Jared Leto’s Lawyers Do NOT Want You Talking About His Third Leg

It’s been almost exactly one year since Alexis Arquette got us all thinking about Jared Leto’s little Lenny, and word on the street is that it’s not so little.

“It’s not only massive; it’s like a Praetorian Guard’s helmet,” she said at the time.

Then there was the whole “grabbing it on stage” thing, giving the internet this glorious image:


Well now all of a sudden it seems that Leto and his legal team are taking umbrage with gossip surrounding the star.

Users on the website Lipstick Alley got into some finger pointing, not only fanning the flames of Leto’s large manhood, but also suggesting he has a penchant for rough sex.

Leto’s legal team sent a rather nasty cease and desist.

Here’s the rather cheeky response from Lipstick Alley’s lawyer:

Having reviewed the posts that you have identified, I conclude that you do not have any non-frivolous defamation against any of the posters.

Some of the posts of which you object do not appear to me to be defamatory. Two of the posts simply mention claims found elsewhere in the Internet that your client has a large penis. It is hard to see how those statements would hurt your client’s reputation, even if they are false. It is, as I understand it, the accusation of having asmall penis that is understood to be an insult.

Other posts about Leto’s allegedly rough and inconsiderate behavior during alleged sexual encounters with fans, and about the age of one of the fans, might well have been defamatory when originally posted, assuming that they are false. I recognize that your letter claims that the statements are false. I assume that you do not have personal knowledge about the size of Leto’s penis or about whether he is rough with sexual partners, and you do not cite any evidence supporting your claim of falsity.

Moreover, none of the posters on Lipstick Alley claims to have personal knowledge about Leto’s conduct during sex with his fans (or about the size of his penis); some simply express their views about what they have read elsewhere, and some have reposted comments from other web sites that purport to reflect first-person descriptions of activities in which the original writers claim to have been involved. Your demand letter mentions that at least one of the linked-to posts has been deleted from the original site, and you seem to suggest that the removal of various posts in response to demand letters from your client supports your assertion that the posts are false. But at most, it only shows that the individuals whom your client threatened decided that the issue was not worth litigating. Lipstick Alley, however, stands up for the First Amendment right of its users to comment on celebrities, and to make those comments anonymously, unless their statements have been proved false and defamatory. It does not remove posts simply because a wealthy actor is able to hire a law firm to send threatening letters.

Who doesn’t have a #penisgate these days?