http://www.annoy.com/features/doc.html?DocumentID=100495 Fascinating: Tucker Max writes about his sexcapades with Miss Vermont (Katy Johnson), judge issues temporary injunction ordering Max to remove all references to Johnson from his site on the grounds (I think this is right—the article rambles a bit) that he disclosed embarrassing private facts and/or is making commercial use of Johnson’s image without her consent. (For the most part, Johnson doesn’t dispute the facts.)
Is he serving a legitimate public interest? “If Ms. Johnson is selling young girls books promoting abstinence and sobriety and creating and publishing ‘character education’ cartoons, her choice to give drunken blowjobs in a guy’s kitchen, or fuck someone she’s just met in her SUV allows for, if nothing else, an informative contextualization.” I love this legal tactic (from Johnson’s Affidavit): “I fear that more will continue to read these stories, including my father, and associate me with TUCKER MAX and his adult audience.” Max can’t write about you because otherwise your father will find out?!
[“Free speech or privacy?”—IHT report. “Santucci [Johnson’s lawyer] did not respond to an e-mail message asking whether his issuing a news release was at odds with his request to seal the court file.”] 23:31
