It's My Party, I'll Cry if I want to

This is definitely a "Best of Philly" moment.

Daniel Rubin of Bling, in a post Dismissed, Denied. reports on a legal decision about a bad party, the internet, a silly Philly guy and a lawyer, natch. The Court's opinion describes the party scene:

On December 31, 2005 . . . Anthony DiMeo’s publicity firm organized what turned out to be the New Year’s Eve party from hell. Renamity first contracted with Athmane Kabir, owner of Le Jardin, a restaurant located in the Philadelphia Art Alliance gallery, to host 325 guests on New Year’s Eve for a four-hour party with food and an open bar. . . . Twice as many people appeared. . . . When alcohol and food ran out well before midnight, attendees — who had paid $100 each — became disenchanted. ‘The staid, sprawling landmark on Rittenhouse Square never saw such a ruckus. Patrons seeking food burst through doors leading into a dining room of Kabir’s Le Jardin restaurant. Two mixed-media works on loan by Antonio Puri were stolen from museum walls. Sconces were torn. Someone tried to haul off the donations box. Kabir, fearing injuries, called police about 10:30 p.m.’”

(Opinion and analysis of the decision is available at My Election Analysis, Max Wins).

In the aftermath of the party, more mess ensued. As detailed by Bling in The Blueberry Heir v The Web's Bad Boy:

A defamation lawsuit filed in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court asks these questions, and pits local publicist and man-about-town Anthony DiMeo III against Tucker Max, a New York writer and man-about-town, who uses his web site to chronicle long nights of drinking and debauchery. And apparently annoy DiMeo endlessly.

Call it the Blueberry Heir v the web's bad boy.

DiMeo, 30, is suing Max, also 30, saying Max's widely-read web site has libeled him repeatedly.

Max, a Duke Law school grad who is representing himself, says he's done nothing of the sort.

Max has gained some notoriety for his writing, landing his book "I Hope they Serve Beer in Hell," on the New York Times best seller list (No. 26) and finding himself in court for publishing a full-frontal account of his sex life with a former Miss Vermont. He won, and has posted the gory details about the case on his site as well.

He describes himself on his website as an #$%hole. His emails carry this blurb from the Times: "...highly entertaining and thoroughly reprehensible..."

Juicyness aside, the case has the potential to test the constitutionality of the recent change to the Communications Decency Act of 1934 that makes it illegal to "annoy" someone anonymously on the Internet.

For the past two years posters on TuckerMax.com have ridden DiMeo for the way he uses his own web site to promote his parties, his acting career, his Renamity pr firm, his being heir to a blueberry farm in South Jersey. DiMeo's suit, filed by attorney Matthew B. Weisberg, of Morton, Pa., asks for $150,000 in compensatory damages as well as punitive damages of another $1 million.

See also, Philadelphia Will Do here and here, for more background on the case.

Now this is exactly what the law is all about. Protecting First Amendment rights. Blinq describes the decision of the good Judge Stewart Dalzell (and he is a good judge), affirming free speech rights everywhere, including the internet:

Tucker Max may be a lout, but he's no libeler, says a federal court in Philadelphia. A federal judge has tossed the case against Max, whose popular Web site celebrates his boozy carousing. On Friday, U.S. District Court Stewart Dalzell dismissed the claim by local publicist and event planner Anthony DiMeo III, who had contended his reputation suffered from comments made on TuckerMax.com after his New Year Eve party went awry.

* * * *

The judge's decision reaffirms that a Web site proprietor is protected from libel actions based on comments visitors make, either by name or anonymously. And it provides for more lively reading than one will encounter in a year of reading such things.

The decision begins, "Tucker Max describes himself as an aspiring celebrity 'drunk' and 'asshole' who uses his Web site, tuckermax.com, to 'share (his) adventures with the world.' Anthony DiMeo III, who says he is an heir and co-owner of a large New Jersey blueberry farm, threw a New Year's Eve party this past December that, apparently, ended in a shambles."

* * * *

While Dalzell wrote that "there is no question that tuckermax.com could be a poster child for ... vulgarity," he found the law must protect "the coarse conversation that, it appears, never ends."

Bling also interviews the victor:

Max, reached by phone in Los Angeles, was characteristically charming in victory:

"It was the legal equivalent of a bitch slap I think it's fair to say. The judge made sure these sorts of cases won't be brought again in his district. DiMeo will think twice before he slaps a frivolous suit on a legitimate expression of free speech."

To see his website, go to TUCKER WINS!!! DIMEO LOSES!!!.

Of course, luckily for us, this is not quite the end. Oh, but no, says Daniel McQuade of Philadelphia Will Do:

You might think the fun might be over. No more DiMeo randomly threatening to sue any independent blogger who happens to report on a disastrous party he has or says things about him other than "Anthony DiMeo is awesome and throws the best parties!" You might think that this decision has affirmed that the Internet is a place where people who are, say, blueberry heirs can't simply use their money to threaten to squelch any criticism of them. You, of course, would be wrong. According to our buddy Daniel Rubin, DiMeo is planning on appealing.

The other part I love about this is that the lawyer is not the bad guy.

Tags: Philadelphia, Philly, Law