Outsports will be featured on the next-to-last episode of the reality series “The Law Firm,” on Bravo, Saturday, Oct. 8 at noon EDT. The episode centers around a lawsuit filed by a North Carolina man who said Outsports defamed him by running his picture in a photo gallery from the 2004 Los Angeles Marathon.

Read story.

[ October 04, 2005, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Jim at Outsports ]

My question is "Will Chris Harbison be suing now for some of the profits from Bravo?"

For those who want more background here's a link to the original discussion.

Hopefully we will keep Bravo long enough to see the show. I'm not sure if it's part of the "basic" package we may soon be switching too.

[ September 15, 2005, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

Can't wait to see this, particulary the (blank) who sued Outsports testify.

Oooo!! I cannot WAIT!! Makes me wish I had Tivo!

That poor, silly, good-looking man. He sued because he didn't want to be publicly known as gay. And now he'll be publicly known as a homophobe. Ha!

I've never heard of this show, The Law Firm. Does it run in Canada, I wonder?

As mentioned in the thread I started on the show, The Law Firm was the show from David E. Kelley, who previously contained about how horrible reality TV was until he decided to do a show himself. It was on NBC for two weeks and abruptly canceled due to miniscule ratings. Bravo picked up the series, in part at least because NBC owns Bravo. So whether it's going to air in Canada, I don't know. Does Canadian TV pick up everything aired in the US, no matter how unsuccessful?

It's gratifying to know that we'll finally have some closure to the story of the lawsuit. wink

Help me understand this: Having a captionless picture shown on a gay sports site causes him “extreme embarrassment, public humiliation, mental agony and damage to his name and reputation.” But appearing nationwide on an idiotic reality TV show is ok with him? Poor, messed-up guy. He really wants his 15-minutes of fame. And I suppose he'll get some cash for appearing on the show, so add greed to his list of traits.

When he discovered his picture was on the site, he should have just written OutSports to have it removed. I assume Jim and Cyd would have been understanding guys and acquiesced to his request. Instead, he went the legal route, and I bet he is kicking himself repeatedly now for making such a big deal out of this.

His lawyer did write to us before the lawsuit and we removed the photo immediately. He still opted to sue us three months later.

Imagine how embarrassed I was when they ran my picture here.

Time change! According to Bravo's website The Law Firm now airs Saturdays at noon -- the Outsports episode is listed for Saturday, October 8th. I was actually going to watch it last night while the Phils-Mets game was rain-delayed and it turned out not to be on.

Bravo hates this program and really resents NBC dumping it on them, don't they? Thanks for the heads-up Joe.

Went to the Bravo website to see if there was any news about the Outsports episode of The Law Firm, and noticed they had yet another gay show: Great Things About Being... Queer. Why don't they just rename that channel Bravo, Mary!

Remember, the show now airs Saturday at noon on Bravo. Set your VCR's!

It's one of a five-part series. Tonight is the "queer" episode. Last night it was "fat." The following episodes will be "30," "blonde" and "red state." Hmmmm...we need a separate thread on this...

Jim and Cyd, I'm looking forward to this Saturday's episode. I watched "The Firm" early on but haven't been able to keep up after they moved it to Bravo and then switched the days. Are the hunky attorneys still on? Last I watched it was down to three guys and a girl.

I was wondering, is the Outsports case going to be before a judge or is it an arbitration case? Jim/Cyd, did you guys have to sign something to say you're going to abide by whatever ruling that gets aired or do you still have rights to appeal the decision? I always felt your case touches on some first amendment issues on the Internet and would have wide-spread appeal to other Web sites, so hopefully whatever decision isn't the end-all in 60 minutes.

We can discuss everything after the show airs.

The Law Firm page on the Bravo website says, "Next On... The remaining three lawyers take on a legal superstar." So much for a preview... how do they expect people to become interested in the show when they say so little about what's coming up?

The three remaining lawyers are Aileen, Mike and Olivier.

It doesn't look like Bravo Canada shows this show... I'm counting on Outsporters for the full recap.

That's too bad because I happened to see a brief preview last night and that shower scene featuring Cyd and a couple of the lawyers looks really hot! wink

Hm, that must of been some belated emotional pain. Looking forward to Saturday.

I love Olivier's looks, but he's a real A-hole from the very beginning. And he got into deep do-do when he totally ripped into a judge when he didn't agree with the decision. Very unprofessional.

One of my favorite hunky attorneys was the very first one to get axed.

Michael's not bad, but he's a bit nerdy. I'm guessing he'll win. I wouldn't mind if Aileen wins too. But not Olivier. I'd just save him for bed when I console him. ha!

So are these reality star-wannabes representing Outsports or are they representing the guy who had his picture taken? Hmmm, interesting to see the match up. Can't wait!

I agree about Olivier. He's been my fave since Day One (I made a point of watching the show from the beginning in anticipation of Jim and Cyd's participation). I think Roy Black kind of likes him too, or he would've gotten rid of him after the outburst where he swore and raised his voice at the judge. Michael's a little too smug for my taste, and Aileen just has made no impression on me whatsoever.

Just a reminder to watch Saturday. Cyd and I are in SD so won't see it until Monday, but please post your thoughts whenever. Once back we can give you all the background.

Geez, I'm watching and I'm worried. So far it's looking bad for Jim and Cyd.

Surprised - and pleased - to hear that Mike is gay.

*whew* Not guilty. That closing statement was a good save, the lawyers hadn't been doing a very good job up to that point.
I'm so glad that the final comments included what I was thinking about the prosecution using Matthew Shepherd. Man, that guy had some gall to pull something like that.

I was cheering you guys on. I am so glad you guys won.

There were parts of the show I was SCREAMING at the TV about the plaintiff describing gay people.

You guys are definitely brave & happy you won.

[ October 08, 2005, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Allen ]

Wow, great summation by Michael. I was proud of him for making it clear that scumbag lawyer had no business trying to use what happened to Matthew Shepard to justify bigotry and homophobia. Pretty scathing comments about Our Jim by Roy Black. And why was Cyd muzzled? We never heard him until the last five minutes. In any case, I'm glad the forces of justice prevailed. Can't wait to hear the backstage dirt when Jim and Cyd return.

In addition to the joy of seeing the right side win and strike a blow against bigotry, there's also the malicious glee that Chris Haribinson is now out the money for his celebrity lawyer's fee (or was that provided free of charge in return for the agreement to be televised?) and has vastly increased the number of people questioning his sexuality or deriding him as a bigot by his own efforts. Ah, karma's a bitch. I assume the losing side had to pay any court costs Outsports may have incurred as well?


[ October 08, 2005, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Matt the Bruins fan ]

I imagine lots of us had a truly visceral reaction to the plaintiff's attorney's comments in his opening statement and closing argument. But a great win and nice save by the defense in the closing argument.

I know this is reality TV, and although the vertict was telegraphed from the get-go and that we all know the plaintiff didn't have a legal leg to stand on, the producers did their job in editing to set us up to think the Law Firm would lose.

Although the episode did a commendable job of laying bare blatant homophobio, it was, as a lesson in law and civics, an unimitigated failure. Again, I know it's reality TV, but it was a disservice to gloss over the First Amendment issue (mentioning it only briefly in the opening scene and even less so in the defense attorney's closing argument), which was the very heart, soul and keystone of the defense. Participating in a public news event in a public place, the plaintiff by law has a reasonable expectation that his photograph will be taken and used in the media. Case closed. Doesn't make for exciting TV, but it would've been nice for the audience to really truly understand the law behind the case.

The right lawyer was dismissed. Yes, putting Hall on the stand was a big boo-boo. But you also have to always be prepared for a witness to lie on the stand and she wasn't.

It seemed to me that the law was clear, and that the plaintiff simply didn't have a leg to stand on. The plaintiff's attorney was clearly the better litigator, but he is experienced, and would have been able to argue out of the other side of his mouth, if he was defending Outsports, probably even more convincingly. The Outsports attorneys didn't do a good job, but the lawyer who made the closing argument was excellent.

It was also clear that the plaintiff saw an opportunity to make money out of this case. If he was so concerned for his life and reputation, and not about money, his attorneys should have advised him to keep his mouth shut, and not escalate the attention it brought him. It also seemed the crux of the plaintiff's argument, reading between the lines, was that the people of this North Carolina town all had IQs under 70, and all think that appearing on a gay website makes one automatically gay.

Jim did not look good on the stand. Of course, it is understandable with such stress having to testify under oath. But it seemed to me that his attorneys did not prepare him. They should have seen that the plaintiff's attorney was going to try to paint Jim into a corner. For example, they should have prepared Jim to say that gay people remain closeted for several reasons, and emphasize to the jury that remaining in the closet is different than what Chris had to deal with.

It was comforting to see that sometimes justice actually depends on the merits of the case, and not which side has the better litigator.

Anyway, congrats to Jim and Cyd, and to our Outsports community. I'm interested to hear what Jim and Cyd have to say now.

[ October 08, 2005, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

I would love to see all the unedited footage from this show. Wonder if Chris Harbison was called to the stand at all and it wasn't shown. Don't believe ex-girlfriend lying on the stand. And if Chris Harbison was so afraid everyone would think he was gay, why did he ever agree to go on national tv? I assume his lawyer told him to not smile and no gel in the hair. wink

I think this says it best:

The pic seems to disappear so let's just post the link and see what happens.

The result is wonderful -- I can't imagine what would've happened in a real trial in North Carolina, and how long the appeals from whichever side lost would've gone on. In case you didn't read the fine print at the end, the decision of the TV case is final. wink

This show just reminded me all the more why I hate reality shows. I thought they edited Jim's testimony to make him look bad -- although if you believe Roy Black, he looked bad anyway. We'll have to wait and see what Cyd and Jim have to say once they return from their little football weekend, which I feel they should have just canceled in order to be here online to answer our questions right away. wink

Back to the editing: it really didn't give you a remotely realistic view of an actual trial -- the jury selection, the full arguments, all of the testimony, etc. We look at trials that are in the news and give our own views of whether someone is guilty or not, but it's based on news accounts which only give you so much of what happened in the courtroom. This show gives you even less. No doubt this is in part because they're so busy showing those comments by the lawyers on their "competition."

The whole thing was just incoherent -- swinging wildly from issue to issue, and just making everyone look like fools at one point or another.

I'd be interested in Fieger's actual opinions on gay issues -- seeing as how he was hired by the show, and I'm assuming specifically to be Harbinson's representative, I wonder if he was just going over the top to try and make for what he thought would be good TV, or if he realized that Harbinson had no case and was just desperately grabbing at straws when bringing up Matthew Shepard -- and again, how much of this was due to editng?

I was waiting for Michael to tell the jury he's gay, but he didn't -- or at least they didn't air that part of his closing argument.

[ October 08, 2005, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Watching it today makes me wish I'd seen previous episodes of the series. I was riveted. Knowing the people involved, though, made it even more interesting. I really began to hate the plaintiff's lawyer, and then I developed a major crush on the gay attorney on the Outsports side. What a hottie.

Overall, it was incredibly interesting. I'm glad it turned out the right way. I loved where the Outsports lawyers caught that defense witness in the lie about her friend saying she thought Chris was gay all along.

The show's producers pay for all those things. I imagine the only money Outsports is out is what they may have spent before having their case picked up by the show. And no way Harbinson could afford Fieger.


He took the stand. Perhaps you were taking a potty break.

Calling Gary Hall wasn't that big a boo-boo until the girl asked the question about his friend. I'm not sure Fieger would have been able to ask about his friend had she not asked Hall about him first.

Funny/scary moment was when Olivier objected to Fieger citing so many causes of action by saying it wasn't very nice or fair.

The Matthew Shephard stuff was mighty despicable. I'm not sure a judge allows any of the references about him in if this were not for a TV show.

And can I ask what was all the drooling over this Harbinson guy about? Not all that, IMO. BTW, did anyone ask him, under oath, if he was gay? And there has to be more to the ex-girlfriend's testimony that we didn't see. Looking forward to Jim and Cyd finally being able to talk about it.

I also didn't like when Fieger said something along the lines of "Outsports promotes the gay lifestyle" or some such thing. That is a misrepresentation, IMO. It is mostly a place for sports fans who happen to be gay to get together and talk about sports.

Also, did Brent testify?

[ October 08, 2005, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: FireMikeTiceNow ]

The "Outsports promotes the gay lifestyle" comment was indeed (one of many that were probably edited out) a shrewdly deliberate misrepresentation designed to prejudice the jury, or at least pander to any homophobia any of the jury members may have harbored.

Feiger's Shepard references were perfectly legitimate tactics, even if despicable. He was pulling a Johnny Cochran -- his job is to win at any cost. But the irony of bringing up that issue is this: Yes, the Matthew Sherpards of the world, including Hall's gay friend, rightfully fear violence against them because ... THEY ARE GAY! But the defendent is NOT GAY! So he could not reasonably and rationally claim fear of retribution/violence against him for something he is not. So it comes down the PERCEPTION of being gay, and when defendants in criminal trials have tried to use this as a defense, courts across America have rejected it out of hand. It's a flimsy straw of an argument.

I still think calling Hall was stupid because it played into the plaintiff's hands. You better believe that in a real suit, Feiger would've dug into Hall in the discovery phase and found out all about his gay friend(s) and used it just like he did.

I think the "fair use" laws applied in this case and the plaintiff was doomed from the start.

Still haven't seen it. What did Roy Black say about me that was so negative?

Jim, that you didn't look good on the stand with your answers, and that you drank a gallon of water.

I should really learn shorthand if I'm going to take dictation from a TV show, even if it's on a videotape. wink



[ October 08, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Congrats to Jim and Cyd and OUTSPORTS. Although truth was on its side, you never can tell with a jury, so I'm glad that this jury (in LA, yeah for California! no offense to North Carolina) had the sense to see the claims of the defendant was just paranoia.

Hey, by the way Ilini, you said you're glad Outsports was found "not guilty." That's actually wrong. Outsports was not facing any criminal charges, so it wasn't guilty or not guilty. This was a civil case so the finding was for the plaintiff or the defendant. There was no guilt being judged. I think it's an important distinction because we don't want to associate printing a photograph as being potentially guilty.

Anywho, I also got a crush on Michael, who I actually never suspected to be gay. I really believed he had a great summation, and that was partly because of his being gay. That background gave him the passion to deliver such a closing.

The plaintiff attorney, obviously a media grabber, said from the beginning that he didn't have a plan but whatever he did, he would go all the way. So I think from the get-go that he knew he had a tough battle ahead and was just hungry at the chance to chew up some young attorneys.

I actually felt Olivier should have gone. I believe he lacks substance and is relying a lot on his good looks. His First Amendment opening was on the mark but borderlined on hysterics, in my opinion.

And sorry, Cyd, but I think you did come off nervous. Did you feel comfortable with your prep? Did the attorneys gave you potential questions so that you would have an answer. And you did seem to drink a lot of water which made it seem like you were nervous.

And I also agree that the plaintiff totally did not look hot with his new hairdo. I'm glad he's not labeled as a homophobe, because he deserves it.

Is this the end of it, or does the plaintiff have the option of appealing? Or was this considered binding arbitration type of situation where both sides agreed to accept whatever judgement?

Two questions:

Could she possibly be serious saying that (and let me make it clear that I paraphrase for fear of being sued) everybody in Newton, North Carolina \"knows\" that Los Angeles is \"99%\" gay? A lot of LA homos must be amazed they can't find a date

Hyperbole is one thing but give me a break.

And didn't Chris Harbinson dress like a totally different (read gayer) person when he was interviewed by the three contestants along with Jim and Cyd before the trial?

What kind of game was he (or his lawyer?) playing with that switcheroo?

I always this Harbinson guy was totally off the wall, and this show did nothing to lessen the appearance that he's a total closet case.

Just my opinion.

The end credits of the show stated that the decision is final and there's no appeal.

That was what that girl's mother said. Clearly neither of them are the brightest bulbs on the scoreboard. wink

[ October 08, 2005, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Yes, wrong terminolgy I admit, but I think everyone understood what I meant.

Yes, Ilini fan, I knew what you meant. wink Sometimes the literal editor in me comes out of the closet. [[Please, please, no photos!!]]

Heh, that's okay, that's what I get for being an accounting major. Thanks for the correction. Just to re-iterate though, I'm glad this was found in favor of Outsports. That would have been such a ridiculous verdict had it gone in favor of the plaintiff.
(That all jives legally right?)

I just read the recap on the Law Firm website, and the recaps from people here. I'm still not clear why it was wrong to put Gary Hall on the witness stand. Wouldn't he have shown that (a) putting one's photo on Outsports does not make the general public believe one is gay and ( the photo does not lead to negative reactions (ie. threats of violence).

Also, I'm wondering how the plaintiff thought that people in his community would even have seen his photo in the first place, since it's on a website that caters to gay people primarily. And the notion that the plaintiff might actually be gay and 'protesting too much' seemed to be given some credence given the ex-girlfriend's comments.

I think it's great that Outsports has been given some media attention through this case. I'm sorry Jim, that you were made to 'look bad.' But having met you in person and seen you on TV (in other things), I find it hard to believed that you weren't poised and confident in your testimony.

The Gary Hall thing ended up being nad because he had a friend who is gay that he would not name. Fieger basically got him to admit that coming out could put him at risk. But I still think that the only reason Fieger was able to question Hall about his friend is that the defendant (Outsports) attorney mentioned him first, opening the door. Perhaps this judge would have allowed it in anyway, but I dare say many other judges would not have allowed Fieger to bring it up had Aileen not done so first.

As for Jim coming off badly, I think a whole lot of that was due to editing. Those long, dramatic pauses and the water drinking just came off to me as the work of a reality show editor.

Congrats guys! I feel like we all won something in this case! We'll definitely have a toast or two (or six) today at our NY Outsports Football outing!

I agree about the editing. There is so much that we, and perhaps Roy Black, didn't see. I wouldn't be surprised if they took all of Jim's testimony, and only showed the few parts that he was unsure of himself, and also showed everytime he took a drink of water.

And we will definitely have a toast to Outsports today.

[ October 09, 2005, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

Well, I have to wonder if the plantiff didn't actually get what he wanted out of the whole she-bang. Sure, he didn't get any money (which probably would have been welcome), but he did get to tell the world at large he weren't no homo, and he got the network to pick up the tab. Of course, now he's a bit of a laughingstock to us, but to his friends and family (most of whom probably watched Bravo for the first time), he redeemed himself handily.

Question: if we now make fun of him in this forum, can he start another lawsuit?

LXN

I'm not so sure everybody who watched that show and had been questioning Harbinson's sexuality came away with the feeling that he is definitely straight. Not after the testimony of the ex-girlfriend.

Also how come the fact that Outsports was credentialed to shoot the event (and numerous other sporting events including professional) was never brought up, at least in what aired on TV?