This isn't the first time someone on Real Housewives has threatened legal action, and surely it won't be the last. For some reason though, nothing ever comes from the threats of litigation. On Real Housewives of Melbourne , Gamble has threatened to sue Janet for defamation, and, while I hope it doesn't get that ugly, I kind of hope it does just so we can see Gina as a barrister/lawyer doing her thing with that teeny wig atop her voluminous hair. In reality, it's probably all talk on Gamble's part — that would be super awkward to sue a cast mate — but is there any validity to Gamble's defamation claims in case she did sue Janet?
I'm not a lawyer, but I used to want to be one from, like, 7 years old to 13 years old, so I'm probably the second most reliable person — outside of a real lawyer — to answer that question. (That and I am using the Victoria, Australia law handbook as a reference). First, let's remind ourselves of what it was that Janet said about Gamble. Janet said that she has heard from other people that Gamble used to be a stripper, maybe a call girl, and maybe threw sex parties.
Who are the people that Janet is hearing these rumors from? ICYMI:
So, yeah, supposedly there are a few people in Melbourne who are chit chatting about Gamble's past. Do I believe that? I don't know... I just know that when I was in high school and failed a chemistry test, I told my parents that everybody failed. Everybody.
So does Gamble have a case against Janet? The definition for defamation according to the Australian law handbook is the following: "The law of defamation is the area of law that deals with protection of reputation. Defamation law gives a person whose reputation has been wrongfully attacked the right to take legal action against those responsible."
Kind of sounds like Gamble's situation, right? Well, if Gamble were to proceed with litigation against Janet's remarks, Janet is going to need to have some defense to prove that what she said was not defamation. Here are different defenses that would allow Janet to have no charges of defamation set against her.
- It's True: Basically, every single piece of information that Janet said about Gamble would have to be true for it to be seen as defense.
- It's An Opinion ("Fair Comment"): Had Janet said, "I think Gamble could be a stripper," because that is her opinion (fair comment) it is not defamatory. That being said, if it was said with malice, then it is not a defense.
- Public Interest: If something is considered "public interest" (aka legitimate concern to the public aka not Gamble's past), that would be considered a defense.
- Qualified Privilege: Because Gamble and Janet have a working relationship, Janet maybe could argue that she has a social duty to relay the gossip, and because Gamble showed equal interest in receiving the statements. It could be a defense for Janet as long as Janet had no malice behind it.
Basically, it's all word games. Right now, I'd say the "Qualified Privilege" defense is the closest thing to Janet's best chance of winning the case. Will any legal action come about? Probably not, but surely this isn't the last time we've heard about the gossip that everybody is talking about.
Images: Martin Philbey/Bravo; butter-leopold-scotch/Tumblr (4)
