Danni Ashe suing an English Paper

[stickyvicky]

What do you think about this?
http://www.xbiz.com/news/176480

[Anthony_JK]

Interesting, but totally expected that the Daily Mail would attempt to slutbait and pornbait Danni Ashe, when anyone with a Google and knowledge of both her history and her mentorship of Danni's Hard Drive knows that her site was softcore (albeit with some G/G medium- to slightly hardcore scenes). The fact that Danni was open to including hardcore porn stars at her site simply does not make her "hardcore" by any means, and the attempt by the Daily Mail to use that excuse as a means of justifying their cock-up is simply shameful slut-shaming.

Plus, couldn't they have waited until Cameron Bay had revealed herself as the infected performer before pushing this photo?

[WalterB]

To me, a strong point is the Daily Mail's comment: "In its defense, the Daily Mail said that Ashe is so well known that she is an all-purpose public figure for the purposes of defamation and that neither an editor or production staff member who pulled the pic from a database knew who Ashe was and thus could not have intended to convey that she was HIV positive."

"...she is an "all-purpose public figure" for the purpose of defamation...." (?) The first comment is stupid on the face of it. Then, in the second, they say that, "She is so well known," followed by "...neither staff member knew who Ashe was...."

Then that is followed by "... because, according to the Daily Mail, the whole world would recognize Danni as a famous porn star and not new." And yet their employees supposedly did not know who she was, but just selected a random picture from their (I guess) personal porn collection.

The Daily Mail refutes it's own arguments. Bottom line, to write about a porn star testing positive for HIV and then posting a picture of another woman not even associated with the issue at least borders on slander.

[stickyvicky]

Yeah I didn't get that at all, it was a total contradiction. I know I would be pissed if there was an article about a female performer having hiv and my pic was posted with it. She just asked them to take it down and post a retraction. But they refused. Why refuse? What's the big deal? That would have been a ton easier than going to court. Just like my case with Adult Friendfinder, all I ever wanted was for them to stop using my pics and fake profile,I begged them, instead we went to court, it took about 2 years, they made a big mistake, they should have just taken the damn pics down. Why do people make their lives so much more difficult than they need to be?

[WalterB]

I haven't a clue. Some people seem to enjoy the tough route. I really can't understand some peoples thinking. Just can't understand it.

[Gert-Jan]

Yep, it's pretty obvious the Daily Mail messed up big time. One could say it's a form of suggestive journalism, but self-contradictory comments such as "... the whole world would recognize Danni as a famous porn star and not new" and "... reporters under oath swearing that neither knew who Ashe was", make clear that the British newspaper should start doing some more fact-checking before publishing stories/pictures. (Ashe 1-0 Daily Mail)

Merriam-Webster: Hardcore pornography - Containing explicit descriptions of sex acts or scenes of actual sex acts.
Merriam-Webster: Softcore pornography - Showing or describing sex acts but not in an extremely open and shocking way.
Cambridge Dictionary: Hardcore pornography - Shows sex in a very detailed way.
Cambridge Dictionary: Softcore pornography - Suggestive or erotic but not explicit.

When you compare - "... graphic sex scenes between women with full frontal nudity, masturbation, cunnilingus and bondage." - or a detailed scene description - "... Ashe and three other women have several sexual encounters that culminate with all four women masturbating and performing cunnilingus on each other simultaneously." - to the definitions of both hard- as well as softcore pornography given by Merriam-Webster & Cambridge Dictionary, I'd think the Daily Mail attorneys are the ones scoring a point on this matter. Don't get me wrong, I, too, categorize Danni as softcore, but practicing law is about how you interpretate rules and definitions. (Ashe 1-1 Daily Mail)

In the end, though, it all comes back to that photo of Ashe alongside an article she had nothing to do with. Yes, the Daily Mail undoubtedly screwed up. The picture should have been taken down and a retraction should have been posted. But on the other hand, I would say that asking $3 million (!) in damages is a bit too much. Defamation suits are difficult to win. She will have to prove that 1) DM said/wrote something false and 2) the statement actually damaged her reputation in some way.

I sincerely hope Danni wins, and it seems to be looking good, but sadly she hasn't won the case just yet. Fingers crossed. To be continued.

[WalterB]

You forgot one. Which one gives me the biggest boner?

(Ashe 2-1 Daily Mail)

[Gert-Jan]

LOL! Good one Walt...

Somehow I fear this case is going to drag on for months, at least.

[stickyvicky]

It can be years as I know from suing rapidshare and friendfinder. She probably never wanted to sue them at all. Just when you ask nicely, plead and beg, even offer to compromise, and turn it into a mutually beneficial business arrangement, and you are told "screw off, we are big, we can do whatever we like with your pictures", then I totally understand why she is suing for millions. It could settle for 1 million.

Everyone in the business refers to hardcore as bg and softcore as gg. That's just a generally accepted principle.

[Gert-Jan]

Finally coming to an end....
http://www.xbiz.com/news/216306

[stickyvicky]

I hope she makes out well, I'm sure she will. They are so retarded. All they had to do was remove the photo and print a small retraction saying "Danni Ashe is not the performer who has HIV". End of story. Would that have killed them? But no, they refused and she sued. Now because of their stupidity their legal fees will run in the hundreds of thousands, plus whatever they have to pay her.

I'm really happy about it, because all these papers and websites seem to think they can print anything they like, they steal pictures from our twitter, our instagram, print our real names, print false or partial information, then just ignore us when we complain. I'm really happy for her and hope she soaks them good.

[Anthony_JK]

It's all about making money off slut-baiting and porn bashing, Vicky. The Daily Mail has been one of the principal rags behind all the "Porn is ruining our kids and destroying our marriages!!!" nonsense; so what if they just plastered a pic of the first busty babe they saw onto an "Porn Starlet infected with HIV!!!!" byline? Thankfully, Danni saw it and laid the proverbial baseball bat to them. Hope she and her attorneys get paid well with this settlement.

[rokkerr]

... amazing this thread is three years old.. the speed of justice is quite fucked...

[sugerdaddy]

Thanks Rokker, I didn't know this thread existed. Still I am please Dani has got her conclusion for what they did to her, The daily Mail reporters are a bunch of ass holes.