Courtney Love once remarked “I found my inner bitch and ran with it”. Well, you can’t accuse Love of being unaware of her personal peccadilloes.
In February Ms. Love will be in court defending a defamation action brought against her by Texas fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir. Simorangkir, known as the “boudoir queen” had the misfortune of attracting Courtney Love’s attention after Ms. Love saw her designs on a fashion website.
Love was so impressed by Ms. Simorangkir that she flew her and her husband to Los Angeles to design a wardrobe for her. Apparently, after delivering the first designer garment and a bill to Love, rocker Love got a tad upset.
When Love received a second reminder bill she became incensed writing “I do not make a person famous and get raped too.” But that was only the beginning. According to the 22 page claim filed against Love, she began an “obsessive and delusional campaign to terrorize and destroy Ms. Simorangkir’s reputation and livelihood.”
Taking to MySpace and Twitter Ms. Love informed her 40,000 followers that the “boudoir queen” sold drugs, was a drug addict, had a criminal history involving assault, burglary and prostitution, stole from Ms. Love, was racist, homophobic and had lost her child because she was an unfit mother. The language that accompanied Love’s taunts was X-rated.
Ironically, over the years Courtney Love has candidly admitted to some of the same behavior.
It is reported this is the first case in America that will scrutinize the legal aspects of “tweets”. Is a tweet merely a personal opinion, much like a letter to the editor or an op-ed opinion or should it be treated like any other libellous statement? Will courts give greater latitude to Twitter and permit a lower standard of accuracy?
Ms. Simorangkir’s lawyers say the allegations made by Love are not true, while Ms. Love says she was told these facts by Simorangkir herself. If a statement can be shown to be truthful, it is not defamatory.
A media expert will testify on the breadth of the distribution of Love’s tweets and retweets and the impact on Ms. Simorangkir.
Lawyers for Love say that if the statements are not true, they will call a medical expert who will testify that Love was obsessed and addicted to Twitter and was not capable of forming any malicious intent.
For more on this story, just follow me on Twitter! (Twitter@lawdivas)
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Lawdiva's Blog 
I understand Ms. Love has spent some time in rehab and has embraced Narcotics Anonymous among other things in her recovery.
If these actions have in fact occured, and I have no reason to think otherwise (thank you Georgia), she has dismally failed practicing virtually every step and tradition of that program. Further, disrespecting the second word “Anonymous” in the very name of the program that saved not only he,r life but millions of others.
Time to make a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves (Step 4), admitted to a higher power, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs (Step 5), became entirely ready to have that higher power remove our defects of character (Step 6), humbly asked him to remove our shortcomings (Step 7), made a list of all people we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them( Step 8), made direct amends to such people (except when to do so would injure them or others) ( Step 9) and so on.
After that… miracles can happen.
Sounds like Love is readying herself for defeat on the first claim, but “cleverly” hedging her bets with the lunacy defense. If the shoe fits…