A woman who describes herself as a “lounge entertainer” has sued a newspaper for reporting that she gave “handjobs in the middle of the afternoon” -- even though she was allegedly a stripper and The Nashville Scene was quoting from a police report.

In a complaint that is a masterpiece of minimalism, Michelle Peacock alleges she was defamed by an article which was published Oct. 4, 2007. “In that article,” she says, “plaintiff was represented as '... giving handjobs in the middle of the afternoon ...' at her place of employment."

The suit does not identify that place of employment but goes on to say that the statement was defamatory per se because it “has a tendency to injure the plaintiff in her office, profession, calling or trade: that of a lounge entertainer.” Peacock lost her job at the “lounge” after the article was published.

“As a direct and proximate result of defendant' defamation and tortious conduct ... plaintiff has been and continues to be humiliated and held up to public ridicule, and plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer a diminution in her earnings and earning capacity,” the suit says.

But according to the article, Peacock did not make her living singing Sinatra standards.

The article, entitled “Not Doing Jack,” is actually about the city of Nashville's oversight of its sexually-oriented businesses. And Peacock, the story says, worked at one of them –- a Deja Vu strip club -– going by the stage name Lexi.

Then comes some detail and context that Peacock omitted from the complaint:

In March and May, according to police reports, Peacock “offered to manually stimulate (an undercover cop) until ejaculation for $100 U.S. Dollars.” Peacock was offering this during the middle of the afternoon and was arrested for prostitution after her second encounter with detectives.

Referring to the Sexually Oriented Business Licensing Board, known around Nashville as SOB, the article concludes by saying that “the SOB and its inspector somehow managed to avoid nabbing a stripper giving handjobs in the middle of the afternoon.”

Peacock, of course, isn't the first defamation plaintiff to omit context from a complaint. But she won't be able to gloss over the common-law privilege which protects reporters from liability when they fairly and accurately report the information in a public document.

The “fair report” privilege does not extend to a report of a judicial proceeding that includes “any defamatory comments or observations.” The Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled last year that the privilege did not apply to a TV news report which included information from anonymous sources and a private conversation with a police officer. Lewis v. Newschannel 5 Network, 238 S.W.3d 270.

But in commenting on Peacock's alleged mid-afternoon handjobs, The Nashville Scene didn't say anything that was not in the police reports. So the privilege clearly applies.

By Matthew Heller
10/2/08