As fans of her Bravo show, "Life on the D List," know, Griffin had gotten into trouble for being too acerbic on the red carpet. One joke, that Dakota Fanning was in rehab, prompted Fanning's reps to threaten to sue E!

Kathy Griffin does not understand the difference between humor and slander. What she said wasn't funny. Why is it funny to claim Dakota Fanning is in rehab? Why is that a humorous assertion?

That's not acerbic -- that's a publicly damaging lie that could harm Fanning's ability to get work in the future. After Griffin said that, Fanning was practically obligated to sue -- to get it on the public record that it WAS a lie.

Because otherwise, how would people know how much of that assertion was just Kathy Griffin begging for attention, and how much was insider gossip to which she was a party? How would they know that Kathy Griffin just made that up in her head and there was no truth behind it whatsoever?

Kathy Griffin also claimed on Ellen that Brian Wilson's mental illness was caused by years of drug abuse. That's not true. He has schizophrenia. It's not caused by drug abuse. Why is it funny to claim otherwise?

For something like that to be funny, there should be a grain of truth to it. There should be some kind of truth to the allegation. But there is no truth whatsoever to the idea that Dakota Fanning is a drug addict or Brian Wilson's mental illness was caused by drug addiction.

The latter lie is especially despicable given the number of people suffering from this awful illness and the number of the people trying to care for them. Those people don't deserve to treated like that by her.

So it's not quite clear what kind of puzzle the folks at E! are trying to construct.

I think they're probably looking for a host who understands the difference between humor and defamatory lies that could form the basis of an expensive lawsuit.

Because you can't just make stuff up about people and go on TV with it!

The people you're making stuff up about have some rights, too.

I can understand how this fact might be puzzling at Salon.

... only an inbecile would, after seeing a comedian (no matter how relentlessly untalented) make such a comment would think "Wow, Dakota Fanning much really be in rehab." Defamation of character requires that the statement be presented in a manner where it is intended to be believed.

Just because it's a lame joke doesn't mean it isn't a joke. Yes, it is unnecessarily mean to make a lame joke about a child, even a (somewhat) famous one. But it doesn't make Kathy Griffin a liar or her statement defamation; it makes her an a-hole and the statement pathetic.

Drew Barrymore did go into rehab when she was quite young. Why would "only an imbecile" believe Griffin's statement about Fanning? It's not that unusual to see kids end up in rehab in these days. There was nothing about Griffin's statement that marked it as being beyond belief.

And Kathy Griffin doesn't say these things in the context of a standup routine. She drops these little bombshells as part of her pretense of giving insider celebrity gossip. She really is begging for a lawsuit when she does things this way.

Especially when her lies are aimed at people whose earning potential is tied to their reputation in a town that moves on gossip.

Griffin is really asking for it. You can't mess with people's careers like that.

And by the way, "name withheld", being verbally violent doesn't make you right. It just makes you verbally violent.

>"The people you're making stuff up about have some rights, too."

>"I can understand how this fact might be puzzling at Salon."

>"And by the way, "name withheld", being verbally violent doesn't make you right. It just makes you verbally violent."

Thank you for your utterly blatant, over-the-top hypocrisy. Now we know not to take anything you say seriously. Which is good, because otherwise Salon could sue you for slander. According to you, anyway.

I think you guys are completely missing the point of Kathy's joke. For those of you who don't know, which might be many of you, Dakota Fanning is a very sweet and articulate little 11-year-old girl. To say she just came out of rehab is hilarious because it'd be completely out of character for her (or any 11-year-old girl for that matter!) and it makes fun of celebrities like Kate Moss and Nicole Richie that spent time in rehab recently. I could see why Dakota's parents would be upset, but I don't think it's slander. Slander in intentionally telling a lie and presenting is as truth to damage someone's public image. Kathy wasn't slandering Dakota any more than she would be if she claimed Barbara Walters just came out of a whore house.

You know, I enjoy reading The Fix to get a small dose of gossip, plus some genuine "people" news (especially since I don't read People or any other gossip media). When I catch Kathy Griffith, I may not always know who she is talking about, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live her life, but I do "get" her. She satirizes the whole celebrity culture, whether it's by calling herself a "D"-list celebrity, or by making acerbic comments about the "real" celebrities for a living. She may be on the red carpet to report on celebrity, but she's also there as a satirist, and that's what her remark was: pure satire. "Bart" got it absolutely -- it was funny precisely because Dakota Fanning is NOT Drew Barrymore, and no one who knows anything about her would believe that she could possibly need rehab. Satire is not slander; in fact, the intent to satirize is recognized as a legal defense against being accused of defamation. If the Enquirer had said it, it would have been defamatory; they seriously claim to report inside information about celebrities and aliens. Kathy Griffith is a comedian, not a gossip columnist.

That Ms Schwarz and others didn't find the remark funny doesn't make it any less satiric -- humor is in the eye (or brain) of the beholder. I could point out that Ms Schwarz may not find it funny because of the poker she's got up her nether regions, but the satiric intent might be lost upon her, and she might construe my statement as "verbal violence", so I'll refrain.

That said, I can also understand the Fannings' response to Griffith's remark, even though it was clearly overreaction. If you are a concerned parent, and you have a daughter who is a very talented actress, you probably spend a lot of time walking the edge of a knife between allowing her to express her obvious talent, and the abyss on the other side, trying to protect your child from exploitation and battering by all of the public attention. Filing suit against someone who appears to represent all of the most rapacious elements of the media (most of whom continually manage to skirt the edges of what is defamatory, aided by the advice of their own legal departments) must have felt pretty good. Who can blame them for not having much of a sense of humor about their daughter being a target of anyone's satire?

It is a real pity that genuinely talented actors can't practice their art without having to deal with the ever-increasing nastiness of media attention. We can feel bad about this as much as we want, shake our heads over the creep who struck down a child to get a celebrity photo, or tsk-tsk over Kathy Griffith's resembling so much what she lampoons. But as long as we buy the publications that print the paparazzi's photos, and avidly consume all of the gossip and rumors that the media crank out, we are complicit in sacrificing the private lives of all celebrities and famous people, whether they ask for it (as some clearly do) or not (like the parents of Dakota Fanning.)

How's that for verbal violence?