Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

How Eminem beat the rap

Andrew Clennell
Saturday 18 October 2003 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A US judge used her own rap theme to dismiss a defamation lawsuit against rapper Eminem. In a footnote to her opinion Judge Deborah Servitto added a 10-stanza rhyme which ended: "It is therefore this court's ultimate position that Eminem is entitled to summary disposition."

A former schoolmate of Eminem's, DeAngelo Bailey, had claimed to the Michigan court that he was slandered in the 1999 song "Brain Damage". The lyrics include the phrase: "I was harassed daily by this fat kid named DeAngelo Bailey. An eighth-grader who acted obnoxious, 'cause his father boxes. So every day he'd shove me into the lockers."

Mr Bailey, 32, had sought $1m from Eminem. But in the judge's opinion Eminem's lyrics were "stories no one would take as fact, they're an exaggeration of a childish act". Hers is not the first rhyming judgment. Last year, the Supreme Court overruled a decision that a prenuptial agreement was void as the husband had misrepresented the engagement ring as a diamond.

Dissenting, Justice Michael Eakin said: "A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium, instead of a diamond in her engagement band, the one he said was worth 21 grand."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in