 or so women who came forward with sex stories about him, including Rebecca Loos. He sued none of them. Dude is a total ho bag.

Kloie said...

I'm amused saying out loud: "Irma hooker, Irma hooker."

Kim said...

"Like,ERMAHGERD, ERMAHOOKER!"

Too much tequila, clearly.

Redd said...

Erma laughing my ass off!

Rox (used to be Roxxx) said...

Morning Sherry!
Yeah, it's such a shame that his voice is so un-masculine, because you know, that's the only aspect of him that's a turn-off, apart from the cheating, disloyalty, stupidity....

And talking of stupidity, perhaps I'm proving myself to be a moron, but I missed how it was misconstrued. Could someone explain?

And I definitely missed "Irma Hooker" reference - brilliant, classic!

Have a good Sunday everyone.