Of course<\/em> Hunter Biden<\/strong>\u00a0has hired ubiquitous entertainment industry litigator\u00a0Bryan Freedman<\/strong><\/a>\u2014yes, the same attorney who has advised\u00a0Chris Cuomo<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0Megyn Kelly<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0Tucker Carlson<\/strong>\u2014to\u00a0threaten Fox News<\/a>\u00a0with legal action over its unhealthy obsession with him. Having marshaled a legal team that also includes fellow heavy hitters\u00a0Mark Geragos<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0TinaGlandian<\/strong>, Hunter is making it abundantly clear that he won\u2019t tolerate being continually smeared with what he describes as baseless allegations linking him and his dad to a bribery scheme. His message to Fox News? Clean up your act, set the record straight, and ax\u00a0The Trial of Hunter Biden<\/em>\u00a0from the Fox Nation streaming service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While word of these demands is spreading like wildfire in the media, don\u2019t hold your breath waiting for the letter itself to appear on mainstream news sites. That\u2019s likely because the demand letter is NSFW. Yes, the notorious intimate snapshots from Hunter\u2019s stolen laptop have found their way into The Trial of Hunter Biden<\/em>, which his legal team argues is a breach of \u201crevenge porn\u201d statutes and<\/em> constitutes a copyright infringement. But rather than simply, and chastely, asserting the illegality of publishing someone\u2019s selfies sans<\/em> consent (the Freedman letter nods to Ellen DeGeneres<\/strong>\u2019 iconic Oscar photo a decade ago, where Bradley Cooper<\/strong> inadvertently became the \u201cauthor\u201d simply by holding the camera), Hunter\u2019s legal squad has gone one step further by including<\/em> the risqu\u00e9 images themselves<\/em>. That\u2019s highly unusual, in my experience, and likely a tactic to limit circulation of the letter. (I\u2019ve gotten my hands on it, but I\u2019ll spare you.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n As for the bribery allegations, Team Hunter points to the recent indictment of former F.B.I. informant Alexander Smirnov<\/strong>, who was charged with fabricating a story about Joe<\/strong> and Hunter Biden accepting $5 million each from Ukrainian energy company Burisma. They cite Fox\u2019s \u201cbrazen\u201d and \u201cno remorse\u201d coverage of Smirnov\u2019s arrest, and demand that Sean Hannity<\/strong>, Jesse Watters<\/strong>, and Maria Bartiromo<\/strong> inform their viewers that they\u2019ve been sharing a debunked allegation from an indicted source. (There\u2019s no obligation under libel law for follow-up coverage of new facts, although Fox could mitigate damages for past defamatory statements.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then, there\u2019s the alleged commercial use of Hunter\u2019s name, image, and likeness in The Trial of Hunter Biden<\/em>, a six-part dramatization of \u201chow a possible Hunter Biden trial might<\/em> look.\u201d From a legal standpoint, this might be the most noteworthy claim in the entire letter, given that news organizations everywhere will soon be able to harness artificial intelligence to simulate this sort of stuff. (Sidebar: Anyone think of taking the transcripts of the Donald Trump<\/strong> hush money trial and using A.I. to take viewers inside the New York courtroom? How will the federal judiciary respond when technology is used to evade bans on the filming of court proceedings?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hunter\u2019s lawyers argue that the newsworthiness<\/em> exception to New York\u2019s name-and-likeness protection laws don\u2019t apply to The Trial of Hunter Biden<\/em> because it\u2019s essentially fiction, or at least an imagined portrait of future events. Potentially problematic for Hunter\u2019s team, the fictionalization doesn\u2019t necessarily render the series a commercial<\/em> use of his name. Regardless, courts have scrutinized<\/a> efforts to dress up a dramatization as \u201cunalloyed truth.\u201d And here, as the letter itself acknowledges, Judge Joe Brown<\/strong>, the TV magistrate who \u201cpresides\u201d over this \u201ctrial,\u201d tells viewers, \u201cThis is a mock trial. It is not a real proceeding. To be clear, Hunter Biden has not been implicated in or charged in any crimes arising from his activities, alleged activities.\u201d Still, Fox News spokesperson tells me that out of an abundance of caution, it has removed the series from its streamer while they evaluate the concerns raised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The series could come back\u2014sans<\/em> nudity, I\u2019d guess. But regardless, I expect the larger topic of news organizations taking creative liberties will resurface, especially as lawmakers discuss broadening and federalizing name-and-likeness laws in reaction to deepfakes. (Read the testimony<\/a> in Congress today<\/em>.) Hey, wouldn\u2019t it be something if that policy debate gets impacted by Fox News\u2019 taste for graphic images?<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n A few weeks ago, I highlighted<\/a> a new lawsuit filed against Freedman, as well as a motion for recusal in another case, cautioning that sometimes lawyers can face consequences for overly relying on the media for strategic advantage. I drew parallels to Michael Avenatti<\/strong>, much to Freedman\u2019s chagrin, as he understandably disliked being compared to the disgraced lawyer currently behind bars for extorting Nike. Well\u2026 now it seems Freedman finds himself confronting an accusation of extortion as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case involves Christian Lanng<\/strong>, the former C.E.O. of a billion-dollar company called Tradeshift, who stands accused of coercing his executive assistant into a \u201cslave contract\u201d and then sexually abusing her. He responds that the two were consensually into BDSM. A lawsuit is now playing out like Fifty Shades of Grey<\/em> gone horribly wrong, where the #MeToo movement reckons with the power dynamics of bondage in the workplace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2022, Lanng\u2019s assistant\u2014called \u201cJane Doe\u201d in her lawsuit\u2014entered into a $10 million structured settlement that drew from money raised by Tradeshift. Afterward, she received \u201cholding\u201d payments totaling $675,000. However, disbursement of the rest of the $10 million faced delays due to unspecified complications with the company\u2019s investors. It was then that Doe hired Freedman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Freedman reached out by text to Lanng last September, warning that he could face media exposure unless $10 million was paid to Jane Doe. Freedman texted Lanng, in part, \u201cI have been asked by a major media outlet if you would appear to explain your side of the story this week in conjunction with the claims being filed. They can have you appear by zoom.\u201d Lanng replied, \u201cBryan, I will get back ASAP with new counsel, any kind of media will not help achieve any outcome I\u2019m afraid.\u201d Freedman responded, \u201cChristian, I don\u2019t control the media as you know but once filed cases take on lives of their own.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n That month, amid accusations from a second woman and other rumors of misconduct, Lanng was fired as C.E.O. of Tradeshift. He now blames Freedman for his ouster, accusing his firm of orchestrating the creation of \u201cfake websites\u201d and \u201cfabricated\u201d Twitter accounts to smear him. (Freedman vehemently denies these claims.) Lanng also has brought a counterclaim against him for extortion over the threats to go to the media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While it wouldn\u2019t be fair to equate Freedman\u2019s present civil<\/em> situation to Avenatti\u2019s criminal<\/em> situation (which, incidentally, also involved Geragos<\/a>), Lanng\u2019s counterclaim warrants a few words on what courts evaluate in such circumstances. For instance, a judge may assess whether any threats of exposure by Freedman were \u201cinextricably tied<\/a>\u201d to a pending complaint to authorities, in which case they\u2019re likely protected by the First Amendment, or whether the threats occurred independent of a legal action, in which case they might not be. A judge might also evaluate whether there was a threat to ruin someone\u2019s reputation, and whether that had some \u201cnexus to [a] claim of right<\/a>.\u201d Incidentally, in the Avenatti<\/em> case, an appeals court noted<\/u><\/a> in passing that threatening to disclose the sexual indiscretions of an executive lacks such a nexus\u2014although the court wasn\u2019t faced with this exact, totally bizarre situation. So who knows?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In any event, Freedman tells me, \u201cFor him to now try and play the victim and turn this around is transparently preposterous. It\u2019s not legal or factual extortion to fight on behalf of your client to get them what they are rightfully entitled to. The cross complaint is nothing more than his desperate attempt to deflect from his own abuse as reflected in his own slave contracts.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" News and notes from the legal frontier: Hunter\u2019s retort to Fox, a new definition of revenge porn, and a Bryan Freedman twist. Of course Hunter Biden\u00a0has hired ubiquitous entertainment industry litigator\u00a0Bryan Freedman\u2014yes, the same attorney who has advised\u00a0Chris Cuomo\u00a0and\u00a0Megyn Kelly\u00a0and\u00a0Tucker Carlson\u2014to\u00a0threaten Fox News\u00a0with legal action over its unhealthy obsession with him. Having marshaled a legal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":41374,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[104,100,3983,1655,4069,3316,119],"tags":[3126,3089],"class_list":["post-41371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bryan-j-freedman","category-entertainment","category-fox-news-opponent","category-home-hero","category-hunter-biden","category-puck","category-tv_film","tag-defamation","tag-harassment"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\n\n\n\nSpeaking of Bryan Freedman\u2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n