Comments on: Claim: Spitzer’s floozy used my lost ID

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:34:39 +0000

If Eric’s account is correct, I stand corrected, though I have to wonder about statute-of-limitations problems given that the article in question was published in 2003. I continue to question the merits of the suit.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:26:58 +0000

Eric, I missed that reference. I Googled her name again and the article you mentioned was the last one on the first page. The article referenced is from the Orlando Sentinel’s archives of a story they ran in March 11, 2003. Although they indicate in the caption of the picture that the girl shown is Ashley Dupre, the article itself only uses the name Amber Apario, and does not state that the person mentioned in the article was actually Ashley Dupre who was using Amber’s ID. So my question is as follows. Since the paper now knows that the person identified in the article as Amber Apario is actually Ashley Dupre, are they legally responsible for republishing this false information at this time?

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:47:01 +0000

One other thing that Ted, at least, completely leaves out of his analysis is “person on the street” reactions. Just because most employers (at least, most employers one would want to work for) would be able to see the distinction, showing ID (for any reason) or introducing yourself and having the other person say, “Oh, hey, you were on GGW, weren’t you?” would simply suck (and having them think it but not mention it and give you a chance to correct them would often be worse). A lawsuit like this does not necessarily educate all of those people, but it should help.

Eric’s point about a valid lawsuit that gets botched by the lawyer is also good.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:24:33 +0000

I want to thank Eric Turkewitz for directing my attention to the Orlando Sentinel clip, which does cause me to rethink my earlier remarks. I had wrongly assumed that all the press coverage using Arpaio’s name came after the Spitzer scandal broke, presenting her as someone whose name had been stolen. I didn’t realize Dupre had appeared in a news feature about GGW under the stolen name. Opinions may still differ about the wisdom of the latest suit — I’m pretty sure I would have advised the real-life Arpaio not to file it — but it’s not as unreasonable in its basis as I assumed, and I ought not to have adopted the snarky tone.

By: Eric Turkewitz

Eric Turkewitz — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:26:33 +0000

Richard:

I found this article on the first page of Google, with her name in it at a Girls Gone Wild party:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-archive-girlsgonewildstory03192003,0,3030962.story

So before the suit, how high up on page one do you think this was? It’s kind of silly to argue that without the suit she wouldn’t have a damaged reputation.

Trying to repair a Google reputation is, I think you would agree, pretty tricky to do. A victim can easily be left with picking between two lousy options; in this case having litigation supplant porn/prostitution.

Whether her suit is any good (even if it were in good hands) is another matter. But Walter’s theory that being litigious is worse than being linked to the porn stuff is something that I don’t think should simply be accepted at face value.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:10:52 +0000

Try Googling her name Ted, and you will see she pops up at the top in association with Dupre. Speaking about a self-fulfilling prophecy Eric, when I google her name, all of the hits deal with her lawsuit against Dupre. So that is the first thing any future employer, for example, will see. And this will lead them to wonder how (if at all) she may be related to Dupre or Girls Gone Wild. Is that because dentists are unable to read and understand English? Of course given the proclivities of some dentists, this may enhance her chances of getting a job. :)

By: Eric Turkewitz

Eric Turkewitz — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:19:46 +0000

no one reasonable would look at the Ashley Dupre link and think Arpaio had anything to do with it given that anyone looking at “Arpaio” is doing so because they want to look at Dupre.

Try Googling her name Ted, and you will see she pops up at the top in association with Dupre. So that is the first thing any future employer, for example, will see. And this will lead them to wonder how (if at all) she may be related to Dupre or Girls Gone Wild.

Now that doesn’t mean the lawsuit was well done, but that is, as I indicated, a separate issue from the idea of bringing one. One might have a perfectly good claim regarding a busted widget, for example, and see the lawsuit botched.

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:08:21 +0000

Deoxy, you misunderstand. Arpaio’s name only comes up in a google search as a pseudonym for someone much more famous than Arpaio. No reasonable person would draw any conclusions about Arpaio herself, any more than anyone thinks my domestic partner has herpes because Paris Hilton used her name as a pseudonym to get prescription medication. Arpaio suffers no loss of reputation; no rational employer is going to say “Ashley Dupre used this person’s name in a GGW video and therefore it is problematic to hire her.”

On the other hand, with this lawsuit, one can draw accurate conclusions about likely consequences of hiring Arpaio.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:57:49 +0000

Actually, Ted, I have to disagree with you (which is unuual). If I were Arpaio, and the choice was “be known for stupid lawsuit” or “be believed to be a porn ‘actress'”, I would choose the lawsuit every day of the week and twice on Sunday (as the old saying goes).

You clearly value your reputation less than some, or at least weight certain things VERY differently.

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:02:33 +0000

Turkewitz is 100% wrong: no one reasonable would look at the Ashley Dupre link and think Arpaio had anything to do with it given that anyone looking at "Arpaio" is doing so because they want to look at Dupre. They will look at the ludicrous Arpaio lawsuit and see someone who brings meritless lawsuits at the drop of a hat, and signed off on seeking $10 million. I sure wouldn't hire someone like that. This lawsuit has made her worse off. The lawyer--Robert E. Dunn of Hanlon, Dunn, and Robertson--not only botched the jurisdictional question, but failed to comply with D.N.J. electronic filing rules. (This isn't unprecedented--in July 2007, there was a Texas lawsuit by a woman whose high-school classmate appropriated her name for her porn career. Alas, our guest bloggers didn't cover it at the time. Someone should call the attorney and see what happened to that lawsuit.)