Just a few weeks ago, it was Kris Humphries who left Kim Kardashian because he was gay. Now accusations of fagginess are being thrown in a different direction.
Jonathan Cheban, to the uninitiated, is Kim’s BFF/publicist and a fellow fame whore for E!. The rather femme fellow—who most of us just assumed was a homo—actually says he’s not, and is ready to throw down the gauntlet now that it’s been revealed Kris calls him gay on an upcoming episode of Kourtney and Kim Take New York. (Sunday nights at 10pm on E! Don’t miss it!)
The gauntlet, by the way, is a $5 million defamation lawsuit.
Now, isn’t it a little homophobic to say that your good reputation has been ruined because a dumb basketball player called you gay? Haven’t we ditched the idea that being thought of as a homosexual will ruin someone’s career—especially a Hollywood publicist? We can’t see this making it to court—and Chaban knows it. It’s just more fuel for his fame machine. This is the man, after all, who got flour-bombed outside Kim’s New York boutique with TMZ conveniently poised/tipped off to capture the action.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Everyone we’ve talked to, from high-powered editors to casual fans to fellow publicists, thought Cheban was a sister. The one time we met him, there were practically rainbows shooting out of his ears. But a friend of Cheban tells RadarOnline otherwise. “The bottom line is he’s not gay.”
Funny way to phrase it.
If you have a tip for us about Cheban’s preference for dudes, gals, ladyboys or patio furniture, e-mail us the scoop.
Image via E! Entertainment
Gigi
What’s with that hair?
Torrie
Why do you want him on your team anyway? He’s ugly as fuck.
Mike in Asheville
This is all somewhat amusing…especially we all now know Evan Mulvihull must be quite the queen himself (or is it herself?) with the royal “The one time WE met him…”
Oh well, back to work.
ollie
oh please he is gay
Jane
Had enough of the Kardashians? Sign the petition at Boycottkim ((dotcom)) Over 250,000 signatures!
Mark
get these no talent hacks off the television – useless bunch of humans.
FreddyMertz
It was my understanding that there were new people to the list: “they who shall not be named”….I think the entire, those who shall not be named, family needs to be added.
I don’t have anything on him ‘cept the obvious..oh, and he has a thing for way to much tanning.
Timmmeeeyyy
A great little tidbit from the story link you posted.
“But our source says Humphries doubts the suit will ever materialize because the basketballplayer was told to make the remark on the “scripted” reality show.
Sammy
*Threw down the opera-length black satin glove
RomanHans
I’m with Timmmeeeyyy. Kris’s gay comment was a line of dialogue in a reality show script. Can’t sue over that.
Zeus
One time he was sitting in the row behind me at a play, and I’m pretty sure he overheard me refer to him as “the ugly guy from E!”
Aunt Sharon
@Mike in Asheville: This isn’t the royal “we”, it’s the editorial “we”, and common usage.
Mike in Asheville
@Aunt Sharon: I will beg to differ. I suppose I could ask Miss Manners which of us is correct, but, alas, she would pounce on me that a rude comment does not excuse a rude response.
I differ that the use of “we” being “Royal” and not “Editorial” as the writer was not expressing an opinion or position, he was expressing actually meeting the subject. Prior uses of “we” in the post were certainly “Editorial” as the writer was expressing an opinion: “Haven’t WE ditched the idea…” and “WE can’t see this making it to court…”
***********
Overall, yes I was being pretty catty to a pretty catty post. Oh, such silliness can be entertaining, but often becomes boring quickly.
Mk_Ultra_Again
A picture is worth a thousand words and my god, looking a this picture, every single one of those words is shouting ‘GAY!’. As mentioned, this is an obvious publicity stunt for himself. The best thing to do is ignore them completely.
Timmeeeyyy!!!
BTW, calling someone “faggot” or “queer” is defamatory. Calling someone gay is as defamatory as calling someone straight.
Spike
It should be thrown out. How can one being called gay be a defamation lawsuit? Can I sue if someone calls me straight? Can I sue if people say “no way, you can’t be gay.”
Judges that allow lawsuits based on “being called gay” only enforce the idea that being gay is wrong or harmful.
Bryan
He was on some stupid show on E! and I really did think he was gay *shrug*
Oh Dear (John From England)
@Torrie:
Exactly.
Riker
Defamation lawsuits are notoriously hard to win in the US. You have to prove that the remark caused actual, measurable damage, and truth of the statement will always lead to a finding for the defendant.
mjjm
he’s the guy who’s in cahoots w/ Mama Golddigger herself Kris Jenner behind the evil empire known as Kardashian. there are a few blind items linking him with Kourtney’s “fiance” Scott Disick.
xander
How about if we refer to him as “not not-gay” which resolves mathematically to “not straight” and could be reduced further to “gayish.”
The whole lot of the Kardashians and their ever-growing crew of hangers-on needs to be put out with the other rubbish (a.k.a. ‘trash’) and away from cameras, paparazzis and ‘reality show writers.’
Now, please.
B
No. 19 · Riker wrote, “Defamation lawsuits are notoriously hard to win in the US. You have to prove that the remark caused actual, measurable damage, and truth of the statement will always lead to a finding for the defendant.”
It’s a bit more complicated (and can vary from state to state) as there is something called “per se defamation”, where no proof of special damages is required. Accusing someone of being gay was historically per se defamation mainly due to sodomy laws (recently declared unconstitutional), and per se defamation does not require the proof of special damages. Things seem to be in a bit of flux legally, however.
http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2011/06/antiquated-new-york-precedent-still-governs-gay-defamation-lawsuit.html has some details, including the following: “Under the traditional English common law, a “false imputation of homosexuality” was deemed to be per se defamatory, mainly because homosexual conduct was a felony under the criminal law. The common law generally recognized four categories of per se defamation, one of which was imputing commission of a serious crime. (The others involved statements tending to harm plaintiff in his business, alleging that plaintiff had a “loathsome disease”, or impugning the chastity of a woman.) As sodomy was a felony at common law and by statute throughout the United States from colonial times until relatively recently, state courts that have addressed the issue, including many trial and intermediate appellate courts in New York, have traditionally treated the false imputation of homosexuality as per se defamation.”
And
“After reviewing the social changes that have occurred in societal attitudes towards gay people, Judge Chin concluded that the Court of Appeals would not treat the false imputation of homosexuality as being per se defamation. (In this, he was disagreeing with a decision by a different federal trial judge issued the previous year.)”
And
“However, so far the intermediate appellate courts of the state [NY] have not deemed the social and legal changes concerning gay people in New York sufficient to merit abandoning the old rule. Broome County is in the 3rd Appellate Department, which has not ruled directly on this question, but there are relatively recent rulings in the 1st and 2nd Departments which cling to the old doctrine.”