Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., the company that operates Madison Square Garden, recently filed a lawsuit against Wired Magazine and two of its reporters based on an article concerning MSG Entertainment’s maintenance of data about its clientele. MSG Entertainment contends that the article advanced a “false narrative” that the company tracks the LGBTQ community for “discriminatory purposes.”
Noah Shachtman and Maddy Varner, the two Wired reporters, reviewed a leaked MSG “talent database” containing information about celebrity guests of the arena. Apparently, the database assigns “risk scores” to guests, based in part on whether they have published comments critical of MSG or its principal owner James Dolan online. Critical commenters received higher risk scores.
What the article said
The database also notes the guests’ sexual orientation. The article addresses this practice in a paragraph about halfway down:
“The talent database also tracks some celebrities’ race, gender identity, and sexual orientation; 93 entries are marked as ‘LGBTQIA.’ Why MSG felt the need to label Ricky Martin or Phoebe Bridgers or Geese’s Emily Green in this way is unclear.”
The Wired article then proceeds to quote a privacy activist:
“I’ve never met James Dolan. I don’t know the higher-up leadership at Madison Square Garden. But, like, there does seem to be a bit of a pattern here,” says Evan Greer, director of the digital rights group Fight for the Future, citing Wired’s reporting on the Garden’s minute-by-minute surveillance of a trans woman. “They just seem overly interested in queer and trans people in their venue,” Greer adds.
The headline reads: “Madison Square Garden kept a list of gay celebrities.”
An MSG database tracked and categorized hundreds of celebs, famous Knicks superfans, and even some of Taylor Swift’s wedding guests. Labels included “LGBTQIA,” “DO NOT HOST,” and low to high “risk.”
That is the entirety of the portion of the story that discusses sexual orientation. Every one of the statements is true. But that didn’t dissuade MSG from filing a defamation suit in New York State Court.
According to the complaint,”(Wired’s) Article and its promotion falsely implied that MSG maintains sexual orientation information to identify, track, rank, exclude, or discriminate against LGBTQIA celebrities, artists, guests, fans, and patrons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity (the ‘False Implication ‘).” According, to MSG, some of its best friends are gay, as it notes: “far from discriminating against the LGBTQIA community, MSG and its affiliated entities have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Pride and LGBTQIA organizations, provided ticket vouchers, maintained recurring partnerships with LGBTQIA community organizations and Pride-centered sports and youth programs, maintained a Pride Employee Resource Group of approximately 285 employees, and have had more than two hundred employees and guests participate in the New York City Pride March since 2022.”
What the law requires
The complaint also quibbles with Wired’s word choice. It notes, “(Wired) knew that the so-called ‘list’ in question was actually a customer relationship platform, not a ‘list’ of gay celebrities or anything of the sort.”
Well, I guess. But there’s no dispute that “a customer relationship platform” is a list of names. And there’s no dispute that MSG noted sexual orientation next to the names. That sounds like a list of gay celebrities to me. And it seems like a thin reed on which to base a defamation claim.
There’s also some legal hurdles that MSG will have to overcome. First, MSG can’t base its claim on the headline in a vacuum. The court is required to assess the “whole story.” Also under New York law, the question is whether the language of the publication as a whole must reasonably read to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the authors intended or endorsed that inference. It’s really hard to see how MSG will make that case.
At most, Wired and MSG have differing opinions on the utility of the database. I get it. MSG should make its case aggressively in the media. But the complaint seems like a waste of the court’s time.
Jack Greiner is a Cincinnati attorney. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues. He can be reached atgreinerjack46@gmail.com.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Madison Square Garden’s weak case against Wired | Strictly Legal
Reporting by Jack Greiner, Special to The Enquirer / Cincinnati Enquirer
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Jack Greiner, Special to The Enquirer | USA TODAY Network
