I was on two programs: talking about open courtrooms and transgenderism invading family court.
Overstock.Com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., No. A133487, at *51 (Cal. Ct. App.
Nov. 13, 2014) (“ Even though the court "ordinarily would order sealing" given the facts, it
ultimately denied sealing because the financial data had already been loosed into the public
domain in another case. (Id. at p. 1286.) ”) In Gilbert v. National Enquirer, Inc., 55 Cal.App.4th 1273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) a "wellknown
actress" and "public figure" (Melissa Gilbert) sought an order prohibiting her ex-husband
(Brinkman) from making hateful comments about her to the press, in particular during the
pendency of their divorce. Brinkman had allegedly threatened to destroy Ms. Gilbert's reputation
by disparaging her in the press about infidelities and substance abuse problems, if she did not
dismiss him from a defamation lawsuit stemming from his earlier interview with a tabloid. Ms.
Gilbert asserted that their minor child could be harmed if the threatened comments were
made. The Court of Appeal in Gilbert reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the First
Amendment right to free speech outweighs the right to privacy-even though neither Brinkman,
nor their child, were public figures. Gilbert v. National Enquirer, Inc., 43 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1138-39 (Cal. Ct. App.
12
1996) ("The July 4, 1995, National Enquirer headline announced, in large, italicized, and bold
print, that "Melissa Gilbert is a cold-blooded mother who forced our little boy to live in a car!"
According to the article, Brinkman had given "a scathing exclusive interview" in which he
accused Gilbert of being a "`deadbeat mother,'" of ignoring their son when he spends weekends
with her, and of forcing their son to live in a car when Brinkman became homeless following
the 1994 earthquake. The article further stated that Brinkman was the one who had fed their
infant son at night, that Gilbert had refused to enter their son's bedroom for fear of catching the
chicken pox, and that Gilbert had worn earplugs to shut out the child's cries. The article
contained other anecdotes by Brinkman concerning
Gilbert's alleged shortcomings as a mother.")
The Court in Gilbert observed:
While their son is the unfortunate bystander in this feud, we are bound by decades
of United States Supreme Court precedent on the law of prior restraints. The threatened invasion
to Gilbert's right of privacy and the threatened harm to her reputation are not the sort of
'extraordinary circumstances' required to justify a prior restraint. [Citation] Gilbert's remedy, if
Brinkman or the Enquirer abuse their right of free speech and press, is to file a civil action for
damages [i.e. defamation], as she has done here.
Overstock.Com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., No. A133487, at *51 (Cal. Ct. App.
Nov. 13, 2014) (“ Even though the court "ordinarily would order sealing" given the facts, it
ultimately denied sealing because the financial data had already been loosed into the public
domain in another case. (Id. at p. 1286.) ”) In Gilbert v. National Enquirer, Inc., 55 Cal.App.4th 1273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) a "wellknown
actress" and "public figure" (Melissa Gilbert) sought an order prohibiting her ex-husband
(Brinkman) from making hateful comments about her to the press, in particular during the
pendency of their divorce. Brinkman had allegedly threatened to destroy Ms. Gilbert's reputation
by disparaging her in the press about infidelities and substance abuse problems, if she did not
dismiss him from a defamation lawsuit stemming from his earlier interview with a tabloid. Ms.
Gilbert asserted that their minor child could be harmed if the threatened comments were
made. The Court of Appeal in Gilbert reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the First
Amendment right to free speech outweighs the right to privacy-even though neither Brinkman,
nor their child, were public figures. Gilbert v. National Enquirer, Inc., 43 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1138-39 (Cal. Ct. App.
12
1996) ("The July 4, 1995, National Enquirer headline announced, in large, italicized, and bold
print, that "Melissa Gilbert is a cold-blooded mother who forced our little boy to live in a car!"
According to the article, Brinkman had given "a scathing exclusive interview" in which he
accused Gilbert of being a "`deadbeat mother,'" of ignoring their son when he spends weekends
with her, and of forcing their son to live in a car when Brinkman became homeless following
the 1994 earthquake. The article further stated that Brinkman was the one who had fed their
infant son at night, that Gilbert had refused to enter their son's bedroom for fear of catching the
chicken pox, and that Gilbert had worn earplugs to shut out the child's cries. The article
contained other anecdotes by Brinkman concerning
Gilbert's alleged shortcomings as a mother.")
The Court in Gilbert observed:
While their son is the unfortunate bystander in this feud, we are bound by decades
of United States Supreme Court precedent on the law of prior restraints. The threatened invasion
to Gilbert's right of privacy and the threatened harm to her reputation are not the sort of
'extraordinary circumstances' required to justify a prior restraint. [Citation] Gilbert's remedy, if
Brinkman or the Enquirer abuse their right of free speech and press, is to file a civil action for
damages [i.e. defamation], as she has done here.