Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Woman Wins Right to Criticize Surgeon on Website

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:05 AM
from the tell-it-like-it-is dept.
Scoopy writes "The website of a cosmetic surgery patient critical of her Sacramento surgeon's work is protected free speech, an appeals court said in an opinion that could have statewide implications. The website contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert, who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face. The website was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes, a prominent professor and television commentator on the subject of cosmetic surgery. Although the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal only mentions Sykes, the opinion suggests that others who use 'hot topics' of public interest in their advertisements and promotions may shed protections against defamation afforded to ordinary citizens."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • ...The woman looked very surprised at the verdict.
  • Link to the website (Score:5, Informative)

    by magicchex (898936) <magicchex AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:07AM (#17930794)
    Here's a link to the actual website, [mysurgerynightmare.com] http://www.mysurgerynightmare.com/ [mysurgerynightmare.com]
  • WTF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WiiVault (1039946) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:11AM (#17930818)
    Seriously how the hell could this not be construed as free-speech? I mean she is simply providing information on a service she is unhappy about in the hopes of educating others. Jeez I'm getting more and more afraid to open my mouth every day.
    • Re:WTF by jpardey (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @12:29AM
      • Re:WTF by WiiVault (Score:3) Thursday February 08 2007, @12:40AM
        • Re:WTF by jpardey (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @12:58AM
          • Re:WTF by sumdumass (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @01:10AM
      • free registration by zCyl (Score:3) Thursday February 08 2007, @02:12AM
    • Re:WTF by pissedoffamerican (Score:1) Thursday February 08 2007, @12:29AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)

      by slamb (119285) * on Thursday February 08 2007, @02:27AM (#17931598)
      (http://www.slamb.org/)

      Seriously how the hell could this not be construed as free-speech? I mean she is simply providing information on a service she is unhappy about in the hopes of educating others. Jeez I'm getting more and more afraid to open my mouth every day.
      According to the metnews story [metnews.com], the court decided (and the appeals court did not dispute) that the information she is providing is not true. Among other things, her "after" picture was also after four other surgeries from different doctors. So the information was false and damaging. The appeals court said that in this circumstance, it can't be considered defamatory unless the doctor proved her intent was malicious, and he hadn't done that. Apparently the woman's just crazy...
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)

        by zollman (697) on Thursday February 08 2007, @07:08AM (#17932668)
        (http://www.gatech.edu/)
        Short comment -- the rule for defamation of public figures is not "that her intent was malicious", it's that it was delivered with "Actual malice". This doesn't seem like a distinction to most laymen, but it turns out it is: "Actual malice" has a very specific legal definition in the U.S., and it doesn't require "malice".

        In this case "actual malice" means "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published with "reckless disregard of the truth". This standard comes up quite a bit in when, for example, a celebrity sues a newspaper for publishing something false and damaging. The celebrity need not prove it was published with intent to harm, only that the newspaper didn't care whether it was true or not. In this case, the appeals court ruled that the doctor was a public figure, and so this standard applies. (For a non-public figure, like a neighbor or classmate who has done nothing to seek the spotlight, the court will accept a defamation claim even without proof of actual malice.)

        As with many things, the wikipedia article on actual malice [wikipedia.org] is helpful in explaining this distinction, but only a real lawyer -- and IANAL -- is qualified to interpret it for you.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:WTF by Fnkmaster (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @07:35AM
        • Re:WTF by slamb (Score:1) Thursday February 08 2007, @11:44PM
    • Re:WTF by davek (Score:1) Thursday February 08 2007, @11:35AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • For those who do not want to register (Score:5, Informative)

    by afaik_ianal (918433) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:12AM (#17930822)

    The Web site of a cosmetic surgery patient critical of her Sacramento surgeon's work is protected free speech, an appeals court said in an opinion that could have statewide implications.

    The Web site, www.mysurgerynightmare.com, contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face.

    The Web site was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes, a prominent professor and television commentator on the subject of cosmetic surgery.

    Although the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal only mentions Sykes, the opinion suggests that others who use "hot topics" of public interest in their advertisements and promotions may shed protections against defamation afforded to ordinary citizens.

    "The decision makes it easier for professionals to get defamed and unable to defend themselves," said Daniel L. Baxter, Sykes's lawyer.

    First Amendment attorney Charity Kenyon agrees that the decision's reasoning could be applied to lawyers, optometrists, Realtors and other professionals.

    "The opinion is good protection for consumers who want to express opinions about services they receive, but professionals who promote themselves may have this burden if they think they have been defamed," Kenyon said.

    The court decision, which was released Jan. 26, may be binding on all California counties if it's not overturned by the state Supreme Court. According to the 32-page opinion, which can be viewed here, Sykes immersed himself so much in the public debate over the merits of cosmetic surgery that he became a public figure in the subject.

    Sykes, a UC Davis Medical Center professor, is also an author and has written numerous articles that have appeared in medical journals and beauty magazines. He has appeared on local television shows "touting the virtues" of cosmetic and reconstructive surgery, the decision said.

    "In our youth and celebrity worshipping culture, the benefits and risks of plastic surgery are a hot topic. The number of people, especially women, who have had minimally invasive cosmetic surgery has grown exponentially in the past several years," said the opinion, written by Justice M. Kathleen Butz.

    "Sykes asserts that statements on the Web site do not contribute to the public debate because they only concern Gilbert's interactions with him. He is wrong," said Butz, who was joined in the opinion with justices Ronald B. Robie and Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye.

    Baxter said that several statements and representations Gilbert made on her Web site were not true or were misleading.

    Baxter cited, for example, the statement Gilbert makes with her before and after photos: "I was told by my doctor that this was a good result - that I looked better after his surgery - what do you think?" Baxter said that when Sykes saw Gilbert, about 2 1/2 months after the surgery, he indicated that she was improving but "never made any indication relative to that picture, or how she was doing five months out."

    Gilbert's online comments also make it sound as if she was an unwitting patient who was pushed into plastic surgery, Baxter said. In fact, he said, she "directed (Sykes) to be very aggressive in carrying out the procedures."

    Gilbert's lawyer, William L. Brelsford, said true statements and personal opinions are not libelous under the Constitution's First Amendment. The decision, he said, is applying an old law to a new mode of communication.

    "Protected public debate is being extended to the Internet," Brelsford said.

    Gilbert posted her Web site early in 2005, a year after she filed a medical malpractice suit against Sykes. On the site, she offers advice about finding the "right" surgeon so that others can benefit from her "misfortune."

    She has a contact page where readers can share their experiences.

    Sykes counter-sued Gilbert claiming he was defamed, suffered emot
  • Title Correction: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_REAL_sam (670858) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:14AM (#17930832)
    (Last Journal: Tuesday March 14 2006, @03:01PM)
    You mean to say "woman defends right to criticize surgeon on website." She cannot win what she already had.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:14AM (#17930834)
    When asked for comment, Dr Jonathan Sykes said, "If I had to do it over again, I would have chopped off her hands".
  • by TinBromide (921574) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:18AM (#17930864)
    (http://www.forensic-data-svc.com/)
    libel
    2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression

    You botch someone's face, they post about it, that's not unjust. This seems like a no-brainer. This was only taken to court because someone thought they could play the system.
  • by SgtXaos (157101) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:21AM (#17930900)
    (Last Journal: Sunday September 21 2003, @02:31PM)
    I mean she looked pretty good before she hired someone to cut her up.

    Also, she probably should have done the malpractice research BEFORE the appointment.

    Wow. Just wow.

  • Helping a little (Score:3)

    by sumdumass (711423) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:22AM (#17930908)
    (Last Journal: Thursday November 09 2006, @05:02PM)
    In the picture on her website, I think looks like she might be helping the surprised look a little. The diffeence in the amount of her eyes showing between the two pictures of the before and after.

    Don't be fooled by it, It could be because of the same surgury that raised her eyebrows. But I wouldn't know.

    I sure would like to read the story but the link goes to some registration page. I'm not about to give any information do if someone has another link, it would be apriciated.

    BTW, isn't she the one who got arested or something a while back for her page?
  • by Eggplant62 (120514) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:24AM (#17930918)
    Just another dumbass who made a snap decision and had a bad outcome. Move along.
  • Why surgery in the first place? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gnurfed (1051140) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:25AM (#17930934)
    Slightly off topic, but what's really sad in this story is that the woman was pretty BEFORE the surgery. So there was really no reason for her to go under the knife in the first place. We live in a scary world where people strive to look unnatural (though this woman probably didn't get the unnatural looks she wanted).

    That said, it's great that we have plastic surgery for patients with actual disfigurements.

    • Re:Why surgery in the first place? by WiiVault (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @12:50AM
    • by Web Goddess (133348) * on Thursday February 08 2007, @04:37AM (#17932120)
      (http://www.darwinawards.com/)
      gnurfed said, "That said, it's great that we have plastic surgery for patients with actual disfigurements."

      My experience is that reconstructive surgery is deteriorating. Plastic surgeons are now learning to do cosmetic procedures, rather than reconstructive. I have a genetic defect with my eyelids, and had three surgeries as a child. Now decades later, I could use additionaladvanced reconstructive surgery to give my eyes a more reasonable appearance.

      Eyes are very important to our facial expressions, and although my friends think I look lovely, strangers sometimes do an unpleasant double-take when they see me.

      So I wanted to give it another shot, figuring reconstruction has improved since I was a poor child receiving free care.

      The Stanford geneticist recommended a Stanford specialist and I went to see him. The waiting room was filled with literature about "eye lifts" for regular, aging people. I consult with the doctor (and I secretly recorded the conversation) and he did his utmost best to talk me out of any surgery at all. I could tell he was floundering.

      I provided him records of what had been done, and suggested w2hat could be done, and made clear that I was not expecting miracles, just a slight improvement would be worth it.

      He called in his senior, and they spent the next four minutes trying to pass the buck and make the other person do the surgery. The way we left it, was they were going to "contact my insurance" and I never heard back, despite sevferal phone calls.

      These were Stanford Medical Center professionals, recommended by the geneticist who deals with birth defects, and THEY only wanted to do normal eyelid lifts. I was so disheartened, I never tried again.

      GRR.

      IMO way too fscking much money is spent on frivolous surgery.

      My story, and I'm too tired to be concise so I'll just... submit it.
      [ Parent ]
  • by creimer (824291) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:26AM (#17930946)
    (http://www.creimer.ws/ | Last Journal: Friday January 26 2007, @12:40PM)
    "The doctor's thermometer is itty-bitty small!"
  • Silly, silly girl (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BigBadRich (849128) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:28AM (#17930962)
    It's amazing what people with low self-esteem will do to themselves. In this case she starts out (in my opinion) quite a gorgeous woman, and finishes looking like a cross between Cher and Marilyn manson (photos) [mysurgerynightmare.com].

    You'd think Michael Jackson would be enough of a deterrent for most people, but I guess you can never underestimate the power of low self-esteem.

  • Familiar? (Score:1)

    by entgod (998805) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:32AM (#17930998)
    Am I the only one finding resemblance to the article of a hardware review site not getting any more alienware hardware because their reviews weren't flattering enough?
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Tags (Score:2)

    by Kelz (611260) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:53AM (#17931128)
    What a "shocking" story.
  • password (Score:1)

    by thisNameNotTaken (952374) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:53AM (#17931132)
    Could you leave a user name and password?
  • Patient's privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MDMurphy (208495) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:55AM (#17931148)
    (http://www.KateTheDog.com)
    The part I've wanted to see discussed are the doctors rights to publicly rebut a site that complains about them. Under strict medical privacy laws it's not like a doctor could ( or should ) reveal medical details or photos in a public forum. So if a patient complains and sets up a web site, does that absolve the doctor in question from any requirements for maintaing confidentiality? When I heard about this and other similar sites, that was one of my first questions. If not, from a public opinion point of view they're screwed.

    I firmly believe that a patient should have the right to critisize their doctor, but I also believe the doctors should have the ablitly to defend themselves. I'd have liked to have seen part of a ruling that said they were no longer required to keep confidentiality for that particular patient.

    If the doctor is not in a position to put up a web site, with pictures and inimate details of a patient who's gone public, then that person should be refrained from going public. Since that's pretty hard to enforce retroactively the only recourse seems to view the patient's public proclamations as relinquishing all privacy rights with respect to the doctor or hospital involved.

  • What?..... (Score:1)

    by IHC Navistar (967161) on Thursday February 08 2007, @01:10AM (#17931244)
    She looked alot better before the surgery than after. She looks much more attractive before the surgery.

    Remember, the Doc can always say:

    "She asked for it."

    People who seek cosmetic surgery and *honestly* don't need it should be aware that they might not be happy with the outcome. Look, if you think need cosmetic surgery in the first place, then you should be spending your money on a therapist or counselor, NOT surgery. The only people who should be having cosmetic surgery are people who were either born with birth defects or are disfigured as the result of an accident.

    Therefore, if you weren't disfigure in an accident or born with a birth defect or some kind of disfigurement, then I really don't feel sorry for you if you don't like the way you turned out.

    I have only one question to ask these idiotic people who get cosmetic surgery simply for vanity and then complain: "Did you learn a lesson?"
  • ka-ching$ (Score:3, Funny)

    by binarybum (468664) on Thursday February 08 2007, @01:22AM (#17931298)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    her website will probably just shift the surgeon into a whole new money-making demographic - men badgered by their wives for not expressing enough interest in whatever it is they're talking about. With eyebrows like that, an occasional tilt of the head away from the football game (or WOW game here I suppose) gives the illusion of intense interest. You're never going to get the "Are you even listening to me?!" line with a brow like this-> http://www.mysurgerynightmare.com/images/ggbae_(2) .jpg [mysurgerynightmare.com]
  • The surgeon may have a point... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Excelcia (906188) <kfitzner@excelcia.org> on Thursday February 08 2007, @01:25AM (#17931322)
    (http://excelcia.org/)
    I've visited the web site in question [mysurgerynightmare.com], and I believe the surgeon has a point. It looks like the woman is using some of the same techniques shady businesses use to make before/after photos look different, but in reverse. These are:

    - One photo being done in a natural setting, one artificial.
    - One photo with a happy expression, one without
    - One photo with good lighting, one with very stark.
    - One photo with makeup, one without

    Some of this is related, but look. She insists one eyebrow is higher than the other and she is left with a permanent "surpised" look. This is quite possible, the eyebrow position can give that look, but raising the eyebrows would not have a significant effect on how wide her eye lids are open. Notice in the second photo she exadgerates her "surpised" look by opening her eyes as wide as possible. Add to that the camera in the before photo is slightly above her, and the angle difference adds to the effect. She is smiling in the first photo, which tends to close the eyelids a little and adjusts the eyebrow position.

    The makeup makes quite a difference to shading, and the after photo is in much more stark contrast, which elimates facial details.

    Also remember that the woman has filed a malpractice suit and stands to gain financially from seeming to look badly now.

    However the court ruled, I think the surgeon had a point.
    • I'm not so sure on this one by WiiVault (Score:1) Thursday February 08 2007, @01:47AM
    • Re:The surgeon may have a point... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by grimJester (890090) on Thursday February 08 2007, @01:55AM (#17931480)
      Her face is much longer in the second pic (distance between hairline and chin compared to width of face). The pic could be photoshopped as well. The face in the left pic is 157 pixels from side to side, the right 140. Length goes from 225 to 240. Ratio goes from 1,43 to 1,71. Using the width of my own face as an approximation, it looks like that woman had her face lenghtened by two full inches. If you try to figure out what part(s) of her face could have been stretched this much, the conclusion would pretty much be that the picture has been evenly stretched. I mean, even her forehead is noticabely higher after surgery. Skull extension?

      The pic looks fake.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:The surgeon may have a point... by HexaByte (Score:1) Thursday February 08 2007, @02:27AM
    • Re:The surgeon may have a point... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday February 08 2007, @04:25AM (#17932092)
      While you have a point, it is mitigated by the circumstances surrounding the photos.

      The entire point of make-up being to hide imperfections, it is unlikely that she would have a "before" photo without make-up, especially if she had low self-esteem about her looks. If she had such a clinical "before" photo of her own, there would be plenty of people arguing that it was proof of premeditation to sue the doctor.

      If she were to wear make-up in the "after" photo it would also mitigate the effects of the surgically created imperfections which would not help her point at all, she wants to demonstrate the problem, not cover it up. Also, one of the reasons women get such work done in the first place is to reduce their perceived need to wear make-up, so if the surgery had gone well, she would not be wearing as much make-up as she had been before the surgery.

      Similarly it is unlikely that she would have a "before" photo that wasn't happy, people don't like to take pictures of unhappy times in their lives. You can't expect her to pose for an "after" photo and look happy - she's taking the photo specifically because she is unhappy, it would be ridiculous to expect her to be all smiles about it. Because she feels extremely unhappy with her new looks taking a picture, even in an attempt to get restitution or correction, is going to be an unpleasant experience for her.

      Camera and angle and lighting are much more likely to be the result of the amateur nature of both photos than any sort of explicit plan to manipulate the viewer.

      So, while I agree that her presentation is not necessarily evenhanded, I really doubt that it was calculated. At the very worst, she probably picked one of her better looking "before" pics and one of her worst "after" pics, but that's no different from a plastic surgeon who does the reverse in his marketing materials.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:The surgeon may have a point... by TheGratefulNet (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @08:13AM
    • Re:The surgeon may have a point... by poot_rootbeer (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @10:06AM
    • Re:The surgeon may have a point... by zippthorne (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @01:09PM
    • Re:The surgeon may have a point... by SpaghettiPattern (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @01:28PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Jurisdiction? (Score:1)

    by jellie (949898) on Thursday February 08 2007, @01:26AM (#17931330)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this ruling only applies to California, since it's a district court. I'm from California and I applaud the ruling, but it doesn't seem like it's going to have a huge impact unless it's a federal (or even international) court. Then again, California does have a lot of doctors...
  • by Christoph (17845) on Thursday February 08 2007, @01:27AM (#17931336)
    (http://www.cgstock.com/ | Last Journal: Monday June 11, @11:26AM)
    A defamation lawsuit can server to deter others from speaking up, even if the Plaintiff looses the suit. This strategy is called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)...making Free speech (against them) cost money.

    As a personal example, photos of mine were published in the local phone book (in a corporate advertisement) without my permission. When the corporation refused to compensate me, I wrote about it on my website. They then sued me for defamation.

    Do I have the certificate of copyright registration for my photos? Yes. Then why would they sue? If nothing else, it means public criticism against them will cost you years in court. This case is very simple, I've long since proven the photos they published are mine, yet the case has been in court for 18 months now. See: Vilana Financial [cgstock.com].

  • by tectomorph (844828) on Thursday February 08 2007, @01:58AM (#17931488)
    is watching the visitor counter at the bottom of the page spin as the site gets /.'d
  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Thursday February 08 2007, @02:12AM (#17931516)
    Her right eyebrow in the before photo was raised slightly, the surgery appears to have only exaggerated her natural condition. Of course I think she has every right to criticize the results.

    Also why does it look like she has an Adam's Apple [mysurgerynightmare.com]?
  • What is that ? (Score:1)

    by Joebert (946227) on Thursday February 08 2007, @02:30AM (#17931610)
    Is that an Adams Apple in the after photo ?
  • Really? (Score:5, Funny)

    ...the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face.
    Fascinating...
    • Re:Really? by UnanimousCoward (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @03:17AM
    • Re:Really? by clickety6 (Score:2) Thursday February 08 2007, @03:18AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by MedicinalMan (1061338) on Thursday February 08 2007, @02:55AM (#17931724)
    This case does reveal an important question: Does the fact that she went public, nullify her expectation of privacy under HIPPA? For example, if an actress talks about her breast implants on television interviews, can the doctor then talk about her case? With regards to this case it seems that any public discussion on his part regarding her case could be a violation of HIPPA. If it is not a violation, can a porn star's doctor discuss her negative HIV results since she must in fact have negative results to work in the industry? Lots of questions here. Need a medical law specialist.

    In terms of the free speech, does his public defense of himself with regards to her case override her privacy expectations?
    Finally, a simple question: what does " limited purpose public figure" mean? If my gardener does a crappy job and I post pictures of my dead lawn with his company name, is that defamatory?
    Sorry for asking too many questions, but this case has many implications.
  • Other side effect (Score:5, Funny)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Thursday February 08 2007, @03:09AM (#17931794)
    The other side effect of the surgery was due to the tightly stretched skin she can't close her eyes when she's sitting down.
  • Deformation (Score:3, Funny)

    by NiceRoundNumber (1000004) on Thursday February 08 2007, @03:26AM (#17931876)
    The website was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes

    Did anyone else read this as "deformation suit"??
  • by bxbaser (252102) on Thursday February 08 2007, @03:27AM (#17931882)
    (http://www.shopcheap.com/)
    From the article
    "Procedures: Endoscopic browlift, upper & lower blepharoplasty, cheeklift and fat injections"

    My first thought is if I lift my brows I look suprised.
  • Michael Jackson (Score:2)

    by flyingfsck (986395) on Thursday February 08 2007, @04:44AM (#17932140)
    That woman is lucky - I wonder who did Michael's face. His is probably the best known plastic butchery ever...
  • by gelfling (6534) on Thursday February 08 2007, @07:29AM (#17932744)
    (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @07:20AM)
    I love it. Speech is free. Talking about it in the newspaper is not.
  • cosmetic surgery (Score:1)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Thursday February 08 2007, @08:01AM (#17932930)
    Well, the ruling of the court did seem to be consistent with the precedent. Criticism of public figures is legally protected free speech. In this case, the court rightfully determined that the doctor was acting as a public figure. This is kind of the same thing as in that whole debacle between Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump. Trump really would be unable to sue her over alleged comments because he is a public figure. Trump is really just using a scare tactic and throwing his money around.
  • by dema (103780) on Thursday February 08 2007, @08:11AM (#17933000)
    (http://www.haxors.com/)
    Georgette had no comment after the ruling, but she appeared surprised.
  • Defended, not won (Score:1)

    by GlobalMind (597374) on Thursday February 08 2007, @08:26AM (#17933094)
    This is more like she managed to defend her right to criticize by proving at least per the judge that her claim had merit.

    It is only defamation if the claim is false, and you don't have to go out and seek permission to criticize.

    K.
  • by Chicken04GTO (957041) on Thursday February 08 2007, @09:05AM (#17933424)
    People who get plastic surgery just so they feel better about themselves (im not talking injury repair or genetic defect, but low self-esteem women with too much money) get whatever happens to them. I don't feel sorry for her at all.
  • Say what? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Grashnak (1003791) on Thursday February 08 2007, @09:12AM (#17933500)
    Hey, wait... You mean there are risks involved in having someone carve up your perfectly functional face? Why the hell don't they tell us about stuff like that beforehand?
  • by e-scetic (1003976) on Thursday February 08 2007, @09:46AM (#17933914)

    One eyebrow markedly higher than the other?! That's pure fuckup.

    Back in 1995 I decided not to have laser eye surgery because the success rate was 71%, which struck me as pretty bad.

    Nowadays I can't even find information on the success rate, I've googled like mad only to find various articles saying they don't keep track of these statistics. Of course, now I definitely won't have the surgery. This sort of information needs to be out there, I congratulate this woman.

  • by amohat (88362) on Thursday February 08 2007, @09:53AM (#17934018)
    Nobody has pointed out yet the economics?

    The surgeon is playing the game: he took her money and accepted the risk to turn a profit. His clients are of a particular type, with certain needs, expectations. The type that get elective surgery and then sue if they don't like the results. If he was doing work for the poor in Venezuela correcting deformities then his chances at getting sued over bullshit is zero. But he is playing craps with upper class hags and so he takes his chances. I don't feel sorry for either of them, I hope they both get what they want, and what they deserve.

    Personally, his job sucks, and I'm surprised it's even viable. If he did do "very subtle" changes, she would have paid all that money for nothing? She would have felt cheated, not being able to tell a difference. So he was under pressure to do something! (fast forward to Michael Jackson)

    So many things can and do go wrong with this stuff, and patient's expectations and surgeon's promises are always unrealistic. Don't tell me about how advanced it is, it's not far from a goddamn auto mechanic. It's almost like you should be lucky to come out alive after surgery, especially elective.
  • New career (Score:2)

    by operagost (62405) on Thursday February 08 2007, @09:56AM (#17934062)
    (http://operagost.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 01 2006, @12:08PM)

    The website contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert, who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face.
    I hear she's now getting work as a Joan Rivers look-a-like.
  • Her website (Score:1)

    by wittmania (957575) on Thursday February 08 2007, @10:32AM (#17934498)
    (http://www.wittmania.com/)
    I didn't see this anywhere else, so forgive me if it's already been posted. Ms. Gilbert's website can be found here [mysurgerynightmare.com]. It's not that great, but it does have a couple of before and after photos. Maybe some of you web design guys can do a little pro bono work for her.
  • Before & After (Score:2)

    by malus (6786) * on Thursday February 08 2007, @11:10AM (#17934950)
    (Last Journal: Friday March 26 2004, @04:02PM)
    Before, Booooring.

    After, SmileX!

    Thank you, Joker!
  • She won the right? (Score:2)

    by pclminion (145572) on Thursday February 08 2007, @01:03PM (#17936422)
    Is this supposed to make me feel good? What kind of fucked up country do we live in where we have to "win the right" to criticize somebody? Also, tomorrow I'm going to court to "win the right" to continue breathing.
  • by kermit1221 (75994) on Thursday February 08 2007, @01:29PM (#17936822)
    (http://www.downinit.com/)
    "... the surgery left her with ... a surprised look permanently affixed to her face."

    I'd say about half the facelift's I've ever seen left the person with a permanently surprised look on their face.

    On a positive note, at least she'll always look happy about whatever crappy christmas gifts she gets...
    SO: *hands her pretty wrapped box*
    Her (opening package containing a bowling ball with the name 'Homer' on it): *surprised look*
    SO: "I knew you'd love it!"

    Or whenever her SO cooks dinner...
    SO: "Look, Honey, I made pimento/broccoli meatloaf!"
    Her: *surprised look*
    SO: "I knew you'd love it!"
  • by stratjakt (596332) on Thursday February 08 2007, @03:57PM (#17938912)
    (Last Journal: Thursday November 08, @06:56PM)
    ... "difficult"
  • by sudog (101964) on Thursday February 08 2007, @04:25PM (#17939352)
    (http://www.goaway.com/)
    After all, Sykes does mean "shit-head" in Tenctonese.
  • Who's your Daddy (Score:3, Funny)

    by BillX (307153) on Thursday February 08 2007, @08:41PM (#17942968)
    (http://goat.cexx.org/)
    The ruling won't help; she's hosted on GoDaddy.
  • by banuk (148382) on Thursday February 08 2007, @10:26PM (#17943912)
    I want to build that site.... if you don't do what the doctor says this is what will happen to you. Don't wear the binder after a breast augmentation, you get lopsided breasts. Don't take care of your incision, you get scars and/or infection. Bad outcomes from surgery happen to the best surgeons often b/c patients don't follow the instructions.
  • by lpq (583377) on Thursday February 08 2007, @11:31PM (#17944416)
    (http://slashdot.org/~lpq | Last Journal: Saturday August 25, @05:30PM)
    Seems like the link in the main article is already invalid. Somehow the parallel of attempting to point to a specific grain of sand on a desert sand dune comes to mind...
    -o-
  • Re:IMHO She looks fine. (Score:3, Informative)

    The only reason she looks surprised is because her eyes are open so wide.
    That's precisely the effect that she seems to be complaining about. Apparently, it's a side-effect of the surgery, and not something that she's feigning.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 13 replies beneath your current threshold.