Matt Kalil references Pamela Anderson’s sex tape to shed light on the court’s history of protecting intimate personal details. He raised the issue in an opposition petition after his ex-wife Halle Bailey requested the case be dismissed. Last month, he sued Marlon Garcia over offensive comments he made about his masculinity during a Twitch livestream. He claimed that the comments made hindered his efforts to stay out of the spotlight after his NFL career ended.
Matt Kalil uses Pamela Anderson’s sex tape as example in court case
Kalil filed a motion opposing Bailey’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. In the documents received by the court page sixHe highlighted the tendency of courts to keep intimate details out of the public record. He considers it as the court’s way of protecting the interests of individuals. He pointed out, “Time and again, especially when it comes to private, intimate details like nudity and sex, courts like the Minnesota Supreme Court in Lake have protected the public publication of such information.”
To make his point, he talked about how Bret Michaels and Anderson handled their sex tape controversy. He elaborated, “The court held that sexual relations are one of the most personal and intimate acts. While (Anderson) appeared nude in magazines, films, and publicly distributed videotapes, she was a professional actress playing roles involving sex and sexual appeal. ‘The fact that she played a role involving sex does not make her actual sex life open to the public.'”
Here Kalil was referring to the case involving Pamela Anderson and Bret Michaels. filed a $90 million lawsuit Against Internet Entertainment Group. Lawyers prevented the Anderson-Michaels tape from being widely distributed, unlike the tape involving Tommy Lee. This is because his lawyers have successfully obtained a court order blocking its release. The parties settled the matter, with the company agreeing to pay a settlement amount and destroy the footage.
Kalil further explained, “Nor did the court influence the fact that (Anderson) had appeared in another publicly distributed sex tape with a different rock star, as it was unwilling to conclude that ‘the public exposure of a sexual encounter forever removes a person’s privacy interest in subsequent and previous sexual encounters.'” At the time, the court also acknowledged that Michaels had a “privacy interest in her own sex life.”
He further argued that the courts understand that intimate details do not serve any legitimate public purpose. This is true even when public figures, who are entitled to fewer privacy protections, are involved.
Originally reported by Shazmin Navrange Mandatory