It all seems to be coming up roses for Perez Hilton lately. Not only has he just become a first-time daddy, he’s also won a five-year-long legal dispute.
According to the Hollywood Reporter the celebrity blogger has won a case regarding the publication of an email on his website back in 2007.
In December of that year, Perez posted an email that he had received from a woman called Diane Wargo. In the email, Ms Wargo called the blogger a “fat gay pig” and called Angelina Jolie an “ugly wh**e.”
In the post, Perez published Ms Wargo’s full name and her email address. It goes without saying that fans of Perez (and Angelina) immediately began to spam Ms Wargo with threatening e-mails for her comments.
But it doesn’t stop there!
You see, Ms Wargo sent the comment via her work email address and it wasn’t long before her place of employment got involved in the online spat. Ms Wargo lost her job and decided to smack Perez with a $25million lawsuit.
After lots of back and forth between lawyers, the dispute eventually ended up in arbitration.
Perez recently became a daddy for the first time
Many people have questioned just why the issue took so long to be resolved. Apparently it’s all to do with complications regarding the website’s terms and conditions.
Users who visit PerezHilton.com automatically agree to certain conditions when they choose to post a comment on the site. According to the terms, those who “post content or submit material… grant [Hilton] a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual… right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish… distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media.”
However, the website also states that it “respects your privacy and is committed to protecting it at all times.”
Ms Wargo argued that by publishing her email, Perez Hilton was breaking the promise of privacy which resulted in her losing her job.
However, Richard Neal the arbitrator of the case, rejected this argument.
“The notion that a site specializing in raunchy gossip would promise privacy for such content or to the names of those providing the content is not a reasonable expectation,” said Mr Neal.
“Privacy of content is contrary to the essential function of the site. And in any event, the governing sections of the conditions, as noted, explicitly confer a license and right upon [Hilton] to use submitted material and name the submitter,” he added.
It was found that the fact that Ms Wargo violated her employer’s policy against personal use of her work email account was the “root cause” of her firing – not the fact that Perez had published her email.
It’s a lucky escape for Perez and it just goes to show that you should always read the small print before you hit the ‘send’ button.
