One down, one to go: Ana Marie Cox dropped from Steinbuch suit

Sometimes I think the only things the media cares about in this case, because they are the details we see over and over again, are the "sexually explicit" parts. I was one of those who focused on the spanking at first too, but with a larger point: the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of it all. But the more I read and consider the issues, the more I see that this is about so much more than sex. It's about writing and memoir and truth and, maybe, just maybe, a little thing I like to call The First Amendment.

Of course, it's a "racy" news story, both in how it unfolded, and the aftermath. In many, many ways, the after is much sexier than the during. You can read the original Washingtonienne blog in maybe an hour, and you might be left wondering what all the fuss was about. Regardless of the X, R, or PG-13 rating of that blog, I think this case is relevant to bloggers who blog about sex, and those who don't. We could all have our own private Robert Steinbuchs popping up, telling us what we should or shouldn't say, and I think this case coming at this point in time, when MySpace/YouTube/Livejournal/blogs/reality shows are so popular, is very interesting. I certainly think that what the average person would or would not reveal about themselves today is a lot different than what it might have been ten years ago.

What I'm very, very curious about, as an avid memoir reader, is how these rules are different for memoir writers vs. bloggers/online writers. For instance, Gael Greene told me that her ex-husband Don Forst asked her not to write about him cheating on her in her book Insatiable. From what I understand, he wasn't demanding that, but asking. And pretty much any memoirist you talk to who's revealed anything interesting will tell you that people don't always like what you have to say about them. What also fascinates me is something that goes back to Monica Lewinsky and the idea of girl talk. Could someone be held liable for relaying the same information live, in person? It's both an abstract and a very real interest for me, as someone who writes professionally about my sex and personal life and blogs about it as well. I am not a lawyer and don't play one on my blog or anywhere else, so I don't know the answers to some of the questions, I'm raising, though I certainly know what I think about the answers should be.

For instance, "public disclosure" and "false light invasion of privacy" (and I know Wikipedia may not be the best source but I think its basic definition is sufficient):

Public disclosure

Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which, although truthful, is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person [2].

[edit] False light

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability for invasion of privacy, if:

1. The false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
2. The actor acted with malice -- had knowledge of or acted with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.

I don't know every legal in and out about these issues but what I was getting at above is that, like so many legal matters, aren't the "highly offensive" and "reasonable person" standards, um, totally subjective? I have a feeling that what those might mean to bloggers might not be what they mean to the general public. And yes, I'm looking at this with a selfish eye. I'm a writer, and I intend to keep writing about my life, sexual and otherwise, and I enjoy reading about the lives of others. When you crack open a memoir and it's full of composite characters and made-up mumbo jumbo, well, to me, that detracts from the whole point of memoir. The public disclosure rule, if followed to the letter, would seem to me to rule out almost any writing about sex that's not about masturbation, depending on the values of the community. But as this blog post points out, the culture around us has changed. I believe we want these details. We seek them out, feed on them, feast on them even. We jump on any hint of sexual impropriety, we make stars out of sex scandalizers, we want reality along with our fantasy. I think the problem is that, on the whole, we want to hear and read about everyone else's sex lives but if it's out own, oh no, that's improper. That's not of public concern.

What's funny is that I don't really think anyone cares all that much what Robert Steinbuch likes to do in bed. If he were to write a tell-all, it would not be the next 100 Strokes of the Brush Before Bed (unless there's some crazy shit we just haven't heard about yet). I've read his court filings and they seem to say (summarizing) that he couldn't get dates and couldn't get a job and was refused the opportunity to write a book review because Jessica Cutler blogged about his penis, among other things. Is the problem that she wrote about him, or what she wrote about him? Is it that he will forever be known as a "spanking fetishist and former Jessica Cutler-fucker?" (For the record, I proudly claim the former for myself too, and if I qualified for the latter, I would not mind the whole world knowing.) And I'm not saying that he wasn't affected negatively, but to me, if that's the case, it says that the legal community has not yet caught up to us over here in blogland. We can roll with the punches of le scandal, whether it's about sex or otherwise. What's on the tip of everyone's tongues (and fingertips) is old news in, like, an hour or two. There's new blog drama rife with intrigue, and our notions of "internet famous" change seemingly by the day. The way we handle things is to write about it, to throw it out there and see who responds, see what people we don't even know think about us. Maybe that means sharing nude photos or writing about our intimate lives. Maybe it means photo blogging or mommy blogging or food blogging. But taken to the extreme, couldn't these rules mean that children being written about in minute detail by their parents could sue down the road for public disclosure of private facts? Forgetting about statute of limitations for a minute. Where does the madness end?

I'm asking less about the letter of the law and more about what we want out of our culture, especially our online culture. As someone who makes sense of her life via words, I can't simply bow down and agree to let the lowest common denominator of "reasonable person" determine what might be "highly offensive." My truth is my truth and I can't apologize for it and basically, what I see this case coming down to, for the gazillionth time, is Jessica's right to share her truth. She didn't do it out of malice, as far as I can tell, and as many times as I read his arguments, I just can't see how a court could wind up finding for him. Clearly, it's more complex than that or this case wouldn't be dragging on forever and a day. At the very least, Ana Marie Cox has been dropped from the suit, because if Wonkette were held liable for posting about Cutler (essentially, publicizing the blog), then we would all be in a lot more jeopardy.

Because my whole personal relationship to this issue still hits a little too close to home, every time I'm tempted to post one more detail. Like are initials okay? Job description? At this point, I'm over it, but I know I will write about it again one day and I wonder what details I will include, and which I won't.

I had his initials on this blog, and I took them down, because the people who I feel need to know what happened, know what happened. They can make their own decisions and I think it's highly telling that, in my case, instead of making any attempt at apology or remorse or even acknowledgment, my potential Robert Steinbuch let a whole bunch of people know that, news flash, Rachel has a blog. And she writes about...her relationships! Because that would be totally unexpected when you're dating a sex columnist. Ha ha ha.

It's always interesting to me what people are okay with having shared about them, and what they aren't. I wonder if Jessica had posted that Steinbuch had a huge cock and was the best lover in the world and they had hot missionary position sex, without any of those other pesky, real-life details, whether this suit would be in place. Is simply knowing that someone has fucked someone else enough to bring a suit? Then I'd be in trouble for sure. Well, I have no real handy dandy conclusion, and I'm sure this has rehashed things I've posted about regarding this case before but this is happy news! Repost something salacious on your blog to celebrate!

"Judge dismisses former DeWine aide's lawsuit against Wonkette founder," The Columbus Dispatch

Bolding below mine.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit today against the founder of a political gossip Web site who reprinted sexually explicit material about the sex lives of two Senate aides.

Ana Marie Cox, the founder and former editor of Wonkette.com, commented on and provided links to a Web log created in 2004 by Jessica Cutler, an aide to then-Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio. DeWine lost his re-election bid last November...

After being fired from her Senate job, Cutler moved back to New York, wrote a novel based on the scandal, posed nude for Playboy and started a Web site. The suit against her continues.

That case could help establish whether people who keep online diaries are obligated to protect the privacy of the people they interact with offline.

It is unclear when the case will go to trial. Each side is embroiled in thorny pretrial issues, demanding personal information from the other.