Is there a different rule for celebrities?

Published on August 1, 2006 By dharmagrl In Current Events

I've been reading about how Lindsey Lohan got a nastygram from the makers of her latest film, telling her that unless she quits partying and shows up for work like she's supposed to, they'll take actions to make her pay for all the additional production costs they're incurring because she's too 'sick' (read: hungover) to work.

As far as I know, US law requires a person to be 21 years of age to consume and/or purchase alcoholic beverages. The last time I checked, Miss Lohan wasn't 21. So, why aren't the clubs and bars that are serving her alcohol being charged? When I tended bar last we were warned that if we served alcohol to a minor we could be charged, jailed/fined, and we'd lose our jobs, so we made damn sure that the person requesting the liquor was of legal drinking age.

It's not just Miss Lohan who's guilty of this either. There have been, are, and will in all likelihood always be underage celebrities who frequent drinking establishments and who are served alcohol with the proprietors of said establishments knowing full well that these kids aren't the legal drinking age. Why aren't they being prosecuted?

Is there a different law for celebrities that I'm not aware of? Does being an underage TV, movie or pop star automatically give you immunity from prosecution? Or is it just a case of the police getting a nice pay off from the club owners to turn a blind eye to illegal activities in their establishments?

I'd sure like to know.

Comments

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 01, 2006

Let's not forget Drew Barrymore, who was an alcoholic and a cocaine addict at 14! Thankfully, she grew past all of that, but yes, it does beg the question: who's providing the drugs and alcohol and why aren't they being held accountable. In Ms. Barrymore's case, if she wasn't a celebrity, she would have spent her remaining years as a ward of the state, with her parents being charged with a number of criminal infractions.

Basically, yes, in the United States, there are two sets of justice. On the adult side, Robert Downey Jr. is a perfect example. Any average citizen who had been busted for drugs as much as he has would be serving a lengthy prison sentence.

It needs to change.

just john

on Aug 01, 2006

Mel Gibson has a few drinks and jumps behind the wheel of his car. He gets caught, announces he is an alcoholic and everyone feels sympathy because he has a problem. He goes into rehab and all is forgiven. What I would like to know is, how long does he actually stay at rehab?

I don't like the double standard but the fact is any charge can be made to go away for the right price. The current cost to reduce a first time DUI to a non moving violation is roughly $5000.00. To plead out will cost you $2000.00 in court fees, about $1000.00 in classes, countless hours in AA and loads of money for higher insurance premiums. The difference is the court will let you pay over time. The lawyer wants his money before he does a minute of work.

I don't think it's a double standard as much as it's the lack of funds of the average guy. Everything and everybody has a price. Some people have just adopted the low price high volume philosophy.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 01, 2006

I don't think it's a double standard as much as it's the lack of funds of the average guy. Everything and everybody has a price. Some people have just adopted the low price high volume philosophy.

I have a different theory. I think it is that the means of enforcement of many of these laws as they are enforced on the average citizen would be found to be unConstitutional. Celebs get left alone because they have the legal muscle to challenge the judgments and set a precedent for everyone further down the legal "food chain". So the authorities leave them alone and leave the average joe to pay the piper. I could cite a personal example that would tend to support my theory, but that would hijack this thread too far.

dharmagrl

on Aug 01, 2006

Basically, yes, in the United States, there are two sets of justice. On the adult side, Robert Downey Jr. is a perfect example. Any average citizen who had been busted for drugs as much as he has would be serving a lengthy prison sentence.

It's sickening, it really is.

I don't like the double standard but the fact is any charge can be made to go away for the right price

I Understand that, but to me, a member of the general public, it doesn't seem as if there's even talk about bringing charges against these people. Even the celebritied themselves - if a 19 year old from my street, for example, was drunk in public and was observed behaving in an intoxicated manner, the cops would stop them and would arrest them. Why isn't that happening to these (often) idiotic actors and actresses?

I could cite a personal example that would tend to support my theory, but that would hijack this thread too far

Cite away, Gid. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

just john

on Aug 01, 2006

I think it is that the means of enforcement of many of these laws as they are enforced on the average citizen would be found to be unConstitutional.

That's why hiring the 'right' lawyer works. I have seen the inside of the legal system here in LA. It doesn't take much to turn a DUI into a no seatbelt. Just a couple of clicks on the old keyboard.

Why isn't that happening to these (often) idiotic actors and actresses?

body guards and handlers ... they obstuct justice so that the client can be removed from the situation (my guess anyway) We have had several film crews here since New Orleans is no longer hosting them. Demi Moore to Gwen Steffani to Kevin Costner have graced our town pubs with their presence but they have never been anywhere without their personal handlers. I was standing within feet of Demi Moore on one of the sets of her upcoming film Mr. Brooks. If I looked in the wrong direction I caught his attention.

That doesn't appear to be the case with all of the stars that have been through here. Kiefer Sutherland seems to move about town unaccompanied and surprisingly unnoticed.

Dr Guy

on Aug 01, 2006

It depends on the celebrity, does it not? Lindsay Lohan does it, and no one blinks an eye (in the press). The Bush Twins try it and are nailed.

John Doe (or Jesse Jackson) rails about Hymie town, and the media does not know (John) or ignores it (Jesse). Mel does it and it is front page news not for a day, but for 3 days.

Yes, there is a double standard. But not for celebrities. Only SOME celebrities.

Ionolast

on Aug 01, 2006

It's all entertainment (in one way or another).

stutefish

on Aug 01, 2006

I think it's the same rule for everybody: The amount of hassle you get from the authorities is related to how much power you have.

So it's not like there's two rules, and the police switch from one to the other depending on whether or not you're a powerful person. Rather, there's one rule, and the police dial it up or down depending on how much power you have.

dynamaso

on Aug 01, 2006

You know, I've been wondering about celebrity double-standards of late myself. It isn't restricted to television or movie stars either. Some of the things our sporting stars do and get away with would have most of us average Joes, at the very least, paying some very hefty fines.

Locamama

on Aug 02, 2006

I know just once I'd like to be able to scream at the cops "Do you know who I am? This is BS! You'll never write a ticket in this town again! I'm calling my lawyer!" I guess I could and maybe I would get off for being mental. ha!

bakerstreet

on Aug 02, 2006

My opinion? It's like every other girl-star. I think she's really 25-30, and they just lie about her age. I remember seeing Kristy Swanson as a high school student in Ferris Beuller's Day off, and then she played Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who was a high school student, 7 years after that.

There was that other one a few years back that ended up really being like 32 years old but was playing a high school character on a show. I just think that instead of lying about their age when they are 40, they start early. I bet she's 25.

NErG

on Aug 02, 2006

Being underage in Seattle, it is extremely easy to enter a bar or club and drink oneself silly. You just need to know the right people, and hold the right friends. If anybody can manage that, it is those with star power.

I apologize, but "unjust" as it may seem, I honestly believe our law enforcement officers have better things to do than follow Lindsay Lohan around and see what clubs are allowing her spoiled self to consume alcohol. I refuse to venture a guess at the numbers, but I am quite certain a vast amount of underage drinkers do the same on a nightly basis nation-wide.

Sidenote, according to the four law professors I have studied under who at one time acted as prosecutors, including a former DA for LA County, DUI's are the single hardest case for a prosecutor to make. The majority are reduced to lesser charges.

MasonM

on Aug 02, 2006

In this country "celebrities" are our royalty and are usually treated accordingly. Pretty sad really.

I've met quite a few of these people over the yars and some were jersk, some were nice people but all of them were just people who happen to work in the entertainment industry.

In a country that lacks an official class system, we have created our own. Maybe society actually needs this sort of thing as sick as it sounds. But then I am firmly convinced that "society" is pretty sick anyway.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 02, 2006

Cite away, Gid. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

K. Basically it has to do with the response of the local CPS to us, vs. to others.

You know the story. We told them they couldn't come in and cited several case laws to support our position. They closed our case without a "home study" despite the fact that they have told literally hundreds of families in our area that they cannot close a case without a home study.

Why were we treated differently? Because we know the law, and because if CPS pressed the issue in court, the fact that they routinely violate the Constitutional rights of families in the course of their investigations would have been made public. As a result of all of this, the potential litigation from families suddenly made aware of their rights would have been an embarassment to the agency...so they decided to let sleeping dogs lie.

In short, we were right, CPS KNEW we were right, and they wanted to do everything they could to keep us from getting the word out to other families that we were right. They wouldn't give us the headlines by fighting us in the court.

A smart move on their part, but it makes me wonder how many other such violations are "covered up" by quietly closing the cases of those who threaten litigation.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!