appleseed
10-20-2003, 10:16 AM
Eminem 'bully' is rapped
20 October 2003
A million-dollar lawsuit against rapper Eminem was dismissed by a US judge who concluded her ruling with a rap verse.
Sanitation engineer DeAngelo Bailey, who attended school with the star, alleged he was defamed as a bully in his song Brain Damage.
In court, Judge Deborah Servitto rapped:
'Mr Bailey complained his rep is trash, so he's seeking compensation in the form of cash.
'Bailey thinks he's entitled to some monetary gain, because Eminem used his name in vain.
'The lyrics are stories no one would take as fact, they're an exaggeration of a childish act.
'It is therefore this court's ultimate position, that Eminem is entitled to summary disposition.'
While Mr Bailey is specifically named in the song, Eminem lawyer Peter Peacock told the court that previously he seemed to be ecstatic over his name being used in the CD and even told his friends about it.
Judge Servitto, from Michigan, ruled the lyrics were covered by the 'substantial truth doctrine' or contained the distortion and hyperbole of satire.
Both forms are protected by the US First Amendment.
20 October 2003
A million-dollar lawsuit against rapper Eminem was dismissed by a US judge who concluded her ruling with a rap verse.
Sanitation engineer DeAngelo Bailey, who attended school with the star, alleged he was defamed as a bully in his song Brain Damage.
In court, Judge Deborah Servitto rapped:
'Mr Bailey complained his rep is trash, so he's seeking compensation in the form of cash.
'Bailey thinks he's entitled to some monetary gain, because Eminem used his name in vain.
'The lyrics are stories no one would take as fact, they're an exaggeration of a childish act.
'It is therefore this court's ultimate position, that Eminem is entitled to summary disposition.'
While Mr Bailey is specifically named in the song, Eminem lawyer Peter Peacock told the court that previously he seemed to be ecstatic over his name being used in the CD and even told his friends about it.
Judge Servitto, from Michigan, ruled the lyrics were covered by the 'substantial truth doctrine' or contained the distortion and hyperbole of satire.
Both forms are protected by the US First Amendment.