Homosexuality no longer contemptible....

The trouble began almost two years ago, when Rita Cosby and publisher Hachette Book Group (which ironically sounds a lot like "Hatchet Book Group") published a celebrity biography of the late Anna Nicole Smith.

In Blonde Ambition, Cosby made allegations that Smith's attorney Howard K. Stern was gay and in fact had messed around with Anna Nicole's babydaddy, Larry Birkhead.

Stern, with Birkhead's support, brought suit against Cosby and her publisher in a federal district court in New York claiming the book contained 19 libelous statements, including for example the claim that Stern had engaged in oral sex at a Los Angeles party with Birkhead, and that Anna Nicole entertained herself by watching a sex video of Birkhead and Stern together.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin ruled yesterday that the defamation case could proceed on 11 of the statements, but he he threw out eight others. Why? Because according to Judge Chin, statements simply implying homosexuality are no longer defamatory.

While acknowledging that gays and lesbians still faced prejudice, the judge pointed to growing support for gay marriage and the repeal of sodomy laws to conclude there is no longer a "widespread view of gays and lesbians as contemptible and disgraceful."

This strikes me as a very big deal indeed, and if the 2nd circuit district court ruling is adopted by other courts, it could have a major impact on how the mainstream media covers gay rumors.

Just as an example, last fall when everyone was speculating on Adam Lambert's sexual orientation, we here at AfterElton.com (and I'm sure other mainstream media outlets) struggled with the decision of whether to actually describe the singer as gay. Clearly he was, but at the time Lambert had made no affirmative public statement to that effect. 

Reputable news outlets have historically been very wary of identifying anyone as gay unless that person has gone on record saying they are. They do this not simply because it is polite not to out someone who doesn't wish to be outed. Mostly, they do it because they fear liability for defaming someone on the off chance they aren't gay. 

This New York district court ruling, if widely adopted, would remove the threat of legal liability for merely asserting that someone is gay. For example, it would make it about as legally actionable as, oh say, making the erroneous claim that a certain celebrity is left-handed when he is in fact right-handed. 

While it is obviously a good thing that courts are recognizing that homosexuality is no longer "contemptible," I do worry that more closeted public figures will be outed as a result— and I still believe that's a decision the individual should make, and not the press. 

Wondering what AfterElton.com readers think about this subject?