Just In Time for the Kavanaugh Court

Olivia De Havilland Takes ‘Feud’ Feud With FX & Ryan Murphy To Supreme Court

After more than a year of fighting FX and Ryan Murphy over her depiction in Feud, Olivia de Havilland has kept her word and is taking her case to the Supreme Court.

“We must persevere and speak truth to power,” the 102-year-old two-time Oscar winner said Friday as her attorneys petitioned SCOTUS in the ongoing legal battle. “The fight is itself important to the principle of honesty, so much in need today in the face of deliberate public confusion for selfish agendas,” she added in a statement from her Paris home (read it in full here).

Olivia and her sister, Joan Fontaine

 102! You go girl!

“We must persevere and speak truth to power,” the 102-year-old two-time Oscar winner said Friday as her attorneys petitioned SCOTUS in the ongoing legal battle. “The fight is itself important to the principle of honesty, so much in need today in the face of deliberate public confusion for selfish agendas,” she added in a statement from her Paris home (read it in full here).

Having suffered a number of legal setbacks and defeats since filing her lawsuit in June 2017, — including the California Supreme Court’s decision in July not to review her case — de Havilland is seeking to have the nation’s highest court re-examine what jurisdictions in the Golden State have decided. “The Court of Appeal’s decision is a radical departure from traditional First Amendment precedent, and benefits no group other than those who seek to use the names and identities of others in untrue and salacious ‘historical dramas’ for their own profit,” said ,” said the actress’ attorney Suzelle Smith of Horwarth & Smith in Los Angeles

 I hope she survives long enough to get to the Supremes.

“Are reckless or knowing false statements about a living public figure, published in docudrama format, entitled to absolute First Amendment protection from claims based on the victim’s statutory and common law causes of action for defamation and right of publicity, so as to justify dismissal at the pleading stage?” asks the petition filed today (read it here).
. . .
The Gone with the Wind actress asserts that FX, Murphy and Fox 21 TV never obtained nor even sought her permission to depict her or use her name in Feud: Bette & Joan, their eight-episode series about Joan Crawford and Bette Davis that aired last year. Among other issues, de Havilland’s lawsuit specifically targets the alleged backstage drama involving her depicted in Feud‘s “And the Winner Is …” episode about the 1963 Oscars.

In the United States, it's extremely difficult for a well known person to sue for libel or defamation; having to prove malice rather than just ordinary carelessness with the facts. Donald Trump has argued for a lesser standard (for obvious reasons), but even legal folk like Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) have stated that they think the standard is too strict in the US. Given what Brett Kavanaugh has recently been through, he might be persuaded to agree, although, actual malice might not be hard to prove in a case like this: Stephen Colbert 'Late Show' writer: 'I'm just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh's life'. That pretty much seems like a statement of malice to me.

Wombat-socho has Rule 5 Sunday: Salma Hayek up and collecting clicks.